Roberts Jessica Louise, Pritchard Aaron W, Williams Michelle, Totton Nikki, Morrison Val, Din Nafees Ud, Williams Nefyn H
School of Healthcare Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Research and Development Department, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK.
BMJ Open. 2018 Aug 8;8(8):e021486. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021486.
To describe the implementation of an enhanced rehabilitation programme for elderly hip fracture patients with mental capacity, in a randomised feasibility study compared with usual rehabilitation. To compare processes between the two and to collect the views of patients, carers and therapy staff about trial participation.
Mixed methods process evaluation in a randomised feasibility study.
Patient participants were recruited on orthopaedic and rehabilitation wards; the intervention was delivered in the community following hospital discharge.
Sixty-one older adults (aged ≥65 years) recovering from surgical treatment (replacement arthroplasty or internal fixation) following hip fracture, who were living independently prior to fracture and had mental capacity and 31 of their carers.
Usual care (control) or usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention). The enhanced rehabilitation consisted of a patient-held information workbook, goal-setting diary and up to six additional therapy sessions.
Recruitment of sites and rehabilitation teams, response of rehabilitation teams, recruitment and reach in patient and carer participants, intervention delivery, delivery to individuals, response of individual patients to the enhanced intervention or usual rehabilitation, response of carer participants, unintended consequences and testing intervention theory and context.
Usual rehabilitation care was very variable. The enhanced rehabilitation group received a mean of five additional therapy sessions. All of the returned goal-setting diaries had inputs from the therapy team, and half had written comments by the patients and carers. Focus group themes: variation of usual care and its impact on delivering the intervention; the importance of goal setting; the role of the therapist in providing reassurance about safe physical activities; and acceptability of the extra therapy sessions.
Lessons learnt for a future definitive RCT include how to enhance recruitment and improve training materials, the workbook, delivery of the extra therapy sessions and recording of usual rehabilitation care.
ISRCTN22464643; Post- results.
在一项与常规康复进行比较的随机可行性研究中,描述针对具有精神行为能力的老年髋部骨折患者实施强化康复计划的情况。比较两者之间的过程,并收集患者、护理人员和治疗人员对试验参与的看法。
随机可行性研究中的混合方法过程评估。
在骨科和康复病房招募患者参与者;干预措施在出院后在社区实施。
61名年龄≥65岁的老年人,他们在髋部骨折接受手术治疗(置换关节成形术或内固定)后正在康复,骨折前独立生活,具有精神行为能力,以及他们的31名护理人员。
常规护理(对照组)或常规护理加强化康复套餐(干预组)。强化康复包括一本患者持有的信息手册、目标设定日记以及最多六次额外的治疗课程。
招募研究地点和康复团队、康复团队的反应、患者和护理人员参与者的招募及覆盖范围、干预措施的实施、对个体的实施、个体患者对强化干预或常规康复的反应、护理人员参与者的反应、意外后果以及检验干预理论和背景。
常规康复护理差异很大。强化康复组平均接受了五次额外的治疗课程。所有返回的目标设定日记都有治疗团队的意见,其中一半有患者和护理人员的书面评论。焦点小组主题包括:常规护理的差异及其对实施干预的影响;目标设定的重要性;治疗师在确保安全体育活动方面的作用;以及额外治疗课程的可接受性。
未来确定性随机对照试验吸取的经验教训包括如何加强招募、改进培训材料、信息手册、额外治疗课程的实施以及常规康复护理的记录。
ISRCTN22464643;结果公布后。