Smith-Stellflug, Jamie L

Abstract Rationale: Ongoing healthcare staffing shortages have prompted new care paradigms that incorporate remote care delivery to support timely detection of patient physiological deterioration through mechanisms other than clinician bedside evaluations. In partnership with institutional Information Technology, our team has developed a unique clinical informatics environment, known as the Advanced Medical Practice (AMP) platform, that incorporates data from multiple sources and platforms and supports remote observation of patients from the electronic intensive care unit(eICU). AMP takes advantage of technologies outside of vendor-supported EHRs, and its advanced user-interface design reduces information overload while incorporating real-time data from novel devices and sensors. We partnered with the hospital practice to co-develop a score within the AMP platform(Clinical Events Detection and Response[CEDAR]) that incorporates heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and SpO2 to stratify patient risk and generate deterioration alerts for the electronic ICU(eICU) team. This formative evaluation employed an implementation science approach to refine CEDAR and ensure it is acceptable to users and can be feasibly implemented in practice. Methods: The study team conducted this pilot work in the eICU at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). We observed the eICU workflow and documented feedback from eICU staff in fieldnotes. eICU staff were asked to log issues in a tracking file during shifts. Issues were reviewed daily and discussed at multidisciplinary team meetings weekly. Observation and tracking data were coded to constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research(CFIR 2.0) framework and mapped to Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change(ERIC) strategies that targeted key determinants. Results: Between 9/23/24 and 10/25/24 we completed 25 days of observations. Most identified issues related to technical/design issues like unclear vital trigger alerts (CFIR: Innovation trialability and design); staff knowledge of CEDAR functionality and attitudes about functionality, complexity, or relative advantage compared to current systems (CFIR: Inner setting access to knowledge and information and relative advantage); and difficulties incorporating CEDAR into workflow(CFIR: Inner setting/compatibility). Implementation strategies mapped to CFIR determinants included promoting adaptability of customized interface features; staging implementation scale-up with iterative improvements; providing local technical assistance; assessing for readiness and identifying facilitators and barriers; and conducting educational outreach visits. Conclusions: Formative evaluation during pilot studies are a critical step in the process of intervention development and testing. User engagement and frameworks from implementation science can identify issues of feasibility and inform strategies to ensure acceptability prior to intervention scale-up in clinical practice and readiness for conducting larger implementation studies.

Abstract Introduction: Pragmatic trials aim to speed translation to practice by integrating study procedures in routine care settings. This study evaluated implementation outcomes related to clinician and patient recruitment and participation in a trial of community paramedicine (CP) and presents successes and challenges of maintaining pragmatic study features. Methods: Adults in the pre-hospital setting, emergency department (ED), or hospital being considered for referral to the ED/hospital or continued hospitalization for intermediate-level care were randomized 1:1 to CP care or usual care. Referral and enrollment data were tracked administratively, and patient characteristics were abstracted from the electronic health record (EHR). Enrolled patients completed baseline surveys, and a subset of intervention patients were interviewed. All CPs and a sample of clinicians and administrators were invited to complete a survey and interview. Results: Between January 2022 and February 2023, 240 enrolled patients (42% rural) completed surveys, and 22 completed an interview; 63 staff completed surveys and 20 completed an interview. Ninety-three clinicians in 27 departments made at least one referral. Factors related to referrals included program awareness and understanding the CP practice scope. Most patients were enrolled in the hospital, but characteristics were similar to the primary care population and included older and medically complex patients. Challenges to achieving representativeness included limited EHR infrastructure, constraints related to patient consenting, and clinician concerns about patient randomization disrupting preferred care. Conclusion: Future pragmatic trials in busy clinical settings may benefit from regulatory policies and EHR capabilities that allow for real-world study conduct and representative participation. Trial registration: NCT05232799.