Evaluating the implementation of the PACE Steps to Success Programme in long-term care facilities in seven countries according to the RE-AIM framework.
End-of-life care
Implementation
Intervention
Long-term care facilities
Nursing home
Palliative care
Process evaluation
RE-AIM framework
Journal
Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 12 2019
19 12 2019
Historique:
received:
07
02
2019
accepted:
08
11
2019
entrez:
21
12
2019
pubmed:
21
12
2019
medline:
26
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The PACE 'Steps to Success' programme is a complex educational and development intervention for staff to improve palliative care in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). In a cluster randomized controlled trial, this programme has been implemented in 37 LTCFs in 7 European countries. Alongside an effectiveness study, a process evaluation study was conducted. This paper reports on the results of this process evaluation, of which the aim was to provide a more detailed understanding of the implementation of the PACE Programme across and within countries. The process evaluation followed the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and involved various measures and tools, including diaries for country trainers, evaluation questionnaires for care staff, attendance lists and interviews (online and face-to-face, individual and in groups) with country trainers, managers, PACE coordinators and other staff members. Based on key elements of the PACE Programme, a priori criteria for a high, medium and low level of the RE-AIM components Reach, Adoption, Implementation and intention to Maintenance were defined. Qualitative data on factors affecting each RE-AIM component gathered in the online discussion groups and interviews were analysed according to the principles of thematic analysis. The performance of the PACE Programme on the RE-AIM components was highly variable within and across countries, with a high or medium score for in total 28 (out of 37) LTCFs on Reach, for 26 LTCFs on Adoption, for 35 LTCFs on Implementation and for 34 LTCFs on intention to Maintenance. The factors affecting performance on the different RE-AIM components could be classified into three major categories: (1) the PACE Programme itself and its way of delivery, (2) people working with the PACE Programme and (3) contextual factors. Several country-specific challenges in implementing the PACE Programme were identified. The implementation of the PACE Programme was feasible but leaves room for improvement. Our analysis helps to better understand the optimal levels of training and facilitation and provides recommendations to improve implementation in the LTC setting. The results of the process evaluation will be used to further adapt and improve the PACE Programme prior to its further dissemination. The PACE study was registered at www.isrctn.com-ISRCTN14741671 (FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1 603111) July 30, 2015.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The PACE 'Steps to Success' programme is a complex educational and development intervention for staff to improve palliative care in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). In a cluster randomized controlled trial, this programme has been implemented in 37 LTCFs in 7 European countries. Alongside an effectiveness study, a process evaluation study was conducted. This paper reports on the results of this process evaluation, of which the aim was to provide a more detailed understanding of the implementation of the PACE Programme across and within countries.
METHODS
The process evaluation followed the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and involved various measures and tools, including diaries for country trainers, evaluation questionnaires for care staff, attendance lists and interviews (online and face-to-face, individual and in groups) with country trainers, managers, PACE coordinators and other staff members. Based on key elements of the PACE Programme, a priori criteria for a high, medium and low level of the RE-AIM components Reach, Adoption, Implementation and intention to Maintenance were defined. Qualitative data on factors affecting each RE-AIM component gathered in the online discussion groups and interviews were analysed according to the principles of thematic analysis.
RESULTS
The performance of the PACE Programme on the RE-AIM components was highly variable within and across countries, with a high or medium score for in total 28 (out of 37) LTCFs on Reach, for 26 LTCFs on Adoption, for 35 LTCFs on Implementation and for 34 LTCFs on intention to Maintenance. The factors affecting performance on the different RE-AIM components could be classified into three major categories: (1) the PACE Programme itself and its way of delivery, (2) people working with the PACE Programme and (3) contextual factors. Several country-specific challenges in implementing the PACE Programme were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
The implementation of the PACE Programme was feasible but leaves room for improvement. Our analysis helps to better understand the optimal levels of training and facilitation and provides recommendations to improve implementation in the LTC setting. The results of the process evaluation will be used to further adapt and improve the PACE Programme prior to its further dissemination.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The PACE study was registered at www.isrctn.com-ISRCTN14741671 (FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1 603111) July 30, 2015.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31856882
doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0953-8
pii: 10.1186/s13012-019-0953-8
pmc: PMC6924025
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN14741671']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
107Investigateurs
Paula Andreasen
(P)
Ilona Barańska
(I)
Garuth Chalfont
(G)
Harriet Finne-Soveri
(H)
Elisabeth Honinx
(E)
Federica Mammarella
(F)
Sophie Pautex
(S)
Melissa Philips
(M)
Ruth Piers
(R)
Anna Prokop-Dorner
(A)
Eleanor Sowerby
(E)
Jenny van der Steen
(J)
Agata Stodolska
(A)
Myrra Vernooij-Dassen
(M)
Anne Wichmann
(A)
Références
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013 Jul;14(7):485-92
pubmed: 23523319
N Engl J Med. 2011 Sep 29;365(13):1212-21
pubmed: 21991894
JAMA. 2016 Aug 16;316(7):769-70
pubmed: 27533163
BMJ. 2006 Feb 18;332(7538):413-6
pubmed: 16484270
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Jun 1;18(6):550.e7-550.e14
pubmed: 28412166
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007 Sep;55(9):1371-9
pubmed: 17915342
Implement Sci. 2018 Nov 16;13(1):138
pubmed: 30442165
BMC Palliat Care. 2018 Mar 12;17(1):47
pubmed: 29530091
Implement Sci. 2008 Jan 07;3:1
pubmed: 18179688
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2006 Jul-Sep;20(3):176-81
pubmed: 16917188
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Implement Sci. 2013 Oct 02;8:117
pubmed: 24088228
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2016 Sep;6(3):353-61
pubmed: 27329513
BMC Palliat Care. 2016 Jun 03;15:53
pubmed: 27259551
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Nov 11;:1-10
pubmed: 31710345
BMJ. 2004 Jun 26;328(7455):1561-3
pubmed: 15217878
Palliat Med. 2018 Dec;32(10):1584-1595
pubmed: 30273519
Am J Public Health. 1999 Sep;89(9):1322-7
pubmed: 10474547
Trials. 2013 Jan 12;14:15
pubmed: 23311722
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Jan;41(1):57-67
pubmed: 20797836
Implement Sci. 2013 Mar 09;8:28
pubmed: 23497438
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 11;10(11):e0140711
pubmed: 26559675
BMJ. 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):694-6
pubmed: 10987780
Implement Sci. 2016 Mar 10;11:33
pubmed: 27013464
BMC Res Notes. 2014 Oct 24;7:756
pubmed: 25341440
Implement Sci. 2018 Nov 16;13(1):141
pubmed: 30442157
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Oct 24;19(1):745
pubmed: 31651314
J Eval Clin Pract. 2014 Aug;20(4):445-52
pubmed: 24840165