CONTACT: a non-randomised feasibility study of bluetooth-enabled wearables for contact tracing in UK care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Bluetooth-enabled wearables
COVID-19
Care homes
Complex interventions
Digital contact tracing
Feasibility
Long-term care
Journal
Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Oct 2024
02 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
08
08
2023
accepted:
20
09
2024
medline:
3
10
2024
pubmed:
3
10
2024
entrez:
2
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The need for effective non-pharmaceutical infection prevention measures such as contact tracing in pandemics remains in care homes, but traditional approaches to contact tracing are not feasible in care homes. The CONTACT intervention introduces Bluetooth-enabled wearable devices (BLE wearables) as a potential solution for automated contact tracing. Using structured reports and reports triggered by positive COVID-19 cases in homes, we fed contact patterns and trends back to homes to support better-informed infection prevention decisions and reduce blanket application of restrictive measures. This paper reports on the evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention prior to a planned definitive cluster randomised trial of the CONTACT BLE wearable intervention. CONTACT was a non-randomised mixed-method feasibility study over 2 months in four English care homes. Recruitment was via care home research networks, with individual consent. Data collection methods included routine data from the devices, case report forms, qualitative interviews (with staff and residents), field observation of care, and an adapted version of the NoMaD survey instrument to explore implementation using Normalisation Process Theory. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistical methods. Qualitative data were thematically analysed using a framework approach and Normalisation Process Theory. Intervention and study delivery were evaluated against predefined progression criteria. Of 156 eligible residents, 105 agreed to wear a device, with 102 (97%) starting the intervention. Of 225 eligible staff, 82% (n = 178) participated. Device loss and damage were significant: 11% of resident devices were lost or damaged, ~ 50% were replaced. Staff lost fewer devices, just 6%, but less than 10% were replaced. Fob wearables needed more battery changes than card-type devices (15% vs. 0%). Structured and reactive feedback was variably understood by homes but unlikely to be acted on. Researcher support for interpreting reports was valued. Homes found information useful when it confirmed rather than challenged preconceived contact patterns. Staff privacy concerns were a barrier to adoption. Study procedures added to existing work, making participation burdensome. Study participation benefits did not outweigh perceived burden and were amplified by the pandemic context. CONTACT did not meet its quantitative or qualitative progression criteria. CONTACT found a large-scale definitive trial of BLE wearables for contact tracing and feedback-informed IPC in care homes unfeasible and unacceptable - at least in the context of shifting COVID-19 pandemic demands. Future research should co-design interventions and studies with care homes, focusing on successful intervention implementation as well as technical effectiveness. ISRCTN registration: 11204126 registered 17/02/2021.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The need for effective non-pharmaceutical infection prevention measures such as contact tracing in pandemics remains in care homes, but traditional approaches to contact tracing are not feasible in care homes. The CONTACT intervention introduces Bluetooth-enabled wearable devices (BLE wearables) as a potential solution for automated contact tracing. Using structured reports and reports triggered by positive COVID-19 cases in homes, we fed contact patterns and trends back to homes to support better-informed infection prevention decisions and reduce blanket application of restrictive measures. This paper reports on the evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention prior to a planned definitive cluster randomised trial of the CONTACT BLE wearable intervention.
METHODS
METHODS
CONTACT was a non-randomised mixed-method feasibility study over 2 months in four English care homes. Recruitment was via care home research networks, with individual consent. Data collection methods included routine data from the devices, case report forms, qualitative interviews (with staff and residents), field observation of care, and an adapted version of the NoMaD survey instrument to explore implementation using Normalisation Process Theory. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistical methods. Qualitative data were thematically analysed using a framework approach and Normalisation Process Theory. Intervention and study delivery were evaluated against predefined progression criteria.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 156 eligible residents, 105 agreed to wear a device, with 102 (97%) starting the intervention. Of 225 eligible staff, 82% (n = 178) participated. Device loss and damage were significant: 11% of resident devices were lost or damaged, ~ 50% were replaced. Staff lost fewer devices, just 6%, but less than 10% were replaced. Fob wearables needed more battery changes than card-type devices (15% vs. 0%). Structured and reactive feedback was variably understood by homes but unlikely to be acted on. Researcher support for interpreting reports was valued. Homes found information useful when it confirmed rather than challenged preconceived contact patterns. Staff privacy concerns were a barrier to adoption. Study procedures added to existing work, making participation burdensome. Study participation benefits did not outweigh perceived burden and were amplified by the pandemic context. CONTACT did not meet its quantitative or qualitative progression criteria.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
CONTACT found a large-scale definitive trial of BLE wearables for contact tracing and feedback-informed IPC in care homes unfeasible and unacceptable - at least in the context of shifting COVID-19 pandemic demands. Future research should co-design interventions and studies with care homes, focusing on successful intervention implementation as well as technical effectiveness.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ISRCTN registration: 11204126 registered 17/02/2021.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39358817
doi: 10.1186/s40814-024-01549-6
pii: 10.1186/s40814-024-01549-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
125Subventions
Organisme : Health Technology Assessment Programme
ID : NIHR132197
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Office for National Statistics. Deaths involving COVID-19 in the care sector, England and Wales: deaths registered between week ending 20 March 2020 and week ending 21 January 2022. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19inthecaresectorenglandandwales/deathsregisteredbetweenweekending20march2020andweekending21january2022 (2022).
International data on deaths attributed to COVID-19 among people living in care homes. Resources to support community and institutional long-term care responses to COVID-19 https://ltccovid.org/2022/02/22/international-data-on-deaths-attributed-to-covid-19-among-people-living-in-care-homes/ (2022).
Managing infections - don’t forget about the indoor air in your care home - social care. https://socialcare.blog.gov.uk/2023/01/26/managing-infections-dont-forget-about-the-indoor-air-in-your-care-home/ (2023).
Jefferson T, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6 .
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6
pubmed: 36715243
pmcid: 9885521
Yalaman A, Basbug G, Elgin C, Galvani AP. Cross-country evidence on the association between contact tracing and COVID-19 case fatality rates. Sci Rep. 2021;11:2145.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78760-x
pubmed: 33495491
pmcid: 7835347
Raymenants J, et al. Empirical evidence on the efficiency of backward contact tracing in COVID-19. Nat Commun. 2022;13:4750.
doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-32531-6
pubmed: 35963872
pmcid: 9375086
Utsumi M, Makimoto K, Quroshi N, Ashida N. Types of infectious outbreaks and their impact in elderly care facilities: a review of the literature. Age Ageing. 2010;39:299–305.
doi: 10.1093/ageing/afq029
pubmed: 20332371
Aldridge Z, Ponnusamy K, Noble A, Collier P, Smith D. Dementia in care homes: increasing the diagnosis rate among undiagnosed residents. Nurs Older People. 2023. https://doi.org/10.7748/nop.2023.e1435 .
doi: 10.7748/nop.2023.e1435
pubmed: 37990584
Moldskred PS, Snibsøer AK, Espehaug B. Improving the quality of nursing documentation at a residential care home: a clinical audit. BMC Nurs. 2021;20:103.
doi: 10.1186/s12912-021-00629-9
pubmed: 34154606
pmcid: 8215798
Hinch R, et al. Effective Configurations of a Digital Contact Tracing App: A report to NHSX. https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/1009/Report_-_Effective_App_Configurations.pdf
Curtis SJ, et al. Feasibility of Bluetooth low energy wearable tags to quantify healthcare worker proximity networks and patient close contact: a pilot study. Infect Dis Health. 2022;27:66–70.
doi: 10.1016/j.idh.2021.10.004
pubmed: 34810151
Wilmink G, et al. Real-time digital contact tracing: development of a system to control COVID-19 outbreaks in nursing homes and long-term care facilities. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6: e20828.
doi: 10.2196/20828
pubmed: 32745013
pmcid: 7451111
COVID-19 National Core Studies. HDR UK https://www.hdruk.ac.uk/covid-19/covid-19-national-core-studies/ .
Wanesy Wave. Kerlink https://www.kerlink.com/wanesy-wave/ .
Brehaut JC, et al. Practice feedback interventions: 15 suggestions for optimizing effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:435–41.
doi: 10.7326/M15-2248
pubmed: 26903136
Thompson CA, et al. ‘Smart’ BLE wearables for digital contact tracing in care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic—a process evaluation of the CONTACT feasibility study. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4:155.
doi: 10.1186/s43058-023-00533-0
pubmed: 38049924
pmcid: 10694939
Simon HA. A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ. 1955;69:99–118.
doi: 10.2307/1884852
Miller JD. Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus. 1983;112:29–48.
Eldridge SM, et al. Defining feasibility and pilot studies in preparation for randomised controlled trials: development of a conceptual framework. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0150205.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150205
pubmed: 26978655
pmcid: 4792418
ENRICH. https://enrich.nihr.ac.uk/ .
Niche. https://niche.leeds.ac.uk/ .
Patwardhan S, Sutton M, Morciano M. Effects of chain ownership and private equity financing on quality in the English care home sector: retrospective observational study. Age Ageing. 2022;51:afac222.
doi: 10.1093/ageing/afac222
pubmed: 36571782
pmcid: 9792077
[Withdrawn] Guidance to assist professionals in advising the general public. GOV.UK https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-guidance-to-assist-professionals-in-advising-the-general-public/guidance-to-assist-professionals-in-advising-the-general-public (2020).
Finch TL, et al. Improving the normalization of complex interventions: part 2 - validation of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:135.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0591-x
pubmed: 30442094
pmcid: 6238372
Anderson R. New MRC guidance on evaluating complex interventions. BMJ. 2008;337:a1937.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1937
pubmed: 18945728
Thompson CA, CONTACT TEAM. CONtact trAcing in care homes using digital Technology (CONTACT) - a non-randomised feasibility study protocol. (2022). https://njl-admin.nihr.ac.uk/document/download/2039445
Lancaster GA, Dodd S, Williamson PR. Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004;10:307–12.
doi: 10.1111/j..2002.384.doc.x
pubmed: 15189396
Browne R. On the use of a pilot sample for sample size determination. Stat Med. 1995;14(17):1933–40.
Sim J, Lewis M. The size of a pilot study for a clinical trial should be calculated in relation to considerations of precision and efficiency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:301–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.07.011
pubmed: 22169081
Julious SA. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat. 2005;4:287–91.
doi: 10.1002/pst.185
Participation E. Mental Capacity Act 2005. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents .
Bunn F, et al. Setting priorities to inform assessment of care homes’ readiness to participate in healthcare innovation: a systematic mapping review and consensus process. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:987.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17030987
pubmed: 32033293
pmcid: 7037621
Peryer G, et al. Contextual factors influencing complex intervention research processes in care homes: a systematic review and framework synthesis. Age Ageing. 2022;51:afac014.
doi: 10.1093/ageing/afac014
pubmed: 35231097
pmcid: 8887840
May CR, et al. Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13:80.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0758-1
pubmed: 29879986
pmcid: 5992634
Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press; 2003.
Booth A. Provocative and stimulating – but EBLIP (and information literacy) are moving targets! Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2010;5:37–42.
doi: 10.18438/B8F90W
Wilson PM, et al. Effects of a demand-led evidence briefing service on the uptake and use of research evidence by commissioners of health services: protocol for a controlled before and after study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:7.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0199-4
pubmed: 25572116
pmcid: 4296534
Boaden R. Push, pull or co-produce? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2020;25:67–9.
doi: 10.1177/1355819620907352
pubmed: 32321281
pmcid: 7736387
Gendy MEG, Tham P, Harrison F, Yuce MR. Comparing Efficiency and Performance of IoT BLE and RFID-Based Systems for Achieving Contract Tracing to Monitor Infection Spread among Hospital and Office Staff. Sensors. 2023;23:1397.
doi: 10.3390/s23031397
pubmed: 36772436
pmcid: 9919911
Khaliq KA, Noakes C, Kemp AH, Thompson C. Evaluating the performance of wearable devices for contact tracing in care home environments. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2023;20(10):468–79.
A cross-country comparison of contact-tracing apps during COVID-19. CEPR https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/cross-country-comparison-contact-tracing-apps-during-covid-19 (2021).
Edwards H, et al. Resident-staff interactions: a challenge for quality residential aged care. Australas J Ageing. 2003;22:31–7.
doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6612.2003.tb00460.x
Saldert C, Bartonek-Åhman H, Bloch S. Interaction between nursing staff and residents with aphasia in long-term care: a mixed method case study. Nurs Res Pract. 2018;2018:e9418692.
Is excessive paperwork in care homes undermining care for older people? | JRF. https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/excessive-paperwork-care-homes-undermining-care-older-people (2014).
Gordon AL, et al. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to invest in care home research infrastructure. Age Ageing. 2022;51:afac052.
doi: 10.1093/ageing/afac052
pubmed: 35174850
Chen MK, Chevalier JA, Long EF. Nursing home staff networks and COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2021;118:e2015455118.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2015455118
pubmed: 33323526
Coronavirus (COVID-19) care home outbreaks - root cause analysis: progress report November 2020 to September 2022. http://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-care-home-outbreaks-root-cause-analysis-progress-report-november-2020-september-2022/ .
Griffiths AW, et al. Barriers and facilitators to implementing dementia care mapping in care homes: results from the DCM™ EPIC trial process evaluation. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19:37.
doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1045-y
pubmed: 30736748
pmcid: 6368774
Anglemyer A, et al. Digital contact tracing technologies in epidemics: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;8:CD013699.
pubmed: 33502000
Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs. Med Care. 2012;50:217–26.
doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812
pubmed: 22310560
pmcid: 3731143