Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Study protocol

A multistage mixed methods study protocol to evaluate the implementation and impact of a reconfiguration of acute medicine in Ireland’s hospitals

Authors: E. Hurley, S. McHugh, J. Browne, L. Vaughan, C. Normand

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To address deficits in the delivery of acute services in Ireland, the National Acute Medicine Programme (NAMP) was established in 2010 to optimise the management of acutely ill medical patients in the hospital setting, and to ensure their supported discharge to primary and community-based care. NAMP aims to reduce inappropriate hospital admissions, reduce length of hospital stay and ensure patients receive timely treatment in the most appropriate setting. It does so primarily via the development of Acute Medical Assessment Units (AMAUs) for the rapid assessment and management of medical patients presenting to hospitals, as well as streamlining the care of those admitted for further care. This study will examine the impact of this programme on patient care and identify the factors influencing its implementation and operation.

Methods

We will use a multistage mixed methods evaluation with an explanatory sequential design. Firstly, we will develop a logic model to describe the programme’s outcomes, its components and the mechanisms of change by which it expects to achieve these outcomes. Then we will assess implementation by measuring utilisation of the Units and comparing the organisational functions implemented to that recommended by the NAMP model of care. Using comparative case study research, we will identify the factors which have influenced the programme’s implementation and its operation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to guide data collection and analysis. This will be followed by an estimation of the impact of the programme on reducing overnight emergency admissions for potentially avoidable medical conditions, and reducing length of hospital stay of acute medical patients. Lastly, data from each stage will be integrated to examine how the programme’s outcomes can be explained by the level of implementation.

Discussion

This formative evaluation will enable us to examine whether the NAMP is improving patient care and importantly draw conclusions on how it is doing so. It will identify the factors that contribute to how well the programme is being implemented in the real-world. Lessons learnt will be instrumental in sustaining this programme as well as planning, implementing, and assessing other transformative programmes, especially in the acute care setting.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Wren M-A, Keegan C, Walsh B, Bergin A, Eighan J, et al. Projections of demand for healthcare in Ireland, 2015–2030. First report from the hippocrates model, The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Editor. Dublin: ESRI; 2017.CrossRef
4.
Smyth B, et al. Planning for Health: Trends and Priorities to Inform Health Service Planning 2017. Report from the Health Service Executive. Dublin: Health Service Executive; 2017.
5.
Pallin DJ, et al. Population aging and emergency departments: visits will not increase, Lengths-Of-Stay And Hospitalizations Will. Health Affairs. 2013;32(7):1306–12.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Ham C. Emergency department pressures need to be tackled through integrated urgent and emergency care. BMJ. 2015;350:h322.PubMedCrossRef
7.
O'Cathain A, et al. A system-wide approach to explaining variation in potentially avoidable emergency admissions: national ecological study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(1):47–55.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Pinkney J, et al. How can frontline expertise and new models of care best contribute to safely reducing avoidable acute admissions? A mixed-methods study of four acute hospitals. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2016;4(3).CrossRef
9.
Karakusevic S. Understanding patient flow in hospitals, Nuffield Trust, Editor. Nuffield Trust: London; 2016.
10.
Carter EJ, Pouch SM, Larson EL. The relationship between emergency department crowding and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2014;46(2):106–15.PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
13.
Royal College of Physicians, Acute medical care. The right person, in the right setting - first time. Report of the Acute Medicine Task Force. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2007.
14.
McNeill G, et al. What is the effect of a consultant presence in an acute medical unit? Clin Med (Lond). 2009;9(3):214–8.CrossRef
15.
ACI Acute Care Taskforce Medical Assessment Unit Working Group. NSW Medical Assessment Unit Model of care. Sydney: NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation; 2014.
16.
Internal Medicine Society of Australia and New Zealand, Standards for Medical Assessment and Planning Units in Public and Private Hospitals. 2006.
17.
van Galen LS, et al. Acute medical units: the way to go? A literature review. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;39:24–31.PubMedCrossRef
18.
19.
Schipper EM. Acute medical units, more capacity without increasing resources. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;39:e13.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Holland M, et al. Acute medical units, definitely the way to go. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;39:e10–1.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, et al. Report of the National Acute Medicine Programme. Dublin: National Acute Medicine Programme; 2010.
22.
O'Reilly O, et al. National Acute Medicine Programme--improving the care of all medical patients in Ireland. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(12):794–8.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Jenkins P, Barton L, McNeil G. Contrasts in acute medicine: a comparison of the British and Australian systems for managing emergency medical patients. MJA. 2010;193(4):227–8.PubMed
24.
Royal College of Physicians of Ireland and Health Service Executive, National Acute Medicine Programme. 2012.
25.
Royal College of Physicians of Ireland and Health Service Executive, National Acute Medicine Programme. Key elements of the programme to deliver the best patient outcomes. 2012.
26.
Scott I, Vaughan L, Bell D. Effectiveness of acute medical units in hospitals: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009;21(6):397–407.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Reid LE, et al. The effectiveness and variation of acute medical units: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016;28(4):433–46.PubMedCrossRef
28.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Chapter 24 Assessment through acute medical units. In: Emergency and acute medical care in over 16s: service delivery and organisation. DRAFT NICE guideline for consultation; 2017.
29.
Li JY, et al. Outcomes of establishing an acute assessment unit in the general medical service of a tertiary teaching hospital. Med J Aust. 2010;192(7):384–7.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Rooney T, et al. Impact of an acute medical admission unit on hospital mortality: a 5-year prospective study. Qjm. 2008;101(6):457–65.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Coary R, et al. Does admission via an acute medical unit influence hospital mortality? 12 years’ experience in a large Dublin hospital. Acute Med. 2014;13(4):152–8.PubMed
32.
Bell D, et al. Consultant input in acute medical admissions and patient outcomes in hospitals in England: a multivariate analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e61476.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
McGovern E. Acute medical assessment units: a literature review. Health Services Executive: Dublin; 2013.
34.
35.
Royal College of Physicians, Delivering a 12-hour, 7-day consultant presence on the acute medical unit. Appendix 1: Example calculation of numbers of patient contacts per day., in Acute care toolkit 4. 2012.
36.
Vaughan L, Mitchell A. Multi-disciplinary teams for better patient experience and clinical outcomes: the context of providing a multi-professional approach, in RCPE UK Consensus Conference on Acute medicine. London: Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh; 2013. p. 23–9.
37.
Vaughan LM, Machaqueiro S, Gaskins M, Imison C. The London Quality Standards: A case study in changing clinical care. London: Research report, N. Trust, Editor; 2017.
38.
Bamberger M, Rao V, Woolcock M. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Editors Using mixed-methods in monitoring and evaluation: Experiences from international development, in Sage Handbook of Mixed- Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc; 2010. p. 613–42.
39.
Moore GF, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions. UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance, MRC population health science research network, editor. London: UK Medical Research Council; 2015.
40.
41.
Rossi P, Lipsey M, Freeman H. Evaluation: a systematic approach. 7th ed. ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2004.
42.
Dobson D, Cook TJ. Avoiding type III error in program evaluation: results from a field experiment. Eval Porgram Plan. 1980;3(4):269–76.CrossRef
43.
Damschroder LJ, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Proctor E, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.CrossRef
45.
Damschroder LJ, Lowery JC. Evaluation of a large-scale weight management program using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). Implement Sci. 2013;8:51.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
47.
McHugh S, et al. Evaluating the implementation of a national clinical programme for diabetes to standardise and improve services: a realist evaluation protocol. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):107.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
NHS West Midlands Quality Review Service, Quality Standards for Acute Medical Units (AMUs). Version 2. 2012.
49.
W.K Kellogg Foundation. Logic Model Development Guide: Using Logic Models to Bring Together Planning, Evaluation, and Action. Michigan: W. K Kellogg Foundation; 2004.
50.
Ward D, et al. Acute medical care. The right person, in the right setting--first time: how does practice match the report recommendations? Clin Med (Lond). 2009;9(6):553–6.CrossRef
51.
McNeill GBS, et al. Optimizing care for acute medical patients: the Australasian medical assessment unit survey. Intern Med J. 2011;41(1a):19–26.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Reid L, Rae R. Structures in AMUs - Qualitative and Quantitative, in Edinburgh International Conference of Medicine. Past, Present & Future. Edinburgh: Health Service Executive; 2016.
53.
54.
Fulop N, et al. Implementing changes to hospital services: factors influencing the process and ‘results’ of reconfiguration. Health Policy. 2012;104:128–35.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Gale NK, et al. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:117.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
57.
Desveaux L, et al. Improving the appropriateness of antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an academic detailing intervention. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ. 2010;341:c4587.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Creswell JW. A concise introduction to mixed methods research; 2015.
60.
Reid L, Lone NI, Morrison ZJ, Weir CJ, Jones MC. An Examination of Acute Medical Units in Scottish Hospitals, in IMSANZ 17. Wellngton: Health Service Executive; 2017.
61.
62.
Wagner A, et al. Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2002;27:299–309.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Gillies C, Freemantle N, Grieve R, Sekhon J, Forder J. Advancing quantitative methods for the evaluation of complex interventions. In Raine R, Fitzpatrick R, Barratt H, Bevan G, black N, Boaden R, et al. challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2016;4(16):37–54.
64.
Gilmour S, et al. Using intervention time series analyses to assess the effects of imperfectly identifiable natural events: a general method and example. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
65.
Bernal JL, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(1):348–55.PubMed
66.
Nelson BK. Time series analysis using autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models. Acad Emerg Med. 1998;5(7):739–44.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A multistage mixed methods study protocol to evaluate the implementation and impact of a reconfiguration of acute medicine in Ireland’s hospitals
Authors
E. Hurley
S. McHugh
J. Browne
L. Vaughan
C. Normand
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4629-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Health Services Research 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Parental and health professional evaluations of a support service for parents of excessively crying infants

Research article

Attitudes, practices, and priority of HIV screening and testing among clinical providers in Transylvania and Moldavia, Romania

Research article

HIV/AIDS health services in Manaus, Brazil: patient perception of quality and its influence on adherence to antiretroviral treatment

Research article

The migration-related language barrier and professional interpreter use in primary health care in Switzerland

Research article

Variation in expenditure for common, high cost surgical procedures in a working age population: implications for reimbursement reform

Research article

Knowledge, provision of information and barriers to high quality medication abortion provision by pharmacists in Uttar Pradesh, India