Emergency General Surgery Clinical Trial
Official title:
Development and Pilot Testing of an Intervention to Support Interhospital Transfer Decisions (SITe) Regarding Older Adults With Emergency General Surgery Diagnoses
Verified date | June 2024 |
Source | University of Wisconsin, Madison |
Contact | n/a |
Is FDA regulated | No |
Health authority | |
Study type | Interventional |
Every year, nearly 240,000 patients age 60 and older are transferred between acute care hospitals for nontraumatic surgical emergencies, and these patients experience worse outcomes than patients admitted directly from an emergency department within a given hospital. Care coordination for older patients with emergency general surgery (EGS) diagnoses suffers because conversations between referring and accepting providers regarding decisions to transfer are ineffective, incomplete, and inefficient. To standardize a method to support transfer decisions that is tailored to older adults within extant transfer processes, the team will (1) engage key stakeholders to develop the intervention to Support Interhospital Transfer Decisions (SITe) for older EGS patients by adapting an existing intervention for interhospital handoffs and (2) assess the acceptability of the SITe intervention, test the feasibility of study procedures, and explore efficacy outcomes for evaluation in a future, larger clinical trial.
Status | Terminated |
Enrollment | 25 |
Est. completion date | March 11, 2024 |
Est. primary completion date | March 11, 2024 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
Gender | All |
Age group | 18 Years and older |
Eligibility | Inclusion Criteria: - Patients (n=100): patients age 60 and older with an EGS diagnosis transferred from a referring ED or inpatient floor in Wisconsin to the UW ED or inpatient floor under care of UW surgeons - Providers: all UW (accepting) surgeons and all referring providers who execute transfers of the 100 eligible patients. There will be no exclusions regarding referring providers' position (e.g., physician, mid-level provider), specialty (e.g., emergency medicine, internal medicine), or affiliation (e.g., UW or non-UW). Exclusion Criteria: - Providers who do not speak English - Patients younger than 60 years - Other interhospital transfers other than EGS transfers - Prisoners |
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
United States | University of Wisconsin | Madison | Wisconsin |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
University of Wisconsin, Madison | National Institute on Aging (NIA) |
United States,
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary | Acceptability of the Intervention to Support Interhospital Transfer Decisions (SITe) | The team will identify 50 study-eligible patient transfers post-intervention training.
The team will ask the accepting provider and referring provider who executed the eligible transfer to rate the following statements on a Likert-scale (1=completely disagree to 5=completely agree): This intervention meets my approval. This intervention is appealing to me. I like this intervention. I welcome this intervention. Acceptability is defined as a minimum average score of 4 per item. |
3 months | |
Primary | Fidelity to the Intervention to Support Interhospital Transfer Decisions (SITe) | The team will identify 50 study-eligible patient transfers post-intervention training. The team will measure missingness of the tool elements. Fidelity is defined as <15% missing patient information. | 3 months | |
Primary | Feasibility of Study Procedures | The team will measure the rate of survey completion for study-eligible patient transfers and examine rates of and reasons for missing outcome data. | pre-intervention at 3 months, post-intervention at 7 months | |
Primary | Potential to Avoid Transfer: Chart Review | The team will evaluate the quality outcome: potential to avoid transfer. Through chart review, the team will look at number of transfers with no intervention and discharge to home within 72 hours. | 7 months | |
Primary | Potential to Avoid Transfer- Second Related Question on Survey - Should Have Been Able | The team will evaluate the quality outcome: potential to avoid transfer.
Accepting Providers were asked: "I felt that the referring hospital should have been able to care for the patient." A similar question was not asked of Referring Providers |
pre-intervention at 3 months, post-intervention at 7 months | |
Primary | Efficiency of Transfer Communication | Following the Relational Model of Organizational Change and through chart review and review of transfer center logs, the team will evaluate the efficiency of transfer communication. The team will review the number of calls required to complete the transfer and time required to complete transfer calls. | 7 months | |
Primary | Efficiency of Transfer Execution | The team will evaluate the efficiency of transfer execution. The team will review the time from initial call to patient arrival. | 7 months | |
Primary | Emotional Labor - First Related Question on Survey - Respect | Following the Relational Model of Organizational Change and specific Qualtrics questions, the team will evaluate the emotional labor of providers. The team will ask about providers' feelings about being listened to and supported when discussing patient care and difficult patient issues.
Question for Referring Providers: I felt respected by the referring provider. Question for Accepting Providers: I felt respected by the UW surgeon. |
pre-intervention at 3 months, post-intervention at 7 months | |
Primary | Patient Health Outcomes | The team will evaluate patient health outcomes. The team will measure the number of admissions to the emergency department vs inpatient floor, the number of changes in level of patient care (general, intermediate, intensive) within 24 hours of arrival, and the number of adverse events (inpatient mortality, morbidity, extended length of stay.) | 7 months | |
Primary | Emotional Labor - Second Related Question on Survey - Listening | Following the Relational Model of Organizational Change and specific Qualtrics questions, the team will evaluate the emotional labor of providers. The team will ask about providers' feelings about being listened to and supported when discussing patient care and difficult patient issues.
Question for Referring Providers: The UW Surgeon listened to my concerns about the patient. A similar question was not asked of Accepting Providers |
pre-intervention at 3 months, post-intervention at 7 months | |
Primary | Emotional Labor - Third Related Question on Survey - Understanding | Following the Relational Model of Organizational Change and specific Qualtrics questions, the team will evaluate the emotional labor of providers. The team will ask about providers' feelings about being listened to and supported when discussing patient care and difficult patient issues.
Question for Referring Providers: I felt that the UW Surgeon understood my reason for transfer. A similar question was not asked of Accepting Providers |
pre-intervention at 3 months, post-intervention at 7 months | |
Primary | Emotional Labor - Fourth Related Question on Survey - Doubt | Following the Relational Model of Organizational Change and specific Qualtrics questions, the team will evaluate the emotional labor of providers. The team will ask about providers' feelings about being listened to and supported when discussing patient care and difficult patient issues.
Question for Referring Providers: I felt that the UW Surgeon doubted whether the transfer was necessary. A similar question was not asked of Accepting Providers |
pre-intervention at 3 months, post-intervention at 7 months | |
Primary | Potential to Avoid Transfer- First Related Question on Survey - Justifiable | The team will evaluate the quality outcome: potential to avoid transfer.
Accepting Providers were asked: "I felt that the reason for transfer was justifiable." A similar question was not asked of Referring Providers |
pre-intervention at 3 months, post-intervention at 7 months |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Completed |
NCT04216394 -
Anticoagulation in Emergency General Surgery
|
||
Completed |
NCT04419571 -
Outcomes in Emergency Laparotomies During COVID-19 Pandemic
|
||
Not yet recruiting |
NCT06043414 -
Barbed Suture vs Non-Barbed Closure for Emergency Exploratory Laparotomy RCT
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT05664360 -
Incidence and Outcomes of Emergency Department Patients Requiring Emergency General Surgery
|