Mixed methods process evaluation of an enhanced community-based rehabilitation intervention for elderly patients with hip fracture

Abstract

ObjectivesTo describe the implementation of an enhanced rehabilitation programme for elderly hip fracture patients with mental capacity, in a randomised feasibility study compared with usual rehabilitation. To compare processes between the two and to collect the views of patients, carers and therapy staff about trial participation.DesignMixed methods process evaluation in a randomised feasibility study.SettingPatient participants were recruited on orthopaedic and rehabilitation wards; the intervention was delivered in the community following hospital discharge.ParticipantsSixty-one older adults (aged ≥65 years) recovering from surgical treatment (replacement arthroplasty or internal fixation) following hip fracture, who were living independently prior to fracture and had mental capacity and 31 of their carers.InterventionsUsual care (control) or usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention). The enhanced rehabilitation consisted of a patient-held information workbook, goal-setting diary and up to six additional therapy sessions.Process evaluation componentsRecruitment of sites and rehabilitation teams, response of rehabilitation teams, recruitment and reach in patient and carer participants, intervention delivery, delivery to individuals, response of individual patients to the enhanced intervention or usual rehabilitation, response of carer participants, unintended consequences and testing intervention theory and context.ResultsUsual rehabilitation care was very variable. The enhanced rehabilitation group received a mean of five additional therapy sessions. All of the returned goal-setting diaries had inputs from the therapy team, and half had written comments by the patients and carers. Focus group themes: variation of usual care and its impact on delivering the intervention; the importance of goal setting; the role of the therapist in providing reassurance about safe physical activities; and acceptability of the extra therapy sessions.ConclusionsLessons learnt for a future definitive RCT include how to enhance recruitment and improve training materials, the workbook, delivery of the extra therapy sessions and recording of usual rehabilitation care.Trial registration numberISRCTN22464643; Post- results.

Implementing an intervention to enhance care delivery and consistency for people with hip fracture and cognitive impairment in acute hospital wards: a mixed methods process evaluation of a randomised controlled feasibility trial (PERFECTED)

“…Overcoming barriers in gaining dedicated SIL time may be a prime way to enhance future consistency in implementation. Staff availability has been identified as a factor in other process evaluations related to hip fracture patients 43 45…”

Brain-In-Hand technology for adults with acquired brain injury: A convergence of mixed methods findings

“…This study suggested that the support provided to Brain-in-Hand users was as important as the app itself. Although implementation [36][37][38] and influencing rehabilitation outcomes, 39 and are some of the known challenges and barriers to implementation. [14][15][16] However, there is limited evidence supporting the interaction between the 'Big T' and the 'small t', with many studies focussing only on the environmental context (i.e.…”

What Works Where and How for Uptake and Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Pathology: Review of Theories for a Realist Evaluation

“…Realist evaluation is a theory-driven approach to understanding for whom and in what circumstances complex interventions work [ 16 ] and has been used for studying a number of complex interventions, including health information technology [ 17 ]. Realist approaches can be used both to evaluate complex interventions and inform intervention design [ 18 ]. For these reasons, a realist approach is highly appropriate for the conduct of this review.…”