The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic represents a global crisis that has received extraordinary response from healthcare workers and scientists. One critical but potentially overlooked field in a pandemic is implementation science-the study of methods to reduce the research-to-practice gap. In this Viewpoint, we discuss the important role of implementation science during this and future pandemics and highlight considerations to maximize the utility of implementation research.

Objectives

To evaluate whether a nurse navigator-led, multicomponent Sepsis Transition And Recovery program improves 30-day mortality and readmission outcomes after sepsis hospitalization.

Desig

n: Multisite pragmatic randomized clinical trial.

Setting

Three hospitals in North Carolina from January 2019 to March 2020.

Patients

Eligible patients hospitalized for suspected sepsis and deemed high-risk for mortality or readmission by validated internal risk models.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to receive usual care alone (i.e., routine transition support, outpatient care; n = 342) or additional Sepsis Transition And Recovery support (n = 349). The 30-day intervention involved a multicomponent transition service led by a nurse navigator through telephone and electronic health record communication to facilitate best practice postsepsis care strategies during and after hospitalization including: postdischarge medication review, evaluation for new impairments or symptoms, monitoring comorbidities, and palliative care approach when appropriate. Clinical oversight was provided by a Hospital Medicine Transition Services team.

Measurements and main results

The primary outcome was a composite of mortality or hospital readmission at 30 days. Logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate marginal and conditional odds ratios (adjusted for prognostic covariates: age, comorbidity, and organ dysfunction at enrollment). Among 691 randomized patients (mean age = 63.7 ± 15.1 yr; 52% female), a lower percentage of patients in the Sepsis Transition And Recovery group experienced the primary outcome compared with the usual care group (28.7% vs 33.3%; risk difference, 4.7%; odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.58-1.11; adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98). There were 74 deaths (Sepsis Transition And Recovery: 33 [9.5%] vs usual care: 41 [12.0%]) and 155 rehospitalizations (Sepsis Transition And Recovery: 71 [20.3%] vs usual care: 84 [24.6%]).

Conclusions

In a multisite randomized clinical trial of patients hospitalized with sepsis, patients provided with a 30-day program using a nurse navigator to provide best practices for postsepsis care experienced a lower proportion of either mortality or rehospitalization within 30 days after discharge. Further research is needed to understand the contextual factors associated with successful implementation.

In a recent study, identifying and supporting patients' care goals was named the highest priority in hospital medicine. Although sepsis is one of the leading causes of death and postdischarge morbidity among hospitalized patients, little is known about how frequently care goals are assessed prior to discharge and adhered to in the 90 days after sepsis hospitalization. Evaluating a cohort of 679 high-risk sepsis survivors enrolled in a clinical trial, we found that care goals were documented explicitly in a standardized tool in 130 patients; an additional 139 patients were identified using all available clinical documentation, resulting in only 269 (40%) patients with goals that could be ascertained from the electronic health record (EHR). Among those categorized, goals were classified as prioritizing longevity (35%), function (52%), and comfort (12%). Based on expert review of the care provided during the 90 days subsequent to discharge, goal-concordant care was identified in 184 (68%) cases for which goals were specified. Documentation of goals in a standardized EHR tool was associated with increased likelihood of receiving goal-concordant care (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.5). Hospitalization and peridischarge time points represent important opportunities to address deficits in the documentation of goals and provision of goal-concordant care for sepsis survivors.

Background and objectives

NICUs vary in the quality of care delivered to very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. NICU performance on 1 measure of quality only modestly predicts performance on others. Composite measurement of quality of care delivery may provide a more comprehensive assessment of quality. The objective of our study was to develop a robust composite indicator of quality of NICU care provided to VLBW infants that accurately discriminates performance among NICUs.

Methods

We developed a composite indicator, Baby-MONITOR, based on 9 measures of quality chosen by a panel of experts. Measures were standardized, equally weighted, and averaged. We used the California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative database to perform across-sectional analysis of care given to VLBW infants between 2004 and 2010. Performance on the Baby-MONITOR is not an absolute marker of quality but indicates overall performance relative to that of the other NICUs. We used sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the composite indicator, by varying assumptions and methods.

Results

Our sample included 9023 VLBW infants in 22 California regional NICUs. We found significant variations within and between NICUs on measured components of the Baby-MONITOR. Risk-adjusted composite scores discriminated performance among this sample of NICUs. Sensitivity analysis that included different approaches to normalization, weighting, and aggregation of individual measures showed the Baby-MONITOR to be robust (r = 0.89-0.99).

Conclusions

The Baby-MONITOR may be a useful tool to comprehensively assess the quality of care delivered by NICUs.