Introducing Critical Care Outreach: a ward-randomised trial of phased introduction in a general hospital. Multicenter randomized controlled trial of an outreach nursing support program for recently discharged stroke patients. Outreach education to improve quality of rural ICU care. Results of a randomized trial. Deaths among former psychiatric inpatients in an outreach case management program. Virtual outreach: a telemedicine pilot study using a cluster-randomized controlled design. Cluster randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of audit and feedback and educational outreach on improving nursing practice and patient outcomes. An outreach intervention to implement evidence based practice in residential care: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN67855475]. Telephone reminders are effective in recruiting nonresponding patients to randomized controlled trials. Improving prevention in primary care: evaluating the effectiveness of outreach facilitation.
The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of introducing a critical care outreach service on in-hospital mortality and length of stay in a general acute hospital.
                A pragmatic ward-randomised trial design was used, with intervention introduced to all wards in sequence. No blinding was possible.
                Sixteen adult wards in an 800-bed general hospital in the north of England.
                All admissions to the 16 surgical, medical and elderly care wards during 32-week study period were included (7450 patients in total, of whom 2903 were eligible for the primary comparison).
                Essential elements of the Critical Care Outreach service introduced during the study were a nurse-led team of nurses and doctors experienced in critical care, a 24-h service, emphasis on education, support and practical help for ward staff.
                The main outcome measures were in-hospital mortality and length of stay. Outreach intervention reduced in-hospital mortality compared with control (two-level odds ratio: 0.52 (95% CI 0.32-0.85). A possible increased length of stay associated with outreach was not fully supported by confirmatory and sensitivity analyses.
                The study suggests outreach reduces mortality in general hospital wards. It may also increase length of stay, but our findings on this are equivocal. Many stroke patients and informal carers experience a decreased quality of life after discharge home and are dissatisfied with the care received. We assessed the effectiveness of an outreach nursing care program.
                In a multicenter trial, 536 stroke patients were randomized at discharge to standard care (n=273) or standard care plus outreach care (n=263). The outreach care consisted of 3 telephone calls and 1 home visit within 5 months after discharge by 1 of 13 stroke nurses. Patients were masked for the trial objectives. Six months after discharge, they assessed the 2 primary outcomes: quality of life (Short Form 36 [SF-36]) and dissatisfaction with care. Secondary measures of outcome were disability, handicap, depression, anxiety, and use of health care services and secondary prevention drugs. Informal carers assessed strain, and social support. Analysis was by intention to treat.
                Twelve patients died before follow-up, 38 declined outcome assessment, and 486 completed the primary outcome assessments. Outreach care patients had better scores on the SF-36 domain "Role Emotional" than controls (mean difference 7.9 [95% confidence limit, 0.1 to 15.7]). No statistically significant differences were found on the other primary outcome measures. For secondary outcomes, no statistically significant differences were found, except that intervention patients used fewer rehabilitation services (relative risk, 0.66 [0.44 to 1.00]) and had lower anxiety scores (median difference 1 [0.19 to 2.79]).
                This outreach nursing stroke care was not effective in improving quality of life and dissatisfaction with care of recently discharged patients. This study tests whether an outreach educational program tailored to institutional specific patient care practices would improve the quality of care delivered to mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients in rural hospitals. The study was conducted as a randomized control trial using 20 rural Iowa hospitals as the unit of analysis. Twelve randomly selected hospitals received an outreach educational program. After review of the medical records of eligible patients, a multidisciplinary team of intensive care unit specialists from an academic medical center delivered an educational program with content specific to the findings and capacity of the hospital. The outcome measures included patient care processes, patient morbidity and mortality outcomes, and resource use. Results indicated that the outreach program significantly improved many patient care processes (lab work, nursing, dietary management, ventilator management, ventilator weaning). The program marginally reduced hospital ventilator days. Both total length of stay and ICU length of stay fell markedly in the intervention group (by an average of 3.2 and 2.1 d, respectively), while the control group fell only 0.6 and 0.3 d, respectively. However, these effects did not reach statistical significance. Unfortunately, the program had no detectable effects on the clinical outcomes of mortality or nosocomial events. We conclude that an outreach program of this type can effectively improve processes of care in rural ICUs. However, improving processes of care may not always translate into improvement of specific outcomes. The mortality rate of discharged psychiatric inpatients has long been known to be higher than that of persons in the general population. This study assessed the effectiveness of outreach case management in reducing the mortality rate of recently discharged psychiatric inpatients in New York City.
                A sample of 292 patients discharged from an inpatient psychiatry service at an urban general hospital were randomly assigned either to an intervention group (N = 147), which received intensive outreach case management for periods ranging from 15 to 52 months after discharge, or to a control group (N = 145), which received standard aftercare services. Both groups were offered and received regular aftercare and other services during the study period. Both groups were followed for comparable periods of time to determine their rate of mortality.
                The overall mortality rate for the total group of 292 patients was 7.2 percent, 2.25 times higher than among persons in the general population matched for age, sex, and race. The mortality rates for the intervention group and the control group were 7.5 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively, not a significant difference.
                Discharged psychiatric inpatients who received outreach case management did not have a lower mortality rate than similar patients who did not receive this intervention. A pilot study was carried out in preparation for a full-scale randomized controlled trial of teleconsultations versus routine outpatient consultation. The method of study recruited sufficient numbers of patients and avoided selection bias. Over five months, 439 referrals were received, but 297 patients were not eligible to enter the trial because they did not fall within the specialties/consultants included in it. Of the 132 referrals entering the trial, 62 were randomized to the intervention group and 70 to the control group. Consent to participate in the experimental arm of the trial was obtained for all but 13 patients. The results also suggested that patient satisfaction with teleconsultation may exceed that with conventional outpatient consultation, with a strong indication of overall time savings for patients. Current understanding of implementation methods is limited, and research has focused on changing doctors' behaviors.
                Our aim was to evaluate the impact of audit and feedback and educational outreach in improving nursing practice and patient outcomes.
                Using a factorial design, cluster randomized controlled trial, we evaluated 194 community nurses in 157 family practices and 1078 patients with diagnosis of urinary incontinence (UI) for nurses compliance with evidence-linked review criteria for the assessment and management of UI and impact on psychologic and social well-being and symptoms. In the outreach arms, nurses' self-reported barriers informed development of tailored strategies.
                In comparison with educational materials alone, the implementation methods tested did not improve care at 6 months follow-up. Moderate rates of improvement (10-17% of patients) in performance for the assessment of UI and greater rates of improvement (20-30% of patients) for the management of care were found but effects were similar across arms. Improvement in patient outcomes was more consistently positive for educational outreach than for audit and feedback but differences were not significant. Adjustment for caseload size, severity or duration of UI and patients' age did not alter results.
                Printed educational materials alone may be as effective as audit and feedback and educational outreach in improving nurses' performance and outcomes of care for people with UI. Greater understanding of the underlying processes in improving performance within multidisciplinary teams through further, theory-driven studies with "no intervention" control groups and longer follow-up are needed. The aim of this project was to assess whether outreach visits would improve the implementation of evidence based clinical practice in the area of falls reduction and stroke prevention in a residential care setting.
                Twenty facilities took part in a randomized controlled trial with a seven month follow-up period. Two outreach visits were delivered by a pharmacist. At the first a summary of the relevant evidence was provided and at the second detailed audit information was provided about fall rates, psychotropic drug prescribing and stroke risk reduction practices (BP monitoring, aspirin and warfarin use) for the facility relevant to the physician. The effect of the interventions was determined via pre- and post-intervention case note audit. Outcomes included change in percentage patients at risk of falling who fell in a three month period prior to follow-up and changes in use of psychotropic medications. Chi-square tests, independent samples t-test, and logistic regression were used in the analysis.
                Data were available from case notes at baseline (n = 897) and seven months follow-up (n = 902), 452 residential care staff were surveyed and 121 physicians were involved with 61 receiving outreach visits. Pre-and post-intervention data were available for 715 participants. There were no differences between the intervention and control groups for the three month fall rate. We were unable to detect statistically significant differences between groups for the psychotropic drug use of the patients before or after the intervention. The exception was significantly greater use of "as required" antipsychotics in the intervention group compared with the control group after the pharmacy intervention (RR = 4.95; 95%CI 1.69-14.50). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the numbers of patients "at risk of stroke" on aspirin at follow-up.
                While the strategy was well received by the physicians involved, there was no change in prescribing patterns. Patient care in residential settings is complex and involves contributions from the patient's physician, family and residential care staff. The project highlights challenges of delivering evidence based care in a setting in which there is a paucity of well controlled trial evidence but where significant health outcomes can be attained. Studies investigating means of recruiting participants to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are sparse. We investigated the effects of telephone reminders as a recruitment strategy.
                Sick-listed employees received a written invitation to participate in a study comparing standard treatments with a solution-focused follow-up and were randomly allocated to an intervention or control group (n=703). Those who did not respond within 2 weeks received either 'no reminder' (n=242) or 'attempted telephone reminder' (n=256). Outcome was enrollment to the RCT.
                An intention to recruit analysis revealed no significant differences between the groups (P=.229). An intention to phone analysis among nonresponders revealed significant differences between 'no reminder' (recruited 4.5%) and 'attempted telephone reminder' (recruited 12.1%) (P=.003, odds ratio 2.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-5.90). An analysis of numbers needed to phone showed that to recruit one more person in this group of nonresponders, we needed to phone 13 persons (95% CI=8-33).
                Systematic use of telephone calls can increase the recruitment rate among nonresponders in RCTs. Out reach facilitation is designed to promote uptake of evidence-based guidelines. There is evidence indicating that outreach facilitation can be effective in improving implementation of preventive care in GPs' offices. In this trial, we test a modified version of an outreach facilitation intervention.
                To evaluate whether a comprehensive preventive intervention program using outreach facilitators improves preventive care delivery.
                Match-paired, cluster-randomized controlled trial.
                Fee-for-service primary care practices in Eastern Ontario, Canada, at a time of physician shortage.
                Volunteer sample of 54 primary care practices.
                Mean difference between trial arms in practices' delivery of preventive manoeuvres, measured by preventive performance indices estimated from chart reviews and patient survey data.
                No difference was detected between the trial's arms for the primary outcome's overall prevention index [2.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.2 to 7.3; P = 0.44]. A small significant difference between the arms was detected for the secondary outcome's overall prevention index (2.8%; 95% CI 0.7-4.8; P = 0.01).
                In contrast to similar facilitation trials, this outreach facilitation program did not produce improvements in the delivery of preventive care. This lack of effect may be due to differences in the intervention and context, or the practice's limited capacity to change. Our intervention simultaneously facilitated a high number of manoeuvres, blinded facilitators and physicians to the targeted tests and had a relatively short intervention period and large number of practices assigned per facilitator. Changes in the primary care service model in Ontario at the time of the trial could have also washed out the intervention effect.
The evidence from this review highlights the diversity and poor methodological quality of most studies investigating outreach. The results of the two included studies showed either no evidence of the effectiveness of outreach or a reduction in overall mortality in patients receiving outreach. The lack of evidence on outreach requires further multi-site RCT's to determine potential effectiveness.