Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Lippincott Open Access logoLink to Lippincott Open Access
. 2021 Jul 8;59(8 Suppl 4):S364–S369. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001588

Short-term Focused Feedback

A Model to Enhance Patient Engagement in Research and Intervention Delivery

Hadley Sauers-Ford *,✉, Angela M Statile *,†,‡, Katherine A Auger *,†,‡, Susan Wade-Murphy §,∥, Jennifer M Gold ∥, Jeffrey M Simmons *,†,‡, Samir S Shah *,†,‡
PMCID: PMC8263145  NIHMSID: NIHMS1703482  PMID: 34228018

Background:

Our grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) focused on the use of nurse home visits postdischarge for primarily pediatric hospital medicine patients. While our team recognized the importance of engaging parents and other stakeholders in our study, our project was one of the first funded to address transitions of care issues in patients without chronic illness; little evidence existed about how to engage acute stakeholders longitudinally.

Objective:

This manuscript describes how we used both a short-term focused feedback model and longitudinal engagement methods to solicit input from parents, home care nurses, and other stakeholders throughout our 3-year study.

Results:

Short-term focused feedback allowed the study team to collect feedback from hundreds of stakeholders. Initially, we conducted focus groups with parents with children recently discharged from the hospital. We used this feedback to modify our nurse home visit intervention, then used quality improvement methods with continued short-term focus feedback from families and nurses delivering the visits to adjust the visit processes and content. We also used their feedback to modify the outcome collection. Finally, during the randomized controlled trial, we added a parent to the study team to provide longitudinal input, as well as continued to solicit short-term focused feedback to increase recruitment and retention rates.

Conclusion:

Research studies can benefit from soliciting short-term focused feedback from many stakeholders; having this variety of perspectives allows for many voices to be heard, without placing an undue burden on a few stakeholders.

Key Words: stakeholder engagement, transitions, short-term focused feedback

The use of nurse home visits to reduce health care reutilization and improve patient outcomes has shown mixed results in both adult and pediatric populations. Two systematic reviews of the adult literature examined the use of nurse home visits1,2; heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes, poor study quality, and the paucity of randomized trials prevented firm conclusions about either the effectiveness or efficacy of the nurse home visit. However, some high-quality studies demonstrated benefits. Coleman et al3 developed the Care Transitions Program for adults that focused on postdischarge care. In this program, a nurse home visit was used to reconcile medications, review discharge summaries, and assess a patient’s condition with additional information regarding warning symptoms. Compared with control subjects, patients who received the Care Transitions Program intervention were 50% less likely to have a readmission within 30 days following discharge. These patients also had greater confidence in managing their condition and a better understanding of signs of a worsening condition.3 Another study of adults used advanced practice nurses to address medication regimens, clinical management, follow-up, and emotional status; readmissions were significantly lower in the intervention group (20.3%) compared with the control group (37.1%).4 Historically, in pediatrics, home nursing visits have aided care transitions for medically complex patients requiring respiratory care (eg, tracheostomy management), enteral or “tube” feedings, or infusion therapy. The nurse home visit paradigm has also been applied to adults and high-risk infants.5

Due to the success of nurse-led transitions of care interventions in the adult population, our Hospital to Home Outcomes (H2O) Study6 test a nurse home visit intervention in a population primarily of patients hospitalized on the pediatric hospital medicine service. Most patients were admitted for conditions that typically have one admission with a relatively quick recovery and go on to lead healthy lives; however, postdischarge challenges do exist in pediatric populations, including readmission.7,8 The intervention sought to optimize the transition to home after a stressful admission to the hospital, by reducing readmissions and improving patient-centered and family-centered outcomes.9 Our central hypothesis was that individually tailored nurse home visits targeting family-identified barriers to successful transition would provide a new approach to achieve better and more family-centered outcomes. The overarching goal of our Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)-funded project was to improve the outcomes of the hospital to home transitions for acutely ill hospitalized children and their families.

A review of 126 articles that reference PCORI research found that patients and other stakeholders contributed to research design and intervention modification. Our project was one of the first funded by PCORI to address transitions of care issues in patients without chronic illness. Some examples from quality improvement literature describe engaging a multidisciplinary team of stakeholders,10,11 occasionally including parents,12 but these projects are often short term. However, lessons from these and other quality improvement projects informed our primary engagement strategy: short-term, focused feedback. This model of engagement included soliciting input from many parents, home care nurses, and other key stakeholders through interviews or focus groups, allowing us to incorporate multiple perspectives into our study, as opposed to a few longitudinal stakeholders.13 This manuscript describes how we engaged parents, home care nurses, and other key stakeholders throughout our 3-year project.

METHODS

At the time of the study, our hospital was a >600-bed, urban, academic free-standing children’s hospital and the predominant pediatric inpatient facility with an 8-county service area in the Midwest. Across the 5 inpatient service lines included in the H2O study (Hospital Medicine, Neurology/Neurosurgery, Adolescent Medicine, and Community Pediatrics), there were ∼10,000 annual admissions. The study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board.6

Our study was designed to incorporate perspectives from parents and other stakeholders throughout the duration of the study through short-term focused engagement. Feedback from our pilot focus group indicated that we may encounter challenges with engaging families longitudinally; once their child’s acute illness resolved, many families sought to move past the hospitalization and return to their normal routine.

Literature review allowed us to identify some barriers to successful transitions that we placed in preliminary categories to inform study design and interventions (Fig. 1), including inpatient processes, health system factors, discharge processes, and patient/family factors. Our study used short-term, focused feedback strategies to accomplish 3 primary goals: (1) further understand barriers to successful transitions from families; (2) optimize the nurse home visit intervention and study processes; and (3) ensure high enrollment rates and low refusal rates (Fig. 2). To further understand barriers to successful transitions from families, we conducted focus groups and individual interviews with families who had recently transitioned from hospital-to-home (Fig. 2). Transcripts were analyzed using an in-depth thematic approach.14 The focus groups and individual interviews were designed to solicit feedback that our study team could use to modify the existing nurse home visit program to ensure that it was addressing stakeholder-identified barriers, as well as modify the proposed outcome measures for our randomized control trial to be more patient-centered and family-centered.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Cause and effect (Ishikawa) fishbone diagram. Causal factors associated with poor outcomes that we hypothesize the study intervention will improve are in bold.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Engagement timeline.

To optimize both the intervention and our study processes, we sought short-term, focused feedback to optimize both the intervention and our study processes. We used quality improvement methods, including multidisciplinary team engagement, key driver identification to inform Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, run chart reviews with qualitative stakeholder feedback (Fig. 2), and interpreting the run charts for a special cause. To refine the nurse home visit intervention, families were recruited to receive a nurse home visit and were then contacted by phone by our clinical research coordinator team after the visit to provide feedback on the content of the visit.15 We also solicited short-term focused feedback from hospital medicine physicians and nurses, as well as home care nurses, to optimize the visit process before the randomized controlled trial during team meetings. Once we had sufficiently revised the intervention, we sought short-term focused feedback from families on the proposed survey content and process via phone by our clinical research coordinator team, as the survey collected important patient-centered and family-centered outcomes during the randomized control trial.

Finally, to ensure high enrollment rates (goal: ≥50%) and low refusal rates (goal: ≤30%), we sought short-term, focused feedback from parents who chose not to participate in the study, as well as the study coordinators enrolling families, to determine if we could modify our recruitment practices. This feedback was obtained verbally by our clinical research coordinator team immediately after the family declined and was stored in an Excel spreadsheet.

RESULTS

The short-term focused feedback model allowed us to solicit input from hundreds of families, quickly implement their input, and drive iterative changes in study processes without placing an undue burden on an individual family. During the focus groups and individual interviews, we were able to successfully further understand barriers to successful transitions from families. Families discussed aspects of the hospital-to-home transition process that were challenging, including the feeling of being “in a fog,” and concerns about being ready to go home and knowing what to do once they got home.14 Caregivers engaged in these focus groups and interviews were primarily female (87%) and non-Hispanic (97%), with a mix of races (54% White and 41% African American) and socioeconomic statuses (56% low and 44% high).14 One of the key areas that families highlighted was the lack of clarity of discharge instructions; families often received multiple pages of instructions without clarity around what, if anything, was important to look out for once they were home (red flags).14 Families also discussed the logistical, emotional, and financial tolls that hospitalization and subsequent transition home took on them, including the impact missing work and transportation costs had on their family.16

We were able to optimize the nurse home visit intervention and study processes by utilizing short-term, focused feedback. Once we began modifying the intervention and our study processes, we incorporated the feedback we had received during the focus groups and individual interviews. When modifying the visit, we included the concept of condition-specific “red flags,” or worrisome signs families should monitor for after discharge, into the intervention. One of the key learnings from this process was that families were having trouble retaining “red flag” information when it was only provided verbally. To ensure families retained this valuable information, the study team created red flag cards that could be physically handed to the family (Fig. 3). In addition, families reported interest in receiving this information via text so they could easily be shared with other caregivers, which we implemented in the randomized controlled trial.15

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Asthma red flags card.

Hospital medicine physicians and nurses and home care nurses provided valuable feedback during our multidisciplinary study team meetings, in addition to ad hoc qualitative feedback. On the basis of their feedback, using quality improvement methods, we were improved the visit referral process and increased the median percent of eligible patients referred for a home visit increased from 15.4% to 34%.17 In addition, based on feedback from the home care nurses conducting the visits, we created condition-specific templates to guide the nurses during the visit.15 We tested the templates across a total of 179 visits and made frequent alterations based on caregiver and nurse feedback.15

We completed over 70 calls with families to obtain their feedback on the questions themselves, the length of the survey, and the order of the questions. The feedback from the family focus group and individual interview participants solidified our planned parent-reported outcomes, which included emotional questions as well as financial questions, such as missed work and out-of-pocket costs; these test calls confirmed the importance of these outcomes.17 However, we originally planned to complete the survey call at 30 days, but based on feedback from stakeholders suggested that parent recall diminished after 14 days, so we changed the call during the trial to 14 days postdischarge.17

Finally, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of the nurse home visits.18 Patients enrolled in the trial were predominately white (61%), 56% had public insurance, and 52% were male.18 By utilizing the short-term, focused feedback engagement strategies, we were able to ensure high enrollment rates and low refusal rates. We increased our median enrollment rate from 50% to 59%, surpassing our 50% goal, and decreased the refusal rate from 37% to 32%, missing our 30% goal, while enrolling 1500 participants.17 When soliciting feedback from families who refused to participate, they identified not wanting a home visit as an early refusal reason; the study team tested and adopted a different consent approach, highlighting the potential benefits of the intervention earlier in the consent process to target this refusal reason.

DISCUSSION

Leveraging short-term focused feedback allowed our team to maximize caregiver engagement to inform optimal interventions and study processes. Because we obtained short-term focused feedback from parents before our study, we suspected that our patient population was not conducive to engaging multiple long-term engaged stakeholders, unlike other PCORI studies that study chronic conditions; this proved to be true in our study. Obtaining short-term focused feedback from multiple stakeholders allowed us to incorporate wide perspectives from families of many different backgrounds, health literacy levels, and spanning a variety of conditions. While both of these feedback methods were essential for our study population, we believe that these methods would be beneficial for studies of populations similar to ours, as well as populations of patients with chronic conditions.

In addition to our feedback models, incorporating both qualitative methods to solicit stakeholder input on how to modify our intervention and outcome measures through focus groups and individual interviews, and quality improvement methods to optimize an intervention before a randomized controlled trial, helped ensure our study would be successful. By incorporating these methods, both the intervention and the study processes were tested with the study population and modified based on their suggestions. Subsequent to the completion of our study, this approach has been more broadly defined as the “person-based approach.” The person-based approach has 2 key processes: the first focuses on developing the intervention with qualitative feedback from the prospective users, and the second focuses on identifying guiding principles that include intervention design objectives and important aspects of the intervention that can achieve these aims.19 This approach has more recently been used to design interventions for patients with asthma and diabetes,20 digital health,19 and interfacility transfer tools.21

By using these methods, studies can also identify interventions that will not be approved by the users, and therefore would have no benefit in being studied through a randomized controlled trial. A study team at UC Davis Health conducted a qualitative study with health care stakeholders to identify areas to improve the telehealth process for pediatric emergency department patients seen in rural emergency departments.22 They then used quality improvement methods to modify the telehealth intervention based on the feedback received.23 While they were able to increase the use of telehealth, feedback from the study team and other stakeholders indicated that a high use rate of telehealth was not supported by the stakeholders.23

Since our study concluded, there have been a number of technological advances that future studies can use to better meet the needs of participants and gather stakeholder feedback. The use of text messaging as a primary mode of communication has become more widespread, and most online databases now have a survey function that allows for e-mail or text message delivery. This technology is also present in many electronic medical records, allowing for secure communication with patients and families. In addition, the ubiquity of video conferencing technology allows for stakeholders to fully participate in study team meetings from their home or office; if this technology had been more accessible during our study, we believe that we could have engaged more stakeholders longitudinally. Finally, we believe that more studies would benefit from using these approaches, though finding funding for qualitative and quality improvement work can be challenging.

Patient and stakeholder engagement is essential in the design and implementation of research studies. By leveraging short-term focused feedback from many stakeholders, we were able to optimize our study intervention and study processes, resulting in 2 successful randomized controlled trials.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The H2O Study Team members include the following: JoAnne Bachus, BSN, RN, Department of Patient Services, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH; Monica Borell, BSN, RN, Department of Patient Services, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Lenisa V. Chang, MA, PhD, Department of Economics, Linder College of Business, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH; Patricia Crawford, RN, Department of Patient Services, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Sarah Ferris, BA, Division of Hospital Medicine, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Jennifer Gold, BSN, RN, Department of Patient Services, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Judy A. Heilman, BSN, RN, Department of Patient Services, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Jane C. Khoury, PhD, Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati; Pierce Kuhnell, MS, Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Karen Lawley, BSN, RN, Department of Patient Services, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Margo Moore, MS, BSN, RN, Department of Patient Services, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Lynne O’Donnell, BSN, RN, Department of Patient Services, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Sarah Riddle, MD, IBCLC, Division of Hospital Medicine, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati; Susan N. Sherman, DPA, SNS Research, Cincinnati, OH; Heidi Sucharew, PhD, Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati; Angela M. Statile, MD, MEd, Division of Hospital Medicine, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati; Karen P. Sullivan, BSN, RN, Department of Patient Services, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Heather Tubbs-Cooley, PhD, RN, Department of Patient Services, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, College of Nursing, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; Susan Wade-Murphy, MSN, RN, Department of Patient Services, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; and Christine M. White, MD, MAT, Division of Hospital Medicine, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati.

Data were presented as: “A qualitative investigation of increased pediatric reutilization after a post-discharge home nurse visit.” Sarah W. Riddle, MD, IBCLC, Susan Sherman, DPA, Margo Moore, RN, Alison Loechtenfeldt, BS, Andrew Beck, MD, MPH, Angela Statile, MD, MEd, Susan Wade-Murphy, MSN, RN, Jennifer Gold, BSN, RN, Heather Tubbs-Cooley, PhD, RN, FAAN, Samir S. Shah, MD, MSCE, Jeffrey Simmons, MD, MSc, Katherine Auger, MD, MSc. Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting, Baltimore, MD, April 2019 (poster presentation). “Hospital to Home Outcomes (H2O) Trial II: effects of a one-time nurse-led phone call after pediatric discharge.” Auger K, Shah S, Tubbs Cooley H, Sucharew H, Gold J, Wade-Murphy S, Statile A, Bell K, Khoury J, Mangeot C, Simmons J. Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting, Toronto, ON, Canada, May 2018. “Effect of parental adverse childhood experiences and resilience on unanticipated reutilization after pediatric hospital discharge.” Shah A, Auger K, Sucharew H, Pfefferman C, Litman S, Childress K, Simmons J, Shah S, Beck A. Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting, Toronto, ON, Canada, May 2018 (platform). “Hospital to home outcomes: a randomized trial of post-discharge home visits.” Auger KA, Simmons JM, Sucharew HJ, Tubbs Cooley H, Gold J, Sauers-Ford H, Khoury J, Shah SS (on behalf of the Hospital to Home Outcomes Study group). Presented at Pediatric Hospital Medicine Meeting, Nashville, TN, July 20–23, 2017 (platform presentation). “Non-healthcare related expenses incurred due to pediatric hospitalization.” Hoefgen E, Shah A, Chang L, Sauers-Ford H, Shah S, Simmons J, Beck A. Presented at Pediatric Hospital Medicine Meeting, Nashville, TN, July 20–23, 2017 (platform presentation). “Hospital to Home Outcomes (H2O Study).” Auger KA, Simmons JM, Sucharew HJ, Tubbs-Cooley H, Gold J, Sauers-Ford H, Khoury J, Kuhnell P, Mangeout C, Shah SS (on behalf of the H2O Study Group) Presented at Academy Health Annual Research Meeting, New Orleans, LA, June 25–27, 2017 (poster presentation). “A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a nurse home visit on caregiver outcomes after routine pediatric discharge.” Tubbs-Cooley HL, Simmons JM, Sucharew HS, Auger KA, Wade-Murphy S, Pickler RH, Gold Statile AS, Shah SS (on behalf of the H2O Study Group). Presented at Academy Health Annual Research Meeting, New Orleans, LA, June 25–27, 2017. “Hospital to home outcomes study: a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a single nurse home visit after routine pediatric discharge.” KA Auger, JM Simmons, HJ Sucharew, H Tubbs Cooley, J Gold, H Sauers-Ford, J Khoury, P Kuhnell, C Mangeot, SS Shah (on behalf of the H2O Study Group) Presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting, San Francisco, CA, May 6–9, 2017 (platform presentation). “The economic impact of lost wages and non-healthcare related expenses on families of hospitalized children.” Shah AN, Hoefgen EF, Chang LV, Sauers-Ford HS, Shah SS, Simmons JM, Beck AF (on behalf of the H2O Study Group) Presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting, San Francisco, CA, May 6–9, 2017 (platform presentation). “Effect of parental adverse childhood experiences and resilience on parental coping after pediatric discharge.” Shah AN, Beck AF, Sucharew HJ, Simmons JM, Litman-Padnos S, Pfefferman C, Haney J, Shah SS, Auger KA (on behalf of the H2O Study Group) Presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting, San Francisco, CA, May 6–9, 2017 (poster presentation). “Improving pediatric care transitions.” National Pediatric Nurse Scientist Collaborative Annual Meeting (Research Panel), Wilmington, DE, April 2017. “Family perspectives on communication during hospitalization.” Solan LG, Beck AF, Brunswick S, Sauers-Ford HS, Simmons JM, Shah SS, and Sherman SN (on behalf of the H2O Study Group). Presented at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine Meeting, Chicago, IL, July 29, 2016 (poster presentation). “Applying quality improvement methods to optimize recruitment and retention during a randomized control trial.” Sauers-Ford H, Gold J, Auger K, Statile A, White C, Bell K, Pfefferman C, Maag L, Shah S, Simmons J (on behalf of the H2O Study Group). Presented at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine Conference, Chicago, IL, July 29, 2016 (poster presentation). “Indirect costs of hospitalizations for acute pediatric care.” Chang, LV, Beck AF, Sauers-Ford HS, Shah A, Simmons JM, Shah SS (on behalf of the H2O Study Group). Presented at the American Society of Health Economists Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, June 14, 2016 (poster presentation). “The Hospital to Home Outcomes Study (H2O)—where we’ve been and where we’re going.” Shah SS, Wade-Murphy S, Solan LG, Beck AF, Simmons JM (on behalf of the H2O Study Group). Pediatric Grand Rounds, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, June 14, 2016. “Family perspectives on communication during hospitalization.” Solan LG, Beck AF, Brunswick S, Sauers-Ford HS, Simmons JM, Shah SS, and Sherman SN (on behalf of the H2O Study Group). Presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting, Baltimore, MD, April 2016 (poster presentation). “Applying quality improvement methods to optimize recruitment and retention during a randomized control trial.” Sauers-Ford H, Gold J, Auger K, Statile A, White C, Bell K, Pfefferman C, Shah S, Simmons J (on behalf of the H2O Study Group). Presented at the Clinical Research Professionals State of the Union, Cincinnati, OH, March 22, 2016 (poster presentation). “Parental ACEs and resilience on a pediatric inpatient unit.” Shah A, Simmons J, Sucharew H, Beck A, Auger K. Presented at the Thomas F. Boat Lectures. Cincinnati, OH, March 2016 (poster presentation). “Applying quality improvement methods to optimize recruitment and retention during a randomized control trial.” Sauers-Ford H, Gold J, Auger K, Statile A, White C, Bell K, Pfefferman C, Shah S, Simmons J (on behalf of the H2O Study Team). Presented the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Scientific Symposium, Orlando, FL, December 7, 2015 (poster presentation). “Structuring and Standardizing a nurse-led transitional home visit using qualitative input from key stakeholders.” Sauers HS, Statile AM, Gold J, Wade-Murphy S, Beck AF, Solan LG, Shah SS, Tubbs-Cooley H, Pickler R, White CM, Simmons JM (on behalf of the H2O Study Team). Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pediatric Hospital Medicine, San Antonio, TX, July 23–26, 2015 (poster presentation). “Socioeconomic status influences the financial and emotional toll experienced by families during hospitalization.” AF Beck, LG Solan, S Brunswick, HS Sauers, JM Simmons, SS Shah, SN Sherman (on behalf of H2O Study Team). Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pediatric Hospital Medicine, San Antonio, TX, July 23–26, 2015 (poster presentation). “Improving referrals to a nurse-led transitional home visit program.” Statile AM, Sauers H, Gold J, Wade-Murphy S, Brunswick S, Bachus J, Sullivan K, Pickler R, Shah SS, Simmons J, White CM (on behalf of H2O Study Team). Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pediatric Hospital Medicine, San Antonio, TX, July 23–26, 2015 (poster presentation). “The family perspective on hospital to home transitions.” Solan, L, Beck, A, Brunswick, S, Sauers, H, Simmons, J, Shah, S, Sherman, S (on behalf of H2O Study Team). Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pediatric Hospital Medicine, San Antonio, TX, July 23–26, 2015 (poster presentation). “Engaging parents in sequential phases of pediatric patient-centered outcomes research: experiences from the Hospital to Home (H2O) Study.” Tubbs-Cooley H, Sauers H, Gold J, Pickler R, Wade-Murphy S, White C, Brunswick S, Statile A, Shah S (on behalf of the H2O Study Team). Presented at Academy Health Annual Research Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, June 14–16, 2015 (platform presentation). “Structuring and standardizing a nurse-led transitional home visit using qualitative input from key stakeholders.” Tubbs-Cooley H, Sauers HS, Gold J, Wade-Murphy S, Pickler R, Statile AM, White CM, Solan LG, Beck AF, Shah SS, Simmons JM (on behalf of the H2O Study Team). Presented at Academy Health Annual Research Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, June 14–16, 2015 (poster presentation). “Development and implementation of a nurse-led pediatric transitional home visit.” Wade-Murphy S, Gold J, Tubbs-Cooley H, Pickler H, Hoying C, Simmons J, Shah S. Sixth Annual National Nursing Research Symposium, Palo Alto, CA, May 4, 2015 (poster presentation). “The family perspective on hospital to home transitions.” Solan L, Beck A, Brunswick S, Sauers H, Simmons J, Shah S, Sherman S (on behalf of H2O Study Team). Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, San Diego, CA, April 25–28, 2015 (platform presentation).

Footnotes

Supported through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Award (IHS-1306-0081 to S.S.S.). All statements in this report, including findings and conclusions, are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, its Board of Governors, or the Methodology Committee.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Contributor Information

Hadley Sauers-Ford, Email: hsauersford@ucdavis.edu.

Angela M. Statile, Email: angela.statile@cchmc.org.

Katherine A. Auger, Email: Katherine.Auger@cchmc.org.

Susan Wade-Murphy, Email: Susan.Wade-Murphy@cchmc.org.

Jennifer M. Gold, Email: Jennifer.Gold@cchmc.org.

Jeffrey M. Simmons, Email: jeffrey.simmons@cchmc.org.

Samir S. Shah, Email: samir.shah@cchmc.org.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Hesselink G, Schoonhoven L, Barach P, et al. Improving patient handovers from hospital to primary care: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:417–428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Hansen LO, Young RS, Hinami K, et al. Interventions to reduce 30-day rehospitalization: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:520–528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Coleman EA, Smith JD, Frank JC, et al. Preparing patients and caregivers to participate in care delivered across settings: the Care Transitions Intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52:1817–1825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Naylor MD, Brooten D, Campbell R, et al. Comprehensive discharge planning and home follow-up of hospitalized elders: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 1999;281:613–620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Cibulskis CC, Giardino AP, Moyer VA. Care transitions from inpatient to outpatient settings: ongoing challenges and emerging best practices. Hosp Pract (1995). 2011;39:128–139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Tubbs-Cooley HL, Pickler RH, Simmons JM, et al. Testing a post-discharge nurse-led transitional home visit in acute care pediatrics: the Hospital-To-Home Outcomes (H2O) study protocol. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72:915–925. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Gay JC, Agrawal R, Auger KA, et al. Rates and impact of potentially preventable readmissions at children’s hospitals. J Pediatr. 2015;166:613–619.e5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Auger KA, Mueller EL, Weinberg SH, et al. A validated method for identifying unplanned pediatric readmission. J Pediatr. 2016;170:105.e1–112.e2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Heath J, Dancel R, Stephens JR. Postdischarge phone calls after pediatric hospitalization: an observational study. Hosp Pediatr. 2015;5:241–248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Lob SH, Boer JH, Porter PG, et al. Promoting best-care practices in childhood asthma: quality improvement in community health centers. Pediatrics. 2011;128:20–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Russ SA, Hanna D, DesGeorges J, et al. Improving follow-up to newborn hearing screening: a learning-collaborative experience. Pediatrics. 2010;126(suppl 1):S59–S69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Ernst MM, Wooldridge JL, Conway E, et al. Using quality improvement science to implement a multidisciplinary behavioral intervention targeting pediatric inpatient airway clearance. J Pediatr Psychol. 2010;35:14–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Sauers-Ford HS, Simmons JM, Shah SS. Strategies to engage stakeholders in research to improve acute care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2016;11:123–125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Solan LG, Beck AF, Brunswick SA, et al. The family perspective on hospital to home transitions: a qualitative study. Pediatrics. 2015;136:e1539–e1549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Pickler R, Wade-Murphy S, Gold J, et al. A nurse transitional home visit following pediatric hospitalizations. J Nurs Adm. 2016;46:642–647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Beck AF, Solan LG, Brunswick SA, et al. Socioeconomic status influences the toll paediatric hospitalisations take on families: a qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26:304–311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Sauers-Ford HS, Tubbs-Cooley H, Statile AM, et al. Optimizing a nurse-led transitional home visit program in preparation for a randomized control trial. Pediatr Qual Saf. 2017;2:e012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Auger KA, Simmons JM, Tubbs-Cooley HL, et al. Postdischarge nurse home visits and reuse: The Hospital to Home Outcomes (H2O) Trial. Pediatrics. 2018;142:e20173919. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Yardley L, Morrison L, Bradbury K, et al. The person-based approach to intervention development: application to digital health-related behavior change interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17:e30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Yardley L, Ainsworth B, Arden-Close E, et al. The person-based approach to enhancing the acceptability and feasibility of interventions. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2015;1:37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Rosenthal JL Sauers-Ford HS Hamline MYset al. Developing an interfacility transfer handoff intervention: applying the person-based approach method. Hosp Pediatr. 2020;10:577–584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Sauers-Ford HS, Hamline MY, Gosdin MM, et al. Acceptability, usability, and effectiveness: a qualitative study evaluating a pediatric telemedicine program. Acad Emerg Med. 2019;26:1022–1033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Rosenthal JL, Sauers-Ford HS, Snyder M, et al. Testing pediatric emergency telemedicine implementation strategies using quality improvement methods. Telemed J E Health. 2021;27:459–463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medical Care are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES