Barriers and facilitators to implementation of a home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme for patients with heart failure in the NHS: a mixed-methods study (original) (raw)
Related papers
Programme Grants for Applied Research, 2021
Background Rates of participation in centre (hospital)-cardiac rehabilitation by patients with heart failure are suboptimal. Heart failure has two main phenotypes differing in underlying pathophysiology: heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is characterised by depressed left ventricular systolic function (‘reduced ejection fraction’), whereas heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is diagnosed after excluding other causes of dyspnoea with normal ejection fraction. This programme aimed to develop and evaluate a facilitated home-based cardiac rehabilitation intervention that could increase the uptake of cardiac rehabilitation while delivering the clinical benefits of centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Objectives To develop an evidence-informed, home-based, self-care cardiac rehabilitation programme for patients with heart failure and their caregivers [the REACH-HF (Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure) intervention]. To conduct a pilot randomised contro...
BMJ Open
ObjectivesThe Heart Manual (HM) is the UK’s leading facilitated home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme for individuals recovering from myocardial infarction and revascularisation. This audit explored patient-reported outcomes of home-based CR in relation to current Scottish, UK and European guidelines.SettingPatients across the UK returned their questionnaire after completing the HM programme to the HM Department (NHS Lothian).ParticipantsQualitative data from 457 questionnaires returned between 2011 and 2018 were included for thematic analysis. Seven themes were identified from the guidelines. This guided initial deductive coding and provided the basis for inductive subthemes to emerge.ResultsThemes included: (1) health behaviour change and modifiable risk reduction, (2) psychosocial support, (3) education, (4) social support, (5) medical risk management, (6) vocational rehabilitation and (7) long-term strategies and maintenance. Both (1) and (2) were reported as having t...
Background: Whilst heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) affects almost 50 percent of the HF population, evidence-based treatment options remain limited. However, there is emerging evidence of the potential value of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. This study reports the process evaluation conducted as part of the REACH-HFpEF trial. Methods: Mixed methods process evaluation parallel to a single centre (Tayside, Scotland) pilot randomised controlled trial with quantitative assessment of intervention fidelity and a qualitative exploration of HFpEF patients’ and caregivers’ experiences. The Rehabilitation EnAblement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention consisted of self-help manual for patients and caregivers, facilitated over 12 weeks by trained healthcare professionals. Data included audio-recorded intervention sessions; demographic information; intervention fidelity scores; and qualitative interviews conducted following completion of intervent...
Heart, Lung and Circulation, 2017
Background The benefits of exercise rehabilitation for people with heart failure (HF) are well established. In Australia, little is known about how the guidelines around exercise rehabilitation for people with HF are being implemented in clinical practice. Furthermore, it is unknown what organisational barriers are faced in providing exercise rehabilitation programs for this population. The aim of this study is to provide an updated review of exercise rehabilitation services for people with HF in Australia and to identify perceived organisational barriers to providing these services. Methods A cross-sectional survey of cardiac rehabilitation centres in Australia, investigating the number and characteristics of services providing exercise rehabilitation for people with HF. Results A total of 334 of 457 identified services responded to the survey. Of these, 251 reported providing a supervised group-based exercise rehabilitation program for people with HF. These services were mapped, showing their distribution across Australia. Services which were unable to provide group-based exercise training for HF patients reported organisational barriers including insufficient funding (60%), staffing (56%) and clinical resources (53%). Of the 78 services that reported patients in their local area were unable to access appropriate exercise guidance, 81% were located in regional or remote areas. We found that reported exercise practices align with current best-practice guidelines with 99% of group based exercise programs reportedly including endurance training and 89% including resistance training. Conclusions In Australia, exercise practices for people with HF align with current best-practice guidelines for this condition. Limited resources, funding and geographic isolation are reported as the major organisational barriers to providing these programs. Future endeavours should include the development of alternative and flexible delivery models such as telerehabilitation and other home-based therapies to improve access for these individuals to such services.
Health Technology Assessment, 2004
Health Technology Assessment is indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica/ EMBASE. NHS R&D HTA Programme T he research findings from the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme directly influence key decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC) who rely on HTA outputs to help raise standards of care. HTA findings also help to improve the quality of the service in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service' that is being developed to improve the evidence of clinical practice throughout the NHS. The HTA Programme was set up in 1993. Its role is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined to include all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care, rather than settings of care. The HTA programme commissions research only on topics where it has identified key gaps in the evidence needed by the NHS. Suggestions for topics are actively sought from people working in the NHS, the public, consumer groups and professional bodies such as Royal Colleges and NHS Trusts. Research suggestions are carefully considered by panels of independent experts (including consumers) whose advice results in a ranked list of recommended research priorities. The HTA Programme then commissions the research team best suited to undertake the work, in the manner most appropriate to find the relevant answers. Some projects may take only months, others need several years to answer the research questions adequately. They may involve synthesising existing evidence or designing a trial to produce new evidence where none currently exists. Additionally, through its Technology Assessment Report (TAR) call-off contract, the HTA Programme is able to commission bespoke reports, principally for NICE, but also for other policy customers, such as a National Clinical Director. TARs bring together evidence on key aspects of the use of specific technologies and usually have to be completed within a limited time period. The research reported in this monograph was commissioned by the HTA Programme as project number 99/21/02. As funder, by devising a commissioning brief, the HTA Programme specified the research question and study design. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the referees for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.
In Liverpool, standard Cardiac Phase-4 Rehabilitation Programme varied from 3 -9 months depending on centre attended. Evidence for setting the duration and patient contact frequency for communitybased cardiac rehabilitation is uncertain. This study was carried out to explore how participants rated the 3 months Cardiac Phase-4 Rehabilitation Programme, whether it was long enough and whether it changed their lifestyle for the better. Questionnaires were administered at the end of the Cardiac Phase-4 Rehabilitation Programme and during 3 and 6 months follow-up in the community. The results indicated that about 90% of responders rated the programme to be excellent or good and that the score remained similar even when participants were followed-up at 3 and 6 months after discharge from the Cardiac Phase-4 Rehabilitation Programme. A similar pattern of response was observed for active lifestyle and duration of the Cardiac Phase-4 Programme. Interestingly, the MacNew Heart disease health-related quality of life scores remained similar even at 3 and 6 months after rehabilitation was completed. The result of this study indicates that a 3-months Cardiac Phase-4 Rehabilitation Programme in Liverpool was sufficiently long and that service users rated the programme very highly.
BMJ Open , 2019
Objective: To identify and explore change processes explaining the effects of the Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention taking account of reach, amount of intervention received, delivery fidelity and patient and caregiver perspectives. Design: Mixed methods process evaluation parallel to a randomised controlled trial using data from the intervention group (REACH-HF plus usual care). Setting: Four centres in the UK (Birmingham, Cornwall, Gwent and York). Participants: People with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and their caregivers. Methods:The REACH-HF intervention consisted of a self-help manual for patients with HFrEF and caregivers facilitated over 12 weeks by trained healthcare professionals. The process evaluation used multimodal mixed methods analysis. Data consisted of audio recorded intervention sessions; demographic data; intervention fidelity scores for intervention group participants (107 patients and 53 caregivers); qualitative interviews at 4 and 12 months with a sample of 19 patients and 17 caregivers. Outcome measures: Quantitative data: intervention fidelity and number, frequency and duration of intervention sessions received. Qualitative data: experiences and perspectives of intervention participants and caregivers. Results: Intervention session attendance with facilitators was high. Fidelity scores were indicative of adequate quality of REACH-HF intervention delivery, although indicating scope for improvement in several areas. Intervention effectiveness was contingent on matching the intervention implementation to the concerns, beliefs and goals of participants. Behaviour change was sustained when shared meaning was established. Respondents’ comorbidities, socio-economic circumstances and existing networks of support also affected changes in health-related quality of life. Conclusions: By combining longitudinal mixed methods data, the essential ingredients of complex interventions can be better identified, interrogated and tested. This can maximise the clinical application of research findings and enhance the capacity of multidisciplinary and multisite teams to implement the intervention.
We aimed to establish the support needs of people with heart failure and their caregivers and develop an intervention to improve their health-related quality of life. Methods: We used intervention mapping to guide the development of our intervention. We identified "targets for change" by synthesising research evidence and international guidelines and consulting with patients, caregivers and health service providers. We then used behaviour change theory, expert opinion and a taxonomy of behaviour change techniques, to identify barriers to and facilitators of change and to match intervention strategies to each target. A patient and public involvement group helped to identify patient and caregiver needs, refine the intervention objectives and strategies and deliver training to the intervention facilitators. A feasibility study (ISRCTN25032672) involving 23 patients, 12 caregivers and seven trained facilitators at four sites assessed the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and quality of delivery and generated ideas to help refine the intervention.
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 2021
Background: Whilst almost 50% of heart failure (HF) patients have preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), evidencebased treatment options for this patient group remain limited. However, there is growing evidence of the potential value of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. This study reports the process evaluation of the Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention for HFpEF patients and their caregivers conducted as part of the REACH-HFpEF pilot trial. Methods: Process evaluation sub-study parallels to a single-centre (Tayside, Scotland) randomised controlled pilot trial with qualitative assessment of both intervention fidelity delivery and HFpEF patients' and caregivers' experiences. The REACH-HF intervention consisted of self-help manual for patients and caregivers, facilitated over 12 weeks by trained healthcare professionals. Interviews were conducted following completion of intervention in a purposeful sample of 15 HFpEF patients and seven caregivers. Results: Qualitative information from the facilitator interactions and interviews identified three key themes for patients and caregivers: (1) understanding their condition, (2) emotional consequences of HF, and (3) responses to the REACH-HF intervention. Fidelity analysis found the interventions to be delivered adequately with scope for improvement in caregiver engagement. The differing professional backgrounds of REACH-HF facilitators in this study demonstrate the possibility of delivery of the intervention by healthcare staff with expertise in HF, cardiac rehabilitation, or both.