Table 2 RE-AIM evaluation of PATH4HIP [24]
Dimensions | Questions addressed | Data sources | Methods | Outcome or process measures |
|---|---|---|---|---|
REACH (who) | To what extend did PATH4HIP reach the intended population? | Patients Research staff | Study logs and unit census | Feasibility and acceptability outcomes Proportion of individuals who participate (proportion of eligible patients approached to participate, proportion of eligible patients who accepted to participate in PATH4HIP) Exclusion (proportion of excluded patients, proportion of patient refusals) Barriers to recruitment Reason for excluded patients, and refusals |
| Â | Â | Workshops for clinicians | Workshop invitation emails | Feasibility and acceptability outcomes Proportion of clinicians approached to participate in the workshops Proportion of clinicians who attended the workshops |
|  |  |  | Survey following the workshops | Feasibility and acceptability outcomes Clinicians’ opinions on the intervention |
EFFECTIVENESS (what) | How effective was the intervention? | Patients | Administrative databases | Preliminary effects Outcomes (quality indicators) (acute care and geriatric rehabilitation length of stays (median), proportion of functional gains in rehabilitation (admission and discharge functional independence measure (FIM) [32]), % discharged back to community, % transfer back to acute care and reason) |
ADOPTION (where) | To what extent was the intervention adopted by target individuals? | Clinicians Research staff | Study logs | Feasibility and acceptability outcomes Proportion of patients that completed PATH4HIP |
IMPLEMENTATION (how) | How consistent was the implementation? What adaptions were made along the way? | Research staff Clinical manager and physician assistant | Research records, informal interviews with clinical manager and physician assistant | Feasibility and acceptability outcomes Proportion of hip fracture geriatric patients referred from acute care to geriatric rehabilitation Proportion of patients who are discharged by post-op day 6 Adherence to PATH4HIP (proportion of patients where intervention was delivered as per the study protocol (all steps completed)) Reasons for any deviations Adaptations made to intervention during study Average cost of intervention—time Average cost of intervention—money |
MAINTENANCE (when) | Are there plans to include the pathway as part of the organizational programs? | Patients | Semi-structured interviews | Feasibility and acceptability outcomes Patient experience with PATH4HIP (opinion of the intervention) Patient information: ease of use, relevance of information, experience |
| Â | Â | Clinicians | Interviews | Feasibility and acceptability outcomes Follow-up with clinicians on content and relevance of PATH4HIP Overall opinion on the intervention Opinion of the value of the intervention (benefit) Perceived burden of the intervention Feasibility to perform the intervention Barriers to performing or implementing the intervention Suggestions for improvement of the intervention |
| Â | Â | Administrators | Meetings | Feasibility and acceptability outcomes Follow-up with leadership on organizational plans for PATH4HIP |