A Qualitative Study of Increased Pediatric Reutilization After a Postdischarge Home Nurse Visit
BACKGROUND: The Hospital to Home Outcomes (H2O) trial was a 2-arm, randomized controlled trial that assessed the effects of a nurse home visit after a pediatric hospital discharge. Children randomized to the intervention had higher 30-day postdischarge reutilization rates compared with those with standard discharge. We sought to understand perspectives on why postdischarge home nurse visits resulted in higher reutilization rates and to elicit suggestions on how to improve future interventions.
METHODS: We sought qualitative input using focus groups and interviews from stakeholder groups: parents, primary care physicians (PCP), hospital medicine physicians, and home care registered nurses (RNs). A multidisciplinary team coded and analyzed transcripts using an inductive, iterative approach.
RESULTS: Thirty-three parents participated in interviews. Three focus groups were completed with PCPs (n = 7), 2 with hospital medicine physicians (n = 12), and 2 with RNs (n = 10). Major themes in the explanation of increased reutilization included: appropriateness of patient reutilization; impact of red flags/warning sign instructions on family’s reutilization decisions; hospital-affiliated RNs “directing traffic” back to hospital; and home visit RNs had a low threshold for escalating care. Major themes for improving design of the intervention included: need for improved postdischarge communication; individualizing home visits—one size does not fit all; and providing context and framing of red flags.
CONCLUSION: Stakeholders questioned whether hospital reutilization was appropriate and whether the intervention unintentionally directed patients back to the hospital. Future interventions could individualize the visit to specific needs or diagnoses, enhance postdischarge communication, and better connect patients and home nurses to primary care.
© 2020 Society of Hospital Medicine
METHODS
We selected an in-depth qualitative approach, using interviews and focus groups to explore underlying explanations for the increase in 30-day unplanned healthcare reutilization among those randomized to receive the postdischarge nurse visit during the H2O trial.4 Input was sought from 4 stakeholder groups—parents, primary care physicians (PCPs), hospital medicine physicians, and home care RNs—in an effort to triangulate data sources and elicit rich and diverse opinions. Approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board prior to conducting the study.
Recruitment
Parents
Because we conducted interviews approximately 1 year after the trial’s conclusion, we purposefully selected families who were enrolled in the latter portion of the H2O trial in order to enhance recall. Beginning with the last families in the study, we sequentially contacted families in reverse order. We contacted 10 families in each of 4 categories (intervention/reutilization, intervention/no reutilization, control/reutilization, control/no reutilization). A total of 3 attempts were made by telephone to contact each family. Participants received a grocery store gift card for participating in the study.
Primary Care Physicians
We conducted focus groups with a purposive sample of physicians recruited from 2 community practices and 1 hospital-owned practice.
Hospital Medicine Physicians
We conducted focus groups with a purposive sample of physicians from our Division of Hospital Medicine. There was a varying level of knowledge of the original trial; however, none of the participants were collaborators in the trial.
Home Care RNs
We conducted focus groups with a subset of RNs who were involved with trial visits. All RNs were members of the pediatric home care division associated with the hospital with specific training in caring for patients at home.
Data Collection
The study team designed question guides for each stakeholder group (Appendix 1). While questions were tailored for specific stakeholders, all guides included the following topics: benefits and challenges of nurse visits, suggestions for improving the intervention in future trials, and reactions to the trial results (once presented to participants). Only the results of the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis were shared with stakeholders because ITT is considered the gold standard for trial analysis and allows easy understanding of the results.
A single investigator (A.L.) conducted parental interviews by telephone. Focus groups for PCPs, hospital medicine physicians, and RN groups were held at practice locations in private conference rooms and were conducted by trained moderators (S.N.S., A.L., and H.T.C.). Moderators probed responses to the open-ended questions to delve deeply into issues. The question guides were modified in an iterative fashion to include new concepts raised during interviews or focus groups. All interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim with all identifiable information redacted.
Data Analysis
During multiple cycles of inductive thematic analysis,6 we examined, discussed, interpreted, and organized responses to the open-ended questions,6,7 analyzing each stakeholder group separately. First, transcripts were shared with and reviewed by the entire multidisciplinary team (12 members) which included hospital medicine physicians, PCPs, home care nursing leaders, a nurse scientist, a parent representative, research coordinators, and a qualitative research methodologist. Second, team members convened to discuss overall concepts and ideas and created the preliminary coding frameworks. Third, a smaller subgroup (research coordinator [A.L]., hospital medicine physician [S.R.], parent representative [M.M.], and qualitative research methodologist [S.N.S.]), refined the unique coding framework for each stakeholder group and then independently applied codes to participant comments. This subgroup met regularly to reach consensus about the assigned codes and to further refine the codebooks. The codes were organized into major and minor themes based on recurring patterns in the data and the salience or emphasis given by participants. The subgroup’s work was reviewed and discussed on an ongoing basis by the entire multidisciplinary team. Triangulation of the data was achieved in multiple ways. The preliminary results were shared in several forums, and feedback was solicited and incorporated. Two of 4 members of the subgroup analytic team were not part of the trial planning or data collection, providing a potentially broader perspective. All coding decisions were maintained in an electronic database, and an audit trail was created to document codebook revisions.
