Search

Background: While there is a growing interest in the field of research translation, there are few published examples of public health interventions that have been effectively scaled up and implemented in the community. This paper provides a case study of the community-wide implementation of the Melbourne Infant, Feeding, Activity and Nutrition Trial (InFANT), an obesity prevention program for parents with infants aged 3-18 months. The study explored key factors influencing the translation of the Program into routine practice and the respective role of policy makers, researchers and implementers.Methods: Case studies were conducted of five of the eight prevention areas in Victoria, Australia who implemented the Program. Cases were selected on the basis of having implemented the Program for 6 months or more. Data were collected from January to June 2015 and included 18 individual interviews, one focus group and observation of two meetings. A total of 28 individuals, including research staff (n = 4), policy makers (n = 2) and implementers (n = 22), contributed to the data collected. Thematic analysis was conducted using cross case comparisons and key themes were verified through member checking.Results: Key facilitators of implementation included availability of a pre-packaged evidence based program addressing a community need, along with support and training provided by research staff to local implementers. Partnerships between researchers and policy makers facilitated initial program adoption, while local partnerships supported community implementation. Community partnerships were facilitated by local coordinators through alignment of program goals with existing policies and services. Workforce capacity for program delivery and administration was a challenge, largely overcome by embedding the Program into existing roles. Adapting the Program to fit local circumstance was critical for feasible and sustainable delivery, however balancing this with program fidelity was a critical issue. The lack of ongoing funding to support translation activities was a barrier for researchers continued involvement in community implementation.Conclusion: Policy makers, researchers and practitioners have important and complementary roles to play in supporting the translation of effective research interventions into practice. New avenues need to be explored to strengthen partnerships between researchers and end users to support the integration of effective public health research interventions into practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Waiting lists for treatment are common in outpatient and community services, Existing methods for managing access and triage to these services can lead to inequities in service delivery, inefficiencies and divert resources from frontline care. Evidence from two controlled studies indicates that an alternative to the traditional "waitlist and triage" model known as STAT (Specific Timely Appointments for Triage) may be successful in reducing waiting times without adversely affecting other aspects of patient care. This trial aims to test whether the model is cost effective in reducing waiting time across multiple services, and to measure the impact on service provision, health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction.Methods/design: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial has been designed to evaluate the impact of the STAT model in 8 community health and outpatient services. The primary outcome will be waiting time from referral to first appointment. Secondary outcomes will be nature and quantity of service received (collected from all patients attending the service during the study period and health-related quality of life (AQOL-8D), patient satisfaction, health care utilisation and cost data (collected from a subgroup of patients at initial assessment and after 12 weeks). Data will be analysed with a multiple multi-level random-effects regression model that allows for cluster effects. An economic evaluation will be undertaken alongside the clinical trial.Discussion: This paper outlines the study protocol for a fully powered prospective stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SWCRCT) to establish whether the STAT model of access and triage can reduce waiting times applied across multiple settings, without increasing health service costs or adversely impacting on other aspects of patient care. If successful, it will provide evidence for the effectiveness of a practical model of access that can substantially reduce waiting time for outpatient and community services with subsequent benefits for both efficiency of health systems and patient care.Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615001016527 . Approved 15/9/2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older people living in Residential Aged Care Facilities (RACF) are a vulnerable, frail and complex population. They are more likely than people who reside in the community to become acutely unwell, present to the Emergency Department (ED) and require admission to hospital. For many, hospitalisation carries with it risks. Importantly, evidence suggests that some admissions are avoidable. A new collaborative model of care, the Aged Care Emergency Service (ACE), was developed to provide clinical support to nurses in the RACFs, allowing residents to be managed in place and avoid transfer to the ED. This paper examines the effects of the ACE service on RACF residents' transfer to hospital using a controlled pre-post design.Methods: Four intervention RACFs were matched with eight control RACFs based on number of total beds, dementia specific beds, and ratio of high to low care beds in Newcastle, Australia, between March and November 2011. The intervention consisted of a clinical care manual to support care along with a nurse led telephone triage line, education, establishing goals of care prior to ED transfer, case management when in the ED, along with the development of collaborative relationships between stakeholders. Outcomes included ED presentations, length of stay, hospital admission and 28-day readmission pre- and post-intervention. Generalised estimating equations were used to estimate mean differences in outcomes between intervention and controls RACFs, pre- and post-intervention means, and their interaction, accounting for repeated measures and adjusting for matching factors.Results: Residents had a mean age of 86 years. ED presentations ranged between 16 and 211 visits/100 RACF beds/year across all RACFs. There was no overall reduction in ED presentations (OR = 1.17, p = 0.56) with the ACE intervention. However, when compared to the controls, the intervention group reduced their ED length of stay by 45 min (p = 0.0575), and was 40 % less likely to be admitted to hospital, . The latter was highly significant (p = 0.0012).Conclusions: Transfers to ED and admission to hospital are common for residents of RACFs. This study has demonstrated that a complex multi-strategy intervention led by nursing staff can successfully reduce hospital admissions for older people living in Residential Aged Care Facilities. By defining goals of care prior to transfer to the ED, clinicians have the opportunity to better deliver care that patients require. Integrated care requires accountability from multiple stakeholders.Trial Registration: The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registration number is ACTRN12616000588493 It was registered on 6(th) May 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health care organizations need to be responsive to the needs of increasingly diverse patient populations. We compared the contents of six publicly available approaches to organizational responsiveness to diversity. The central questions addressed in this paper are: what are the most consistently recommended issues for health care organizations to address in order to be responsive to the needs of diverse groups that differ from the majority population? How much consensus is there between various approaches?Methods: We purposively sampled six approaches from the US, Australia and Europe and used qualitative textual analysis to categorize the content of each approach into domains (conceptually distinct topic areas) and, within each domain, into dimensions (operationalizations). The resulting classification framework was used for comparative analysis of the content of the six approaches.Results: We identified seven domains that were represented in most or all approaches: organizational commitment, empirical evidence on inequalities and needs, a competent and diverse workforce, ensuring access for all users, ensuring responsiveness in care provision, fostering patient and community participation, and actively promoting responsiveness. Variations in the operationalization of these domains related to different scopes, contexts and types of diversity. For example, approaches that focus on ethnic diversity mostly provide recommendations to handle cultural and language differences; approaches that take an intersectional approach and broaden their target population to vulnerable groups in a more general sense also pay attention to factors such as socio-economic status and gender.Conclusions: Despite differences in labeling, there is a broad consensus about what health care organizations need to do in order to be responsive to patient diversity. This opens the way to full scale implementation of organizational responsiveness in healthcare and structured evaluation of its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This is the eighth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE Program was a systematic, integrated, evidence-based program for disinvestment within a large Australian health service. One of the aims was to explore methods to deliver existing high quality synthesised evidence directly to decision-makers to drive decision-making proactively. An Evidence Dissemination Service (EDS) was proposed. While this was conceived as a method to identify disinvestment opportunities, it became clear that it could also be a way to review all practices for consistency with current evidence. This paper reports the development, implementation and evaluation of two models of an in-house EDS.Methods: Frameworks for development of complex interventions, implementation of evidence-based change, and evaluation and explication of processes and outcomes were adapted and/or applied. Mixed methods including a literature review, surveys, interviews, workshops, audits, document analysis and action research were used to capture barriers, enablers and local needs; identify effective strategies; develop and refine proposals; ascertain feedback and measure outcomes.Results: Methods to identify, capture, classify, store, repackage, disseminate and facilitate use of synthesised research evidence were investigated. In Model 1, emails containing links to multiple publications were sent to all self-selected participants who were asked to determine whether they were the relevant decision-maker for any of the topics presented, whether change was required, and to take the relevant action. This voluntary framework did not achieve the aim of ensuring practice was consistent with current evidence. In Model 2, the need for change was established prior to dissemination, then a summary of the evidence was sent to the decision-maker responsible for practice in the relevant area who was required to take appropriate action and report the outcome. This mandatory governance framework was successful. The factors influencing decisions, processes and outcomes were identified.Conclusion: An in-house EDS holds promise as a method of identifying disinvestment opportunities and/or reviewing local practice for consistency with current evidence. The resource-intensive nature of delivery of the EDS is a potential barrier. The findings from this study will inform further exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Documented rates of dementia and cognitive impairment not dementia (CIND) in older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples is 3-5 times higher than the rest of the population, and current evidence suggests this condition is under-diagnosed and under-managed in a clinical primary care setting. This study aims to implement and evaluate a culturally responsive best practice model of care to optimise the detection and management of people with cognitive impairment and/or dementia, and to improve the quality of life of carers and older Aboriginal and Torres Islander Peoples with cognitive impairment.Methods/design: The prospective study will use a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial design working with 12 Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) across four states of Australia. Utilising a co-design approach, health system adaptations will be implemented including (i) development of a best practice guide for cognitive impairment and dementia in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities (ii) education programs for health professionals supported by local champions and (iii) development of decision support systems for local medical software. In addition, the study will utilise a knowledge translation framework, the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS) Framework, to promote long-term sustainable practice change. Process evaluation will also be undertaken to measure the quality, fidelity and contextual influences on the outcomes of the implementation. The primary outcome measures will be rates of documentation of dementia and CIND, and evidence of improved management of dementia and CIND among older Indigenous peoples attending Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary care services through health system changes. The secondary outcomes will be improvements to the quality of life of older Indigenous peoples with dementia and CIND, as well as that of their carers and families.Discussion: The Let's CHAT Dementia project will co-design, implement and evaluate a culturally responsive best practice model of care embedded within current Indigenous primary health care. The best practice model of care has the potential to optimise the timely detection (especially in the early stages) and improve the ongoing management of people with dementia or cognitive impairment.Trial Registration: ACTRN12618001485224. Date of registration: 04 of September 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases Diagnostic Service (RUDDS) refers to a genomic diagnostic platform operating within the Western Australian Government clinical services delivered through Genetic Services of Western Australia (GSWA). GSWA has provided a state-wide service for clinical genetic care for 28 years and it serves a population of 2.5 million people across a geographical area of 2.5milion Km(2). Within this context, GSWA has established a clinically integrated genomic diagnostic platform in partnership with other public health system managers and service providers, including but not limited to the Office of Population Health Genomics, Diagnostic Genomics (PathWest Laboratories) and with executive level support from the Department of Health. Herein we describe report presents the components of this service that are most relevant to the heterogeneity of paediatric clinical genetic care.Results: Briefly the platform : i) offers multiple options including non-genetic testing; monogenic and genomic (targeted in silico filtered and whole exome) analysis; and matchmaking; ii) is delivered in a patient-centric manner that is resonant with the patient journey, it has multiple points for entry, exit and re-entry to allow people access to information they can use, when they want to receive it; iii) is synchronous with precision phenotyping methods; iv) captures new knowledge, including multiple expert review; v) is integrated with current translational genomic research activities and best practice; and vi) is designed for flexibility for interactive generation of, and integration with, clinical research for diagnostics, community engagement, policy and models of care.Conclusion: The RUDDS has been established as part of routine clinical genetic services and is thus sustainable, equitably managed and seeks to translate new knowledge into efficient diagnostics and improved health for the whole community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]