Search

Victoria Walton,1 Anne Hogden,1 Janet C Long,2 Julie K Johnson,3 David Greenfield1 1Australian Institute of Health Service Management, University of Tasmania, Sydney, NSW 2015, Australia; 2Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 3Centre for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USACorrespondence: Victoria WaltonAustralian Institute of Health Service Management, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 5052, Alexandria, Sydney NSW 2015, AustraliaTel +61 2 408 417 814Email victoria.walton@utas.edu.auPurpose: Interdisciplinary bedside ward rounds have the capacity to facilitate coordinated interprofessional patient care. To be an effective means of care coordination, clinicians need an explicit understanding of how these rounds contribute to patient care. By identifying benefits and challenges to the effective use of interdisciplinary ward rounds, clinicians create an opportunity to improve interprofessional teamwork, care planning, and coordination of patient care.Methods: A survey was conducted with frontline professionals in two acute care and two rehabilitation wards from a metropolitan teaching hospital. There were 77 participants, representing medical officers, nurses, and allied health clinicians. Questions examined the perceived benefits and challenges of conducting interdisciplinary ward rounds in their units. Survey findings were coded for meaning and then grouped into themes.Results: Benefits revealed a desired care delivery model challenged by the complexities of organizational and professional cultures. The themes of “being on the same page”, “focusing on patients”, and “holistic care planning” underpinned the ideas of collaboration and improved patient-centred care, that is, benefits to patients. Challenges centred on health professionals’ time constraints and the coordination of teams to enable participation in rounds. The themes were more distinct, logistical barriers of “time”, “workforce”, and “care planning”.Conclusion: Overall, clinicians recognise there are greater benefits to IBRs and have a willingness to participate. However, careful consideration is required to introduce and continually achieve the best from IBR as they require changes in organizational context and culture.Keywords: challenges, benefits, coordination, patient focused care, time factors, communication

Background The ward round is an opportunity to plan and deliver patient-centered care. Benefits include an effective and safer clinician-patient relationship, patient empowerment, reduced anxiety and increased trust in the health care system. Factors contributing to patient involvement in ward rounds is shaped by their preferences, ability, and opportunity. Aim To investigate ward rounds and the patient experience with them, the relationship between the patient and clinicians, and how rounds facilitate collaboration between them. Patients and methods A multimethod study was conducted in a single Australian facility in acute medicine and rehabilitation specialties. An observational study of ward rounds in each setting was conducted with 14 patients, aged between 55 and 89 years followed by semi-structured interviews conducted with the patients observed. Descriptive and thematic analysis was undertaken. Results One third of participants had not heard of the term ward round or could describe their purpose. Three main influencers on the patient experience of rounds were: self; the health system; and medical officers. No meaningful difference was found between patients in acute medicine and rehabilitation although all wanted to receive information from the senior medical officers. Patients more familiar with the health system were more active participants and took greater responsibility for their involvement in rounds and described higher satisfaction. Conclusion There is a level of acceptance within the health system that patients understand what a ward round is. However, their role on the round is complex and this may only be developed through experiencing them. High system users teach themselves to navigate rounding processes to ensure their needs are met. To ensure equity in participation patients should be educated on ward rounds, what to expect and how to they can participate.

Victoria Walton,1 Anne Hogden,1 Janet C Long,2 Julie K Johnson,3 David Greenfield11Tasmanian School of Business and Economics, Australian Institute of Health Service Management, University of Tasmania, Sydney, Australia; 2Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; 3Department of Surgery, Center for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USACorrespondence: Victoria WaltonAustralian Institute of Health Service Management, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 5052, Alexandria, NSW, 2015, Sydney, AustraliaTel +61 24 0841 7814Email victoria.walton@utas.edu.auBackground: The ward round is an opportunity to plan and deliver patient-centered care. Benefits include an effective and safer clinician-patient relationship, patient empowerment, reduced anxiety and increased trust in the health care system. Factors contributing to patient involvement in ward rounds is shaped by their preferences, ability, and opportunity.Aim: To investigate ward rounds and the patient experience with them, the relationship between the patient and clinicians, and how rounds facilitate collaboration between them.Patients and methods: A multimethod study was conducted in a single Australian facility in acute medicine and rehabilitation specialties. An observational study of ward rounds in each setting was conducted with 14 patients, aged between 55 and 89years followed by semi-structured interviews conducted with the patients observed. Descriptive and thematic analysis was undertaken.Results: One third of participants had not heard of the term ward round or could describe their purpose. Three main influencers on the patient experience of rounds were: self; the health system; and medical officers. No meaningful difference was found between patients in acute medicine and rehabilitation although all wanted to receive information from the senior medical officers. Patients more familiar with the health system were more active participants and took greater responsibility for their involvement in rounds and described higher satisfaction.Conclusion: There is a level of acceptance within the health system that patients understand what a ward round is. However, their role on the round is complex and this may only be developed through experiencing them. High system users teach themselves to navigate rounding processes to ensure their needs are met. To ensure equity in participation patients should be educated on ward rounds, what to expect and how to they can participate.Keywords: ward rounds, patient participation, interview, education

Patient interview guide, a list of interview topics used to direct discussions with patients during interviews. (DOCX 13 kb)

Anne Hogden,1 Geraldine Foley,2 Robert D Henderson,3 Natalie James,4 Samar M Aoun5 1Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 2Discipline of Occupational Therapy, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, the University of Dublin, Republic of Ireland; 3Neurology, Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, 4Motor Neurone Disease (MND) Service, Communication and Assistive Technology (CAT) Clinic, St Joseph’s Hospital, St Vincent’s Health Network, Sydney, NSW, 5School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia Abstract: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease, leading to death within an average of 2–3 years. A cure is yet to be found, and a single disease-modifying treatment has had a modest effect in slowing disease progression. Specialized multidisciplinary ALS care has been shown to extend survival and improve patients’ quality of life, by providing coordinated interprofessional care that seeks to address the complex needs of this patient group. This review examines the nature of specialized multidisciplinary care in ALS and draws on a broad range of evidence that has shaped current practice. The authors explain how multidisciplinary ALS care is delivered. The existing models of care, the role of palliative care within multidisciplinary ALS care, and the costs of formal and informal care are examined. Critical issues of ALS care are then discussed in the context of the support rendered by multidisciplinary-based care. The authors situate the patient and family as key stakeholders and decision makers in the multidisciplinary care network. Finally, the current challenges to the delivery of coordinated interprofessional care in ALS are explored, and the future of coordinated interprofessional care for people with ALS and their family caregivers is considered. Keywords: quality of life, interdisciplinary, interprofessional, palliative care, care coordination, motor neuron disease

Motor neurone disease (MND), also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, presents many challenges to patient and carer engagement in decision-making. A progressive and terminal multisystem disorder without a cure, MND care focuses on symptom management and quality of life, as patients and families attempt to come to terms with the diagnosis. In addition to physical deterioration, the cognitive, communication and behavioural abilities of many patients are affected. Care is delivered in specialised multidisciplinary clinic settings, creating decision-rich environments in which to test normative models of patient-centric decision-making. As patients continually face care decisions, few options are available to slow disease progression or extend survival time. Family carers are extensively involved in patient care, yet the decision-making relationships between MND health professionals, patients and their carers are undefined. Models of decision-making used in cancer and chronic disease care have limited applicability to MND care. Patients use a cyclic process of adaptation to their rapidly changing needs. The available treatment choices are often ethically and culturally complex, and may be time-constrained. While patient choices are well documented, little is known about the underlying factors influencing their decisions. This study addresses two research questions. The first asks: what are the influences on patient decision-making in MND multidisciplinary care? The second question is: how is patient-centred decision-making is delivered in MND multidisciplinary care? The thesis contributes insight into the underlying aspects of decision-making, and their implications for delivering patient-centred, collaborative and evidence-based care. Qualitative methods were used to examine factors influencing patient-centred decision-making. Fifty-four respondents from two specialised MND multidisciplinary clinics participated in semi-structured interviews. These were 32 health professionals, 14 patients and eight carers. The views of each group were analysed separately, and then combined to provide a comprehensive picture of MND patient-centred decision-making. Thematic analysis revealed broad agreement between the groups on key factors influencing patient-centred decision-making. These were: the decision-making process; patient-centred focus; timing and planning; information sources; engagement with specialised ALS services; and access to non-specialised services. Specialised MND multidisciplinary clinics offered an optimal setting for decision-making. The roles and expectations of stakeholders influenced the decision-making process, while psychosocial factors and continually changing symptoms impacted on patients capacity to participate. Issues of timing of evidence-based care delivery and the role of carers were contentious. Patient-centred decision-making is a complex and cyclical process, with health professionals, patients and carers collaborating to form a decision-making triad. A four-stage triadic model, embedded in the specialised MND multidisciplinary clinic environment, was derived from the data. The first stage, Patient Engagement , identifies the participants and establishes their values, preferences and expectations. In stage two, Option Information , information and guidelines on the available management options are determined, including the optimal timing for implementation of each choice. During the third stage, Deliberation , patients weigh up the risks and benefits, and decide between proceeding with an option, deferring their decision, or choosing to do nothing. The final stage, Implementation , results once an option is chosen. The model captures the complexities of MND patient-centred decision-making and offers a framework for health professionals, researchers and policy makers in this challenging environment.

ObjectivesEffective researcher assessment is key to decisions about funding allocations, promotion and tenure. We aimed to identify what is known about methods for assessing researcher achievements, leading to a new composite assessment model.DesignWe systematically reviewed the literature via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols framework.Data sourcesAll Web of Science databases (including Core Collection, MEDLINE and BIOSIS Citation Index) to the end of 2017.Eligibility criteria(1) English language, (2) published in the last 10 years (2007–2017), (3) full text was available and (4) the article discussed an approach to the assessment of an individual researcher’s achievements.Data extraction and synthesisArticles were allocated among four pairs of reviewers for screening, with each pair randomly assigned 5% of their allocation to review concurrently against inclusion criteria. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa (ĸ). The ĸ statistic showed agreement ranging from moderate to almost perfect (0.4848–0.9039). Following screening, selected articles underwent full-text review and bias was assessed.ResultsFour hundred and seventy-eight articles were included in the final review. Established approaches developed prior to our inclusion period (eg, citations and outputs, h-index and journal impact factor) remained dominant in the literature and in practice. New bibliometric methods and models emerged in the last 10 years including: measures based on PageRank algorithms or ‘altmetric’ data, methods to apply peer judgement and techniques to assign values to publication quantity and quality. Each assessment method tended to prioritise certain aspects of achievement over others.ConclusionsAll metrics and models focus on an element or elements at the expense of others. A new composite design, the Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM), is presented, which supersedes past anachronistic models. The CRAM is modifiable to a range of applications.