Search

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: Clinical pharmacy service has evolved steadily over the past few decades and is now contributing to the 'patient care journey' at all stages. It is improving the safety and effectiveness of medicines and has made a significant contribution to the avoidance of medication errors. In Ethiopia, clinical pharmacy service is in its initial phase, being started in July 2013. This study therefore aimed at assessing the status, challenges and way forward of clinical pharmacy service in the country.Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in six regional states and one city- administration in September 2014. A total of 51 hospitals were included in the study. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were employed for data collection.Results: A total of 160 pharmacy graduates, and 51 pharmacy heads participated in the study. Internal Medicine and Pediatric wards were the major wards where the graduates provide clinical pharmacy service. Almost 94% of the new graduates were found to be involved in clinical pharmacy service, but 47% of them rated their service as poor. The overall satisfaction of the graduates was close to 36%. Thirteen hospitals discontinued and two hospitals not even initiated the service largely due to shortage of pharmacists and lack of management support. About 44% of the surveyed hospitals documented the clinical pharmacy service provided using either developed or adopted formats. Lack of awareness by the medical fraternity, high attrition rate, lack of support from the management as well as from the health care team, readiness of the graduates to deliver the service, and shortage of pharmacists were identified by the key informants as the major stumbling block to deliver clinical pharmacy service.Conclusion: Clinical pharmacy service is initiated in most of the surveyed hospitals and a large proportion of the graduates were involved in the service. Although there is a great enthusiasm to promote clinical pharmacy service in the surveyed hospitals, efforts made to institutionalize the service is minimal. Thus, concerted efforts need to be exerted to promote the service through organizing awareness forums as well as revisiting the curriculum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many patients with chronic physical illnesses have co-morbid psychological illnesses, which may respond to interprofessional collaborative care. Continuing education programs frequently focus on skills and knowledge relevant for individual illnesses, and unidisciplinary care. This study evaluates the impact of "Mind the Gap", an Australian interprofessional continuing education program about management of dual illnesses, on practitioners' knowledge, use of psychological strategies and collaborative practice.Methods: A 6-h module addressing knowledge and skills needed for patients with physical and psychological co-morbid illnesses was delivered to 837 practitioners from mixed health professional backgrounds, through locally-facilitated workshops at 45 Australian sites. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation, incorporating observation, surveys and network analysis using data collected, before, immediately after, and three months after training.Results: Six hundred forty-five participants enrolled in the evaluation (58 % GPs, 17 % nurses, 15 % mental health professionals, response rate 76 %). Participants' knowledge and confidence to manage patients with psychological and physical illnesses improved immediately. Among the subset surveyed at three months (response rate 24 %), referral networks had increased across seven disciplines, improvements in confidence and knowledge were sustained, and doctors, but no other disciplines, reported an increase in use of motivational interviewing (85.9 % to 96.8 %) and mindfulness (58.6 % to 74 %).Conclusions: Interprofessional workshops had an immediate impact on the stated knowledge and confidence of participants to manage patients with physical and psychological comorbidities, which appears to have been sustained. For some attendees, there was a sustained improvement in the size of their referral networks and their use of some psychological strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hypertension-related complications have become more diagnosed at secondary and tertiary care levels, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), probably indicative of poor management of hypertensive patients at primary health care level. This study aimed to assess the management of hypertension in primary health care settings by using guidelines of the International Forum for Prevention and Control of HTN in Africa (IFHA).Methods: A multi-center cross-sectional study was carried out in primary health care settings. A total of 102 nurses were surveyed using a structured interview. Mean and proportion comparisons were performed using the t Student test and the Chi-square test respectively. The Kinshasa Primary Health Care network facilities were compared with non-Kinshasa Primary Health Care network facilities.Results: From the 102 nurses surveyed; 52.9% were female with a mean age of 41.1, (SD = 10) years, merely 9.5% benefited from in-job training on cardiovascular diseases or their risk factors, and 51.7% had guidelines on the management of hypertension. Less than a quarter of the nurses knew the cut-off values of hypertension, diabetes and obesity. Merely 14.7% knew the therapeutic goals for uncomplicated hypertension. Several of the indicators for immediate referral recommended by IFHA were unmentioned. The content of patient education was lacking, avoiding stress being the best advice provided to hypertensive patients. The antihypertensive most used were unlikely to be recommended by the IFHA.Conclusions: This study showed a considerable gap of knowledge and practices in the management of hypertensive patients at primary health care facilities in Kinshasa pertaining to the IFHA guidelines. We think that task-shifting for management of hypertension is feasible if appropriate guidelines are provided and nurses trained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Generalists such as general practitioners and district nurses have been the main actors in community palliative care in Norway. Specialised oncology nurses with postgraduate palliative training are increasingly becoming involved. There is little research on their contribution. This study explores how general practitioners (GPs) and oncology nurses (ONs) experience their collaboration in primary palliative care.Methods: A qualitative focus group and interview study in rural Northern Norway, involving 52 health professionals. Five uni-professional focus group discussions were followed by five interprofessional discussions and six individual interviews. Transcripts were analysed thematically.Results: The ideal cooperation between GPs and ONs was as a "meeting of experts" with complementary competencies. GPs drew on their generalist backgrounds, including their often long-term relationship with and knowledge of the patient. The ONs contributed longitudinal clinical observations and used their specialised knowledge to make treatment suggestions. While ONs were often experienced and many had developed a form of pattern recognition, they needed GPs' competencies for complex clinical judgements. However, ONs sometimes lacked timely advice from GPs, and could feel left alone with sick patients. To avoid this, some ONs bypassed GPs and contacted palliative specialists directly. While traditional professional hierarchies were not a barrier, we found that organization, funding and remuneration were significant barriers to cooperation. GPs often did not have time to meet with ONs to discuss shared patients. We also found that ONs and GPs had different strategies for learning. While ONs belonged to a networking nursing collective aiming for continuous quality improvement, GPs learned mostly from their individual experience of caring for patients.Conclusions: The complementary competences and autonomous roles of a specialised nurse and a general practitioner represented a good match for primary palliative care. When planning high-quality teamwork in primary care, organizational barriers to cooperation and different cultures for learning need consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]