Search

Translation of evidence into practice in healthcare is challenging, particularly with new innovations. Indocyanine Green (ICG) lymphography is a novel innovation where the superficial lymphatics are imaged to provide information about lymphoedema diagnosis and to guide individualised therapy for a person's long‐term chronic management of lymphoedema, supporting care across the continuum to the community setting. Despite the unique information ICG lymphography provides, the technology itself is complex and highly specialised and currently has limited adoption in clinical practice. This paper sought to determine the barriers and enablers to establishing an ICG lymphography clinic within an outpatient lymphoedema service by exploring staff perceptions and experiences. An interpretive descriptive design was used with semi‐structured interviews of key staff participants from a quaternary public hospital six months after ICG lymphography clinic establishment. An interview guide was developed, underpinned by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to guide the inquiry. Interview data were transcribed, inductively coded and analysed to identify themes. All eligible management, clinical and ancillary staff were included (N = 8). Four key themes were identified from the data as essential to implementation success. These were support is critical for implementation; beliefs about the technology; practicalities are achievable; and sustainability for ongoing success. Themes were found to be interrelated and centred around support from staff and the organisation as a critical process facilitator. The study demonstrated an ICG lymphography clinic can be successfully established as part of an outpatient lymphoedema service. Key enablers related to positive staff attitudes and beliefs about ICG lymphography and its application. Future implementation sites may consider that although the complexity of this innovation creates process challenges, the use of an implementation framework can assist in identifying determinants of success for effective implementation to practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents findings from the evaluation of an Australian trial of self‐managed home aged care. The self‐management model was codesigned by advocacy organisation COTA Australia, consumers and service providers. The primary aim of the evaluation was to examine whether self‐management improved consumers' perceptions of their choice, control, and wellbeing. The secondary aim was to examine whether provider prior experience with self‐managed packages significantly influenced consumers' perceptions of choice, control and wellbeing, thereby confounded trial effects. A pre‐test post‐test quasi‐experimental design and mixed‐methods design were used to collect data over nine months in 2018–2019. The pre‐trial methods and findings have been published. The post‐trial evaluation replicated the pre‐trial data collection method of an online survey (n = 60) and semi‐structured telephone interviews with consumers (n = 9), family carers (n = 13), and consumers and carers jointly (n = 2), totalling 24 interviews. Semi‐structured telephone interviews were also conducted with CEOs and senior managers from each of the seven providers (n = 14). Three providers had prior experience supporting self‐management. Parametric and non‐parametric tests examined the statistical data. Qualitative data were analysed thematically and framed according to self‐determination principles and ecological systems theory. Both datasets demonstrated that consumers reported greater choice and control at post‐trial than pre‐trial. This finding was not affected by providers' prior experience with self‐management; therefore, it was not a confounding factor. Participants reported improved wellbeing in interviews, however this was not reinforced statistically. Key desirable features of self‐management included greater autonomy and control over spending, recruiting support staff and paying lower administration fees. There was no evidence of increased risks or fraud. The research limitations included a small sample size, convenience sampling with providers recruiting interview participants, no control group and differences in trial implementation. The findings support the expansion of self‐management opportunities and more comprehensive evaluations that use mixed methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper contributes to scholarship on the medicalisation of mental health support for young people through a case study of a multidisciplinary mental health service in rural Australia. All staff (n = 13) working at the service participated in semi‐structured, individual interviews. Transcripts of interview data were read and selectively coded and interpreted in relation to the overarching question of how participants view and experience mental health care provision to a diverse range of young people. Following analytical reflection, codes pertaining to engagement, accessibility and care provision were re‐examined using the concept of medicalisation to understand the biomedical underpinning of mental healthcare and how this plays out in the experiences and perceived challenges participants talked about in responding to the mental health concerns of diverse young people. The resulting analysis is presented under five theme headings: (a) privileging clinical expertise and priorities within service provision, which was an important source of conflict for some participants; (b) 'multidisciplinary' teams—a 'difficult kind of culture at times'; (c) articulations of where cultural barriers lie; (d) the tracks along which young people are directed to 'engage' with 'mental health'; and (e) a clinical 'feel' to space. We suggest that service and system investment needs to be given to alternative ways of thinking about and approaching mental health and care provision that are cognisant of, and engage with, the inherent connections between individual circumstance and social, place, cultural, economic and political contexts. This is particularly relevant to the provision of care in rural contexts because of limited service options and the complexities of access and providing care to a diverse range of young people living in isolated environments. Interdisciplinary frameworks need to be enacted and services must acknowledge their own cultural positions for alternative ways of working to become possibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]