Search

Rationale This paper reports an initiative which promoted evidence-based practice in pressure risk assessment and management among home nursing clients in Melbourne, Australia. Aim and objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the introduction and uptake of the Australian Wound Management Association Guidelines for the Prediction and Prevention of Pressure Ulcers. Method In 2007 a pilot study was conducted. Nurse perspectives (n=21) were obtained via survey and a client profile (n=218) was generated. Audit of the uptake and continued use of the pressure risk screening tool, during the pilot study and later once implemented as standard practice organizational wide, was conducted. Results Nurses at the pilot site successfully implemented the practice guidelines, pressure risk screening was adopted and supporting resources were well received. Most clients were at low risk of pressure ulcer development. The pilot site maintained and extended their pilot study success, ensuring more than 90% of clients were screened for pressure risk over the 18 months which followed. All other sites performed less well initially, however subsequently improved, meeting the pilot sites success after 18 months. Two years later, the organization continues to screen more than 90% of all clients for pressure risk. Conclusion Implementation of clinical practice guidelines was successful in the pilot project and pressure risk screening became a well-adopted practice. Success continued following organizational wide implementation. Pilot study findings suggest it may be prudent to monitor the pressure ulcer risk status of low risk clients so as to prevent increasing risk and pressure ulcer development among this group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale Little scrutiny has been applied to how 'cost per fall' values have been calculated and applied. This paper presents discourse discussing how the cost of fall statistic could potentially be misleading when applied to inpatient health or residential care settings and provides estimates of the cost of falls and cost of falls per person. Method Burden of disease was estimated using a decision tree approach. Data informing the decision tree were drawn from a retrospective audit of 545 falls in a residential care facility, a visual observation study of 46 residents from the same facility and a cohort study of 186 residents from nine different facilities in Australia. Acute care and transportation costs were extracted from the retrospective audit using incident reports and care note review. The distribution of falls per person and associations between falls, fractures and change in resident mobility were extracted from the cohort study. The association between resident mobility and the amount of time required to perform toileting, transfer and dressing activities was extracted from the visual observational study. Results The minimum 'cost per fall' was estimated to be $AUD 841 and the maximum was $AUD 1024. The 'cost of falls per person' estimate was $AUD 1887 (2008 base year). Conclusions This cost per fall estimate was substantially lower than three previous internationally derived estimates possibly as a consequence of how fall data were collected and modelled in these studies. Cost of falls per person may be a preferable statistic for future use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives The Hospital Federation of Vaud ( Switzerland) used a Breakthrough Collaborative with the aim of reducing adverse drug events ( ADEs) by 20% in 10 participating hospitals. Methods A set of interventions (covering patient identification, high-alert medication and medication preparation in the ward) was deployed over 18 months starting in October 2010. All hospitals monitored discrepancies between drugs prescribed and those prepared for administration, as well as the occurrence of ADEs using the ADE Trigger Tool for 18 months (cohort 1). A subset of five hospitals continued this monitoring for 12 additional months (cohort 2). Results In cohort 1, pill box discrepancies were present in 5.9% of doses ( n = 9772) in 2011 and in 5.8% ( n = 2251) in the first 3 months of 2012 (no statistical significance). There were no significant differences in the rate of ADEs/1000 doses across time (1.2 in 2010, 1.0 in 2011 and 1.0 in 2012). In cohort 2, pill box discrepancies were reduced from 6.5% ( n = 4846 doses) in 2011 to 4.4% ( n = 7355) in 2012 ( P < 0.001) to 3.0% for the first 3 months of 2013 ( n = 2251; P = 0.004). The rate of ADEs/1000 doses decreased (1.8 in 2010, 1.1 in 2011 and 0.6 in 2012/13 ( P = 0.008 for 2010-2011, and P < 0.001 for 2011-2012/2013). Conclusions Reductions in drug discrepancies and ADEs occurred in the cohort with the longer monitoring duration. Factors contributing to success may include the strategic status of the project, executive support, perseverance in post-intervention measurement, and institution-wide rather than partial deployment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Service provision and clinical outcomes for patients admitted with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease remain unacceptably variable despite guidelines and performance feedback of national audit, data. This study aims to assess the impact of mutual peer review on service improvement. The initial phase of this study was to assess the feasibility and determine the practicalities of delivering such a peer review programme on a large scale. Methods All UK acute hospitals were invited to participate in a reciprocal peer review programme administered by a central team from three UK health organizations. Hospitals with the most resources were paired with those with the least (as defined in a baseline survey) and pairs randomized on a 3:2 basis into intervention or control groups. A number of key quality indicators were derived to measure service levels at the beginning and end of the study. Peer review teams included clinicians and managers from acute and primary care organizations and when possible a patient representative. Visits were focussed on four key areas of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease service. Teams were to agree service improvements and submit plans signed off by participants. Monthly change diaries were to be used to record progress towards agreed goals. Results A total of 100 hospitals participated in the programme. Overall, 52 of 54 peer review visits took place within a 4-week time frame and all units submitted service improvement plans within an agreed time frame. Secondary care representatives participated in all visits, primary care in 30 but patients in only 17. The mean number of diaries returned was 2, but 94% of units returned initial and final versions. Conclusions It is possible to deliver successful large-scale mutual peer review using a limited but focussed programme. Participation of patients and use of change diaries requires further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]