Search

Judy Munday,1,2 Niall Higgins,1,3 Lee Jones,1,4 Dimitrios Vagenas,4 André Van Zundert,1,5,6 Samantha Keogh1,3 1School of Nursing & Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia; 2Department of Health and Nursing Science, Faculty of Health and Sports Sciences, University of Agder, Grimstad, Norway; 3Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia; 4Research Methods Group, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation (IHBI), Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia; 5Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; 6School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia & Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, AustraliaCorrespondence: Judy MundaySchool of Nursing & Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Queensland University of Technology, Rm 529, Level 5, N Block, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, AustraliaTel +61 73138 8209Fax +61 3138 3814Email judy.munday@qut.edu.auPurpose: Perioperative hypothermia prevention requires regular, accurate, and consistent temperature monitoring. Zero-heat-flux (ZHF) thermometry offers a non-invasive, measurement method that can be applied across all surgical phases. The purpose of this study was to measure agreement between the zero-heat-flux device and esophageal monitoring, sensitivity, and specificity to detect hypothermia and patient acceptability amongst patients undergoing upper and lower limb orthopedic surgery.Patients and Methods: This prospective, observational study utilized Bland–Altman analysis and Lin’s concordance coefficient to measure agreement between devices, sensitivity and specificity to detect hypothermia and assessed patient acceptability amongst 30 patients between December 2018 and June 2019.Results: Bias was observed between devices via Bland Altman, with bias dependent on actual temperature. The mean difference ranged from − 0.16°C at 34.9°C (where the mean of ZHF was lower than the esophageal device) to 0.46°C at 37.25°C (where the mean of ZHF was higher than esophageal device), with 95% limits of agreement (max) upper LOA = 0.80 to 1.41, lower LOA = − 1.12 to − 0.50. Seventy-five percentage of zero-heat-flux measurements were within 0.5°C of esophageal readings. Patient acceptability was high; 96% (n=27) stated that the device was comfortable.Conclusion: ZHF device achieved lesser measurement accuracy with core (esophageal) temperature compared to earlier findings. Nonetheless, due to continuous capability, non-invasiveness and patient reported acceptability, the device warrants further evaluation.Title Registration: The study was registered at www.ANZCTR.org.au (reference: ACTRN12619000842167).Keywords: perioperative, thermoregulation, thermometry, sensitivity, specificity

Alana Delaforce,1– 3 Jed Duff,1,4 Judy Munday,3– 5 Shannon Farmer,6,7 Kristin Miller,2 Lynne Glover,2 Christopher Corney,2 Cameron Hurst,8 Gareth Ansell,2,9 Naadir Gutta,2,9 Haitham Tuffaha,10 Janet Hardy2,3 1School of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; 2Mater Health Services, South Brisbane, QLD, Australia; 3Mater Research Institute-UQ, South Brisbane, QLD, Australia; 4Centre for Healthcare Transformation/School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia; 5Faculty of Health and Sport Science, The University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway; 6Department of Haematology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; 7Medical School and Division of Surgery, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; 8QIMR Berghoffer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; 9School of Clinical Medicine - Mater Clinical Unit, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia; 10Centre for the Business and Economics of Health, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, AustraliaCorrespondence: Alana Delaforce Level 6, Duncombe Building, Mater Hospital Brisbane, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, AustraliaTel +61 7 3163 2853Email alana.delaforce@mater.org.auIntroduction: Blood transfusions are a risk factor for increased morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Patient blood management guidelines provide guidance to reduce risk and improve patient outcomes. They outline steps to help prevent transfusions and considerations for when deciding to transfuse. One recommendation to prevent unnecessary transfusion is to optimize patients using Pre-operative Anemia and Iron Deficiency Screening, Evaluation and Management Pathways (PAIDSEM-P). The uptake of these recommendations is highly variable, and an effective approach to implementing them in a tailored and context-specific manner remains elusive.Method and Design: A mixed-methods, interventional study, using a type two-hybrid effectiveness-implementation design, will evaluate the impact of a change package to improve the uptake of PAIDSEM-P. The change package consists of the intervention (PAIDSEM-P) supported by theoretically informed implementation strategies. Pre- and post-implementation, retrospective health record reviews will determine the effect of the change package on provider outcomes, including compliance with guideline recommendations as measured by the proportion of patients who have the appropriate tests performed, and, if required, appropriate treatment and/or referrals. Patient outcomes will be measured by checking for any difference in the proportion of patients with anemia on the day of surgery and the proportion of patients who receive a blood transfusion during the peri-operative period. An economic evaluation will be conducted to compare health outcomes and costs. The feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of the PAIDSEM-P will be assessed using a quantitative, validated survey to measure implementation outcomes.Discussion: Testing of implementation theory is required to advance understanding of what works, in what context, and the impact on implementation success. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a theoretically informed change package on improving the uptake of PAIDSEM-P. If successful, it will also provide a framework for health care facilities to follow when addressing other evidence-practice gaps.Keywords: patient blood management, implementation, anemia, iron deficiency, surgery

Introduction and aims: Patients undergoing major surgery risk significant blood loss and transfusion, which increases substantially if they have pre-existing anemia. Preoperative Anemia and Iron Deficiency Screening, Evaluation and Management Pathways (PAIDSEM-P) outline recommended blood tests and treatment to optimize patients before surgery. Documented success using PAIDSEM-P to reduce transfusions and improve patient outcomes exists, but the reporting quality of such studies is suboptimal. It remains unclear what implementation strategies best support the implementation of PAIDSEM-P. Method: Maximum variation, purposive sampling was used to recruit a total of 15 partici-pants, including a range of health professionals and patients for semi-structured interviews. Data analysis utilized a deductive approach informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for barrier identification and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) for reporting recommended implementation strategies. A modified version of the Action, Actor, Context, Target and Time (AACTT) framework assisted with conceptualisation and targeted strategy selection. Results: The analysis revealed five barriers: access to knowledge and information, patient needs and resources, knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, available resources, and networks and communications, which had strong ERIC recommendations, including conduct educational meetings, develop educational materials, distribute educational materials, obtain and use patients/consumers family feedback, involve patients/consumers/family members, conduct a local needs assessment, access new funding, promote network weaving, and organize clinician implementation team meetings. Conclusions: Mapping the barriers and strategies using the ERIC framework on the basis of individual actor categories proved to be useful in identifying a pragmatic number of implementation strategies that may help in supporting the utilisation of the PAIDSEM-P and other evidence-based healthcare implementation problems more broadly.

Purpose : Nurses provide care at each phase of the complex, perioperative pathway and are well placed to identify areas of care requiring investigation in randomized controlled trials. Yet, currently, the scope of nurse-led randomized controlled trials conducted within the perioperative setting are unknown. This scoping review aims to identify areas of perioperative care in which nurse-led randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to identify issues impacting upon the quality of these trials and identify gaps for future investigation. Methods : This scoping review was conducted in reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with a date range of 2014– 19. Sources of unpublished literature included Open Grey, and ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, Clinical Trials.gov and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. After title and abstract checking, full-text retrieval and data extraction, studies were appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists for randomized controlled trials. Data were synthesized according to the main objectives. Key information was tabulated. Results : From the 86 included studies, key areas where nurses have led randomized controlled trials include patient or caregiver anxiety; postoperative pain relief; surgical site infection prevention: patient and caregiver knowledge; perioperative hypothermia prevention; postoperative nausea and vomiting; in addition to other diverse outcomes. Issues impacting upon quality (including poorly reported randomization), and gaps for future investigation (including a focus on vulnerable populations), are evident. Conclusion : Nurse-led randomized controlled trials in the perioperative setting have focused on key areas of perioperative care. Yet, opportunities exist for nurses to lead experimental research in other perioperative priority areas and within different populations that have been neglected, such as in the population of older adults undergoing surgery.

Judy Munday,1,2 Alana Delaforce,1,3 Gillian Forbes,4 Samantha Keogh11School of Nursing and Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Australia; 2Department of Health and Nursing Science, University of Agder, Grimstad, Norway; 3Clinical Governance Unit, Mater Health, South Brisbane, QLD 4101, Australia; 4Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, UCL Centre for Behaviour Change, London WC1E 6BT, UKPurpose: Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is a significant problem for surgical patients globally, and is associated with many detrimental side-effects. Despite the availability of rigorously developed international evidence-based guidelines for prevention, a high incidence of this complication persists. This qualitative study aims to identify and examine the domains which act as barriers and enablers to perioperative hypothermia prevention practices, from the perspectives of the key healthcare professionals involved with perioperative temperature management.Methods: A qualitative study employing semi-structured interviews was utilized. A purposive sample of key stakeholders involved in perioperative temperature management, including perioperative nurses, anesthetists, surgeons, and perioperative managers, were recruited via email. The interview guide was developed in reference to the Theoretical Domains Framework. All interviews were recorded, de-identified, transcribed, and coded. Belief statements were generated within each domain, and a frequency score generated for each belief. Finally, the domains were mapped to the COM-B model of the Behavior Change Wheel to develop recommendations for future interventions.Results: Twelve participants were included including eight nurses, two surgeons, and two anesthetists. Eleven key theoretical domains that influence the uptake of perioperative hypothermia practices were identified: knowledge; skills; social/professional role and identity; beliefs about capabilities; optimism; beliefs about consequences; reinforcement; goals; memory, attention, and decision processes; environmental context and resources; social influence. Suggested intervention strategies include training, reminder systems, audit, and feedback, organizational support to resolve lack of control of ambient temperature, as well as provision of accurate temperature measurement devices.Conclusion: Future interventions to address the key behavioral domains and improve perioperative hypothermia prevention need to be evaluated in the context of feasibility, effectiveness, safety, acceptability, and cost by the target users. All suggested intervention strategies need to take a team-based, multi-modal approach, as this is most likely to facilitate improvements in perioperative hypothermia prevention.Keywords: perioperative hypothermia, temperature management, Theoretical Domains Framework, multidisciplinary, COM-B, behaviour change wheel