Search

Aims and objectives The aim of the Paediatric International Nursing Study was to explore the utility of key performance indicators in developing person-centred practice across a range of services provided to sick children. The objective addressed in this paper was evaluating the use of these indicators to benchmark services internationally. Background This study builds on primary research, which produced indicators that were considered novel both in terms of their positive orientation and use in generating data that privileges the patient voice. This study extends this research through wider testing on an international platform within paediatrics. Design The overall methodological approach was a realistic evaluation used to evaluate the implementation of the key performance indicators, which combined an integrated development and evaluation methodology. Methods The study involved children's wards/hospitals in Australia (six sites across three states) and Europe (seven sites across four countries). Qualitative and quantitative methods were used during the implementation process, however, this paper reports the quantitative data only, which used survey, observations and documentary review. Results The findings demonstrate the quality of care being delivered to children and their families across different international sites. The benchmarking does, however, highlight some differences between paediatric and general hospitals, and between the different key performance indicators across all the sites. Conclusions The findings support the use of the key performance indicators as a novel method to benchmark services internationally. Whilst the data collected across 20 paediatric sites suggest services are more similar than different, benchmarking illuminates variations that encourage a critical dialogue about what works and why. Relevance to clinical practice The transferability of the key performance indicators and measurement framework across different settings has significant implications for practice. The findings offer an approach to benchmarking and celebrating the successes within practice, while learning from partners across the globe in further developing person-centred cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims Prohibitions on producing, distributing and selling cannabis are loosening in various jurisdictions around the world. This paper describes the diversification of cannabis supply laws and discusses the challenges to and opportunities for learning from these changes. Methods We document changes in cannabis supply laws that de jure legalized cannabis production for medical and/or non-medical purposes (excluding industrial hemp) in Australasia, Europe, North America and South America. We also highlight challenges to evaluating these legal changes based on our experiences studying cannabis laws and policies in the United States. Findings As of August 2016, two countries have passed laws to legalize large-scale cannabis production for non-medical purposes at the national (Uruguay) or subnational level (four US states). At least nine other countries legally allow (or will soon allow) cannabis to be supplied for medicinal purposes. Most of the changes in cannabis supply laws have occurred since 2010. The data available in most countries are inadequate for rigorously evaluating the changes in cannabis supply laws. Conclusion The evidence base for assessing changes in cannabis supply laws remains weak. Efforts should focus upon collecting information about quantities consumed and market transactions as well as validating self-report surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Different health state utility (HSU) instruments produce different utilities for the same individuals, thereby compromising the intended comparability of economic evaluations of health care interventions. When developing crosswalks, previous studies have indicated nonlinear relationships. This paper inquires into the degree of nonlinearity across the four most widely used HSU-instruments and proposes exchange rates that differ depending on the severity levels of the health state utility scale.Methods: Overall, 7933 respondents from six countries, 1760 in a non-diagnosed healthy group and 6173 in seven disease groups, reported their health states using four different instruments: EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D. Quantile regressions investigate the degree of nonlinear relationships between these instruments. To compare the instruments across different disease severities, we split the health state utility scale into utility intervals with 0.2 successive decrements in utility starting from perfect health at 1.00. Exchange rates (ERs) are calculated as the mean utility difference between two utility intervals on one HSU-instrument divided by the difference in mean utility on another HSU-instrument.Results: Quantile regressions reveal significant nonlinear relationships across all four HSU-instruments. The degrees of nonlinearities differ, with a maximum degree of difference in the coefficients along the health state utility scale of 3.34 when SF-6D is regressed on EQ-5D. At the lower end of the health state utility scale, the exchange rate from SF-6D to EQ-5D is 2.11, whilst at the upper end it is 0.38.Conclusion: Comparisons at different utility levels illustrate the fallacy of using linear functions as crosswalks between HSU-instruments. The existence of nonlinear relationships between different HSU-instruments suggests that level-specific exchange rates should be used when converting a change in utility on the instrument used, onto a corresponding utility change had another instrument been used. Accounting for nonlinearities will increase the validity of the comparison for decision makers when faced with a choice between interventions whose calculations of QALY gains have been based on different HSU-instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]