Search

Purpose:The HOME FAST was developed and trialled in Australia as a screening tool designed to be used by any health professional to identify older people at increased risk of falls and to facilitate referral for more detailed assessment and intervention. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of the HOME FAST from the perspective of users. Method:A mixed-methods approach using survey data (n = 32), focus group data (n = 46) and interview data (n = 5) from occupational therapists, physiotherapists, community nurses and other health professionals working in hospitals, community services and private practice, located in the UK, Canada and Australia. Data were integrated using a matrix of quantitative and qualitative data that aligned the findings with established theoretical constructs of clinical utility. Results:Findings across the data sources provide evidence of the clinical utility of the HOME FAST, and these findings align with theoretical constructs about how a tool such as the HOME FAST is adopted in practice. Conclusion:The HOME FAST can be used in a variety of international setting in developed countries and by different health professionals as a screening tool. A manual would assist in the consistent application of the HOME FAST.Implications for RehabilitationHazards in the home environment are a key contributor to falls risk for older peopleThe Home Falls and Accidents Screening Tool (HOME FAST) was designed for any health professional to screen older people at increased risk of falling because of home hazards.Even with psychometric evidence of the reliability and validity of a tool, it is critical that the tool can be easily adopted by clinicians (clinical utility), otherwise its applicability to practice and research is limited.An international mixed-method study has provided evidence of the clinical utility of the HOME FAST. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Aim Examine metrics and policies regarding nurse workforce across four countries. Background International comparisons inform health policy makers. Methods Data from the OECD were used to compare expenditure, workforce and health in: Australia, Portugal, the United Kingdom ( UK) and the United States ( US). Workforce policy context was explored. Results Public spending varied from less than 50% of gross domestic product in the US to over 80% in the UK. Australia had the highest life expectancy. Portugal has fewer nurses and more physicians. The Australian national health workforce planning agency has increased the scope for co-ordinated policy intervention. Portugal risks losing nurses through migration. In the UK, the economic crisis resulted in frozen pay, reduced employment, and reduced student nurses. In the US, there has been limited scope to develop a significant national nursing workforce policy approach, with a continuation of State based regulation adding to the complexity of the policy landscape. The US is the most developed in the use of nurses in advanced practice roles. Ageing of the workforce is likely to drive projected shortages in all countries. Limitations There are differences as well as variation in the overall impact of the global financial crisis in these countries. Conclusion Future supply of nurses in all four countries is vulnerable. Implications for nursing and health policy Work force planning is absent or restricted in three of the countries. Scope for improved productivity through use of advanced nurse roles exists in all countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

sutcliffe k., caird j., kavanagh j., rees r., oliver k., dickson k., woodman j., barnett-paIge e. & thomas j. (2012) Comparing midwife-led and doctor-led maternity care: a systematic review of reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68(11), 2376-2386. Abstract Aims. A report of a systematic review of reviews which examines the impact of having midwives-led maternity care for low-risk women, rather than physicians. Background. A rising birth rate, increasing complexity of births, and economic constraints pose difficulties for maternity services in the UK. Evidence about the most effective, cost-effective, and efficient ways to give maternity services is needed. Data sources. Searches were carried out in August-September 2009 of ten electronic databases, 16 key nursing and research websites, and reference lists of 56 relevant reviews. We also contacted 38 experts for information. No date restrictions were employed. Review methods. A narrative review of systematic reviews or 'meta review' was conducted using transparent and systematic procedures to limit bias at all stages. Systematic reviews that compared midwife-led care during pregnancy and birth with physician-led care were eligible for inclusion. Results. Three meta-analytic reviews were included. Midwife-led care for low-risk women was found to be better for a range of maternal outcomes, reduced the number of procedures in labour, and increased satisfaction with care. For some maternal, foetal, and neonatal outcomes reviews found no evidence that care led by midwives is different to that led by physicians. No adverse outcomes associated with midwife-led care were identified. Conclusions. For low-risk women, health and other benefits can result from having their maternity care led by midwives rather than physicians. Moreover, there appear to be no negative impacts on mothers and infants receiving midwife-led care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]