Search

BACKGROUND: Clinical quality registries (CQRs) monitor compliance against optimal practice and provide feedback to the clinical community and wider stakeholder groups. Despite a number of CQRs having incorporated the patient perspective to support the evaluation of healthcare delivery, no recommendations for inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in CQRs exist. The aim of this study was to develop a core set of recommendations for PROMs inclusion of in CQRs. METHOD: An online two-round Delphi survey was performed among CQR data custodians, quality of life researchers, biostatisticians and clinicians largely recruited in Australia. A list of statements for the recommendations was identified from a literature and survey of the Australian registries conducted in 2019. The statements were grouped into the following domains: rationale, setting, ethics, instrument, administration, data management, statistical methods, and feedback and reporting. Eighteen experts were invited to participate, 11 agreed to undertake the first online survey (round 1). Of these, nine experts completed the online survey for round 2. RESULTS: From 117 statements presented to the Delphi panel in round 1, a total of 72 recommendations (55 from round 1 and 17 from round 2) with median importance (MI) ≥ 7 and disagreement index (DI) < 1 were proposed for inclusion into the final draft set and were reviewed by the project team. Recommendations were refined for clarity and to read as stand-alone statements. Ten overlapped conceptually and, therefore, were merged to reduce repetition. The final 62 recommendations were sent for review to the panel members for their feedback, which was incorporated into the final set. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to develop preliminary recommendations for PROMs inclusion in CQRs. Recommendations for PROMs implementation are critically important for registries to assure meaningful PROMs data capture, use, interpretation, and reporting to improve hea

Background Adherence to hand hygiene (HH) guidelines reduces the incidence of hospital-acquired infection, however, little research has been conducted on factors that influence healthcare students’ HH practices. Methods A questionnaire was administered to 1721 nursing and medical students from 20 universities in Australia, Sweden, Greece and Italy to determine their HH knowledge, beliefs, practices, education and assessment. Results The mean score on the HH quiz was 66%. Self-reported HH compliance was 86%. Knowledge scores were signifi cantly infl uenced by the frequency of HH assessment and the number of methods used to teach HH (p = .04). HH practices were significantly influenced by HH beliefs, knowledge, the frequency of assessment, number of teaching methods used, perceptions of the importance of HH as an infection control measure and the importance given to HH in the curriculum (p < .01). Hand hygiene beliefs were signifi cantly infl uenced by HH knowledge, and by students’ perceptions of the importance given to HH in the curriculum, by supervisors and facilities, and the importance of HH as an infection control measure (p < .01). Conclusions There was room for improvement in healthcare students’ HH knowledge, particularly in relation to the use of alcohol-based hand rubs

Objective: The study reviewed all the published instruments used for the assessment, diagnosis, screening, and outcomes monitoring/evaluation of behavioral disturbances associated with dementia (BDAD) to recommend a set of psychometrically valid measures for clinicians and researchers to use, across a range of different practice settings. Methods: The study involved a broad scoping search, followed by a series of in-depth literature reviews on 29 instruments using scientific literature databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library) and various national, international government, and government agency websites and professional organization websites. External consultations from measurement, clinical and research experts in dementia care, consumer representatives, and policy/decision makers, were sought in selecting the best instruments and in making the final recommendations. Findings: Key attributes and psychometric properties of a short list of five instruments were measured against prespecified criteria. The Neuropsychiatry Inventory (NPI) and the Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (BEHAVE-AD) were rated as the best measures for assessment of behavioral disturbances, followed by the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease-Behavior Rating Scale for Dementia (CERAD-BRSD), the Dementia Behavior Disturbance Scale, and the Neurobehavioral Rating Scale. Conclusion: The use of valid and standardized outcome measures for the assessment of BDAD is critical for epidemiological studies, prevention, early intervention and treatment of dementia conditions, and funding for relevant healthcare services. The review recommends the NPI and BEHAVE-AD as the most appropriate measures for both clinical and research, whereas the CERAD-BRSD is suited better for research. The review was designed for the Australian context; however, the findings are applicable in other developed countries. © 2011 American Association for Geriatric P

Objective: The study reviewed all the published instruments used for the assessment, diagnosis, screening, and outcomes monitoring/evaluation of behavioral disturbances associated with dementia (BDAD) to recommend a set of psychometrically valid measures for clinicians and researchers to use, across a range of different practice settings. Methods: The study involved a broad scoping search, followed by a series of in-depth literature reviews on 29 instruments using scientific literature databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library) and various national, international government, and government agency websites and professional organization websites. External consultations from measurement, clinical and research experts in dementia care, consumer representatives, and policy/decision makers, were sought in selecting the best instruments and in making the final recommendations. Findings: Key attributes and psychometric properties of a short list of five instruments were measured against prespecified criteria. The Neuropsychiatry Inventory (NPI) and the Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (BEHAVE-AD) were rated as the best measures for assessment of behavioral disturbances, followed by the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease-Behavior Rating Scale for Dementia (CERAD-BRSD), the Dementia Behavior Disturbance Scale, and the Neurobehavioral Rating Scale. Conclusion: The use of valid and standardized outcome measures for the assessment of BDAD is critical for epidemiological studies, prevention, early intervention and treatment of dementia conditions, and funding for relevant healthcare services. The review recommends the NPI and BEHAVE-AD as the most appropriate measures for both clinical and research, whereas the CERAD-BRSD is suited better for research. The review was designed for the Australian context; however, the findings are applicable in other developed countries. © 2011 American Association for Geriatric P

The purpose of this project is to develop a set of recommended measures/tools for routine use in the assessment, diagnosis, screening and outcomes monitoring of dementia conditions and the evaluation of treatments that are applicable for the Australian health care context. By developing a set of recommended measures it is hoped to standardise the assessment and evaluation procedures used in this field to enhance comparability of findings across research and practice settings. Put simply, we a trying to create a tool-kit of measures for clinicians and researchers to use with people with dementia, in order to assist with communication across the field. A related aim is to make recommendations concerning the clarification and standardization of the clinical terminology applicable in this field. To enhance comparisons between studies it is important that standardized approaches to diagnosis and patient classification be undertaken.

The purpose of this project is to develop a set of recommended measures/tools for routine use in the assessment, diagnosis, screening and outcomes monitoring of dementia conditions and the evaluation of treatments that are applicable for the Australian health care context. By developing a set of recommended measures it is hoped to standardise the assessment and evaluation procedures used in this field to enhance comparability of findings across research and practice settings. Put simply, we a trying to create a tool-kit of measures for clinicians and researchers to use with people with dementia, in order to assist with communication across the field. A related aim is to make recommendations concerning the clarification and standardization of the clinical terminology applicable in this field. To enhance comparisons between studies it is important that standardized approaches to diagnosis and patient classification be undertaken.

To examine the effectiveness of trauma systems, in-hospital mortality rates are key indicators. However, to date there has been little research examining the congruence of morbidity and mortality data as recorded in hospital databases and mortality databases. A retrospective review of coded medical records from a trauma registry, a metropolitan teaching hospital and the National Death Index for 1747 patients admitted to hospital for ≥ 24 hours for acute treatment of injury was undertaken. This study was established to determine the number and cause of differences in coded data between hospital records and National Death Index (NDI) records for in-hospital deaths following admission for trauma. Of the 60 patients who died in hospital, 26% died from non-traumatic causes according to NDI coded data. Over half of the cases with trauma coded in the NDI contained external cause data which were less specific or did not match external cause data from hospital records. When reviewing trauma-related outcomes, where possible injury researchers and policy advisors should consider both mortality and morbidity datasets when reviewing in-hospital deaths, as this research identified that the morbidity dataset provides greater detail for injury and external causes of injury than mortality coded data for in-hospital deaths.

The SF-12® Health Survey is a suitable measure for large group epidemiological studies (greater than n = 500) where information on the SF-36® Health Survey Summary Scores (PCS + MCS) is required.

Summary: The SF-36 is a highly recommended measure with superior psychometric properties. It has been used extensively in Australia for both population health and clinical research.

Summary: The SF-36 is a highly recommended measure with superior psychometric properties. It has been used extensively in Australia for both population health and clinical research.

Summary: The SF-36 is a highly recommended measure with superior psychometric properties. It has been used extensively in Australia for both population health and clinical research.

The SF-12® Health Survey is a suitable measure for large group epidemiological studies (greater than n = 500) where information on the SF-36® Health Survey Summary Scores (PCS + MCS) is required.

The SF-12® Health Survey is a suitable measure for large group epidemiological studies (greater than n = 500) where information on the SF-36® Health Survey Summary Scores (PCS + MCS) is required.

Summary: The SF-36 is a highly recommended measure with superior psychometric properties. It has been used extensively in Australia for both population health and clinical research.

The SF-12® Health Survey is a suitable measure for large group epidemiological studies (greater than n = 500) where information on the SF-36® Health Survey Summary Scores (PCS + MCS) is required.

Summary: The SF-36 is a highly recommended measure with superior psychometric properties. It has been used extensively in Australia for both population health and clinical research.

The SF-12® Health Survey is a suitable measure for large group epidemiological studies (greater than n = 500) where information on the SF-36® Health Survey Summary Scores (PCS + MCS) is required.