Search

Introduction Motor neuron disease (MND) is a progressive, incurable disease, characterised by degeneration of the nerves in the brain and spinal cord. Due to the multisystem effects of the disease, patients are faced with many complex, time-sensitive decisions, one of which is the decision on gastrostomy feeding. There are currently no published decision aids (DAs) to support patients making this decision in the UK. This study will develop and pilot a patient DA to provide evidence-based information on gastrostomy placement and feeding that is relevant to people with MND; communicate the risks and benefits associated with each option; check understanding and clarify personal values and preferences, enabling patients to make a decision congruent with their values and appropriate for them. Methods and analysis A two-phase process, observing the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, will be used to develop the DA, over 24 months starting January 2019. Phase 1 will use literature reviews and stakeholder interviews and surveys to identify essential content for the DA, and explore the best way to present this. In the second phase, a prototype DA will be developed and revised using stakeholder feedback in an iterative process. Stakeholders will include individuals with MND, their carers and the healthcare professionals working with them. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for the study has been granted by West of Scotland Research Ethics Service, reference 19/WS/0078. Study findings will be disseminated through academic and non-academic publications, conference presentations, stakeholder websites and social media. A feasibility study will follow to explore the acceptability and practicality of the DA for patients, carers and HCPs in practice and to assess whether the DA shows promise of being beneficial for the intended population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Workspaces are socially constructed environments where social relationships are produced, reproduced, challenged and transformed. Their primary function is to support high-quality service delivery to the benefit of 'patients'. They are also settings where employees can work effectively, in a safe and healthy environment, delivering a high-quality service according to a 'Work-As-Done' rather than a 'Work-As-Imagined' model. However, hospital design is currently based on a managerial understanding of work accomplishments, often falling short of understanding what is actually happening on the ground. Furthermore, the research landscape lacks rigorous assessment of these complex sociological and health research concepts, either within the Australian context where this protocol is set, or internationally. This paper describes an innovative protocol aimed at examining healthcare employees' and organisations' concerns and beliefs in workspace design. It outlines research investigating the effect of workspace use on productivity, health and safety and worker satisfaction, to clarify Work-As-Done, while creating healthy and more fulfilling environments. Methods This is a proof-of-concept study, taking place between June 2018 and April 2019, employing a multimethod, qualitative approach for in-depth assessment of one Australian, private, university hospital environment, using as its 'case' the Gastroenterology Surgical Unit. It involves (1) observations and informal interviews (shadowing) with employees and patients as they traverse hospital spaces and (2) visual data of spatial use. Fieldnotes will be analysed thematically, and visual data analysed using a predefined schematic framework (a visual taxonomy). Overarching themes and categories will be considered corroboratively, mixing visual and textual data to build an iterative and dynamic picture. Ethics and dissemination Ethical considerations will be discussed, while approval has been granted by the University's Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/5201800282), along with Governance approved by the Health Clinical Research Executive (CRG2018005). Study results will be disseminated through publications, research conferences and public reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Effective researcher assessment is key to decisions about funding allocations, promotion and tenure. We aimed to identify what is known about methods for assessing researcher achievements, leading to a new composite assessment model. Design We systematically reviewed the literature via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols framework. Data sources All Web of Science databases (including Core Collection, MEDLINE and BIOSIS Citation Index) to the end of 2017. Eligibility criteria (1) English language, (2) published in the last 10 years (2007-2017), (3) full text was available and (4) the article discussed an approach to the assessment of an individual researcher's achievements. Data extraction and synthesis Articles were allocated among four pairs of reviewers for screening, with each pair randomly assigned 5% of their allocation to review concurrently against inclusion criteria. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa (ĸ). The ĸ statistic showed agreement ranging from moderate to almost perfect (0.4848-0.9039). Following screening, selected articles underwent full-text review and bias was assessed. Results Four hundred and seventy-eight articles were included in the final review. Established approaches developed prior to our inclusion period (eg, citations and outputs, h-index and journal impact factor) remained dominant in the literature and in practice. New bibliometric methods and models emerged in the last 10 years including: measures based on PageRank algorithms or 'altmetric' data, methods to apply peer judgement and techniques to assign values to publication quantity and quality. Each assessment method tended to prioritise certain aspects of achievement over others. Conclusions All metrics and models focus on an element or elements at the expense of others. A new composite design, the Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM), is presented, which supersedes past anachronistic models. The CRAM is modifiable to a range of applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Motor neuron disease (MND) is a terminal, progressive, multisystem disorder. Well-timed decisions are key to effective symptom management. To date, there are few published decision support tools, also known as decision aids, to guide patients in making ongoing choices for symptom management and quality of life. This protocol is to develop and validate decision support tools for patients and families to use in conjunction with health professionals in MND multidisciplinary care. The tools will inform patients and families of the benefits and risks of each option, as well as the consequences of accepting or declining treatment. Methods and analysis: The study is being conducted from June 2015 to May 2016, using a modified Delphi process. A 2-stage, 7-step process will be used to develop the tools, based on existing literature and stakeholder feedback. The first stage will be to develop the decision support tools, while the second stage will be to validate both the tools and the process used to develop them. Participants will form expert panels, to provide feedback on which the development and validation of the tools will be based. Participants will be drawn from patients with MND, family carers and health professionals, support association workers, peak body representatives, and MND and patient decision-making researchers. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval for the study has been granted by Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), approval number 5201500658. Knowledge translation will be conducted via publications, seminar and conference presentations to patients and families, health professionals and researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The study aims are twofold. First, to investigate the suitability of hand hygiene as an indicator of accreditation outcomes and, second, to test the hypothesis that hospitals with better accreditation outcomes achieve higher hand hygiene compliance rates. Design: A retrospective, longitudinal, multisite comparative survey. Setting: Acute public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Participants: 96 acute hospitals with accreditation survey results from two surveys during 2009-2012 and submitted data for more than four hand hygiene audits between 2010 and 2013. Outcomes: Our primary outcome comprised observational hand hygiene compliance data from eight audits during 2010-2013. The explanatory variables in our multilevel regression model included: accreditation outcomes and scores for the infection control standard; timing of the surveys; and hospital size and activity. Results: Average hand hygiene compliance rates increased from 67.7% to 80.3% during the study period (2010-2013), with 46.7% of hospitals achieving target compliance rates of 70% in audit 1, versus 92.3% in audit 8. Average hand hygiene rates at small hospitals were 7.8 percentage points (pp) higher than those at the largest hospitals ( p<0.05). The association between hand hygiene rates, accreditation outcomes and infection control scores is less clear. Conclusions: Our results indicate that accreditation outcomes and hand hygiene audit data are measuring different parts of the quality and safety spectrum. Understanding what is being measured when selecting indicators to assess the impact of accreditation is critical as focusing on accreditation results would discount successful hand hygiene implementation by smaller hospitals. Conversely, relying on hand hygiene results would discount the infection control related research and leadership investment by larger hospitals. Our hypothesis appears to be confounded by an accreditation programme that makes it more difficult for smaller hospitals to achieve high infection control scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health system improvement (HSI) is focused on systematic changes to organisational processes and practices to improve the efficient delivery of safe care and quality outcomes. Guidelines that specify how interprofessional teams conduct HSI and knowledge translation are needed. We address this urgent requirement providing health professional teams with resources and strategies to investigate, analyse and implement system-level improvements. HSI encompasses similar, yet different, inter-related activities across a continuum. The continuum spans three categories of activities, such as quality improvement, health management research and translational health management research. A HSI decision making guide and checklist, comprising six-steps, is presented that can be used to select and plan projects. This resource comprises six interconnected steps including, defining the activity, project outcome, aim, use of evidence, appropriate methodology and implementation plan. Each step has been developed focusing on an objective, actions and resources. HSI activities provide a foundation for interprofessional collaboration, allowing multiple professions to create, share and disseminate knowledge for improved healthcare. When planned and executed well, HSI projects assist clinical and corporate staff to make evidence-informed decisions and directions for the benefit of the service, organisation and sector., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Long-term sustained improvement following implementation of hospital-wide quality and safety initiatives is not easily achieved. Comprehensive theoretical and practical understanding of how gained improvements can be sustained to benefit safe and high-quality care is needed. This review aimed to identify enabling and hindering factors and their contributions to improvement sustainability from hospital-wide change to enhance patient safety and quality., Methods: A systematic scoping review method was used. Searched were peer-reviewed published records on PubMed, Scopus, World of Science, CINAHL, Health Business Elite, Health Policy Reference Centre and Cochrane Library and grey literature. Review inclusion criteria included contemporary (2010 and onwards), empirical factors to improvement sustainability evaluated after the active implementation, hospital(s) based in the western Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Numerical and thematic analyses were undertaken., Results: 17 peer-reviewed papers were reviewed. Improvement and implementation approaches were predominantly adopted to guide change. Less than 6 in 10 (53%) of reviewed papers included a guiding framework/model, none with a demonstrated focus on improvement sustainability. With an evaluation time point of 4.3 years on average, 62 factors to improvement sustainability were identified and emerged into three overarching themes: People, Process and Organisational Environment. These entailed, as subthemes, actors and their roles; planning, execution and maintenance of change; and internal contexts that enabled sustainability. Well-coordinated change delivery, customised local integration and continued change effort were three most critical elements. Mechanisms between identified factors emerged in the forms of Influence and Action towards sustained improvement., Conclusions: The findings map contemporary empirical factors and their mechanisms towards change sustainability from a hospital-wide initiative to improve patient safety and quality. The identified factors and mechanisms extend current theoretical and empirical knowledgebases of sustaining improvement particularly with those beyond the active implementation. The provided conceptual framework offers an empirically evidenced and actionable guide to assist sustainable organisational change in hospital settings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Ineffective knowledge dissemination contributes to clinical practice and service improvements not being realised. Meaningful knowledge translation can occur through the understanding and matching of appropriate communication mediums that are relevant for different stakeholders or audiences. To this end, we present a dissemination instrument, the 'REAch and Diffusion of health iMprovement Evidence' (README) checklist, for the communication of research findings, integrating both traditional and newer communication mediums. Additionally, we propose a 'Strategic Translation and Engagement Planning' (STEP) tool, for use when deciding which mediums to select. The STEP tool challenges the need for communicating complex and simple information against the desire for passive or active stakeholder interaction. Used collaboratively by academics and health professionals, README and STEP can promote co-production of research, subsequent diffusion of knowledge, and develop the capacity and skills of all stakeholders., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)