Search

Objective: To investigate ED and intensive care unit healthcare professionals' perspectives and knowledge of the law that underpins end‐of‐life decision‐making in Queensland, Australia. Methods: An online survey with questions about perspectives, perceived, and actual, knowledge of the law was distributed by the professional organisations of medical practitioners, nurses and social workers who work in Queensland EDs and intensive care units. Results: The survey responses of 126 healthcare professionals were included in the final analysis. Most respondents agreed that the law was relevant to end‐of‐life decision‐making, but that clinician and family consensus mattered more than following the law. Generally, doctors' legal knowledge was higher than nurses'; however, there were significant gaps in the knowledge of all respondents about the operation of advance health directives in Queensland. Conclusions: The legal framework that supports end‐of‐life decision‐making for adults who lack decision‐making capacity has been in place for more than two decades. Despite frequently being involved in making or enacting these decisions, gaps in the legal knowledge of healthcare professionals who work in EDs and intensive care units in Queensland are evident. Further research to better understand how to improve knowledge and application of the law is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. There is limited evidence about how legal frameworks that underpin end-of-life decisions are applied in practice. This study aimed to identify how end-of-life decisions are made and documented in emergency departments and intensive care units. The secondary aim was to explore the extent to which the legal processes featured in these decisions. Methods. A retrospective chart audit of 85 adult patients who died in the emergency departments and intensive care units of a Queensland health service was undertaken. Quantitative data were analysed and reported using descriptive statistics. Qualitative textual data were analysed using inductive content analysis. Results. Nearly all admissions were unplanned (97.6%), and most patients (74.1%) were admitted from home. Only one patient had an advance health directive, although all had an eligible substitute decision-maker. The qualitative analysis revealed two main concepts -- 'healthcare professionals choreograph the end of life' and 'patients and families are carried on an unplanned journey'. Conclusions. There was limited documentation related to the application of the legal framework in these decisions. Healthcare professionals relied on their clinical judgment about what was in the best interest of the patient. It was common for there to be a substantial effort to achieve consensus in decision-making which coincidentally complied with the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of supporting family members to partner with health professionals on nutrition intakes and decision‐making and to evaluate intervention and study feasibility. Background: Family partnerships can improve outcomes for critically ill patients and family members. Interventions that support families to engage with health professionals require evaluation. Design: A multi‐centre, randomised, parallel group superiority Phase II randomised controlled trial. Methods: In nine intensive care units (ICUs) across three countries, critically ill patients ≥60 years, or those 55–59 years with advanced chronic diseases and expected ICU length of stay >72 h and their family member were enrolled between 9 May 2017 and 31 March 2020. Participants were randomised (1:1:1) to either a decision support or nutrition optimisation family‐centred intervention, or usual care. Primary outcomes included protein and energy intake during ICU and hospital stay (nutrition intervention) and family satisfaction (decision support). Study feasibility was assessed as a composite of consent rate, intervention adherence, contamination and physician awareness of intervention assignment. Results: We randomised 135 patients/family members (consent rate 51.7%). The average rate of randomisation was 0.5 (0.13–1.53) per month. Unavailability (staff/family) was the major contributor to families not being approached for consent. Declined consent was attributed to families feeling overwhelmed (58/126, 46%). Pandemic visitor restrictions contributed to early study cessation. Intervention adherence for the decision support intervention was 76.9%–100.0% and for the nutrition intervention was 44.8%–100.0%. Nutritional adequacy, decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision‐making and overall family satisfaction with ICU were similar for all groups. Conclusions: Active partnerships between family members and health professionals are important but can be challenging to achieve in critical care contexts. We were unable to demonstrate the efficacy of either intervention. Feasibility outcomes suggest further refinement of interventions and study protocol may be warranted. Relevance to Clinical Practice: Interventions to promote family partnerships in critical illness are needed but require a greater understanding of the extent to which families want and are able to engage and the activities in which they have most impact. Reporting Method: This study has been reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) guidelines. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients and caregivers were engaged in and contributed to the development and subsequent iterations of the two family‐centred interventions use in this study. Clinical Trial Registration Number: Trial registration. Clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT02920086. Registered on 30 September 2016. First patient enrolled on 9 May 2017 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT02920086&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To explore healthcare professionals' perceptions of the feasibility and acceptability of family engagement in early mobilisation for adult critically ill patients. Background: Early mobilisation is beneficial to minimise intensive care unit acquired‐weakness in critically ill patients and family engagement can help with meeting early mobilisation goals, but it is not widely practiced. Understanding healthcare professionals' perceptions of feasibility and acceptability of family engagement in early mobilisation of adult critically ill patients is required to inform future implementation strategies to promote early mobilisation. Design: A descriptive qualitative study. Methods: Face‐to‐face, individual, semi‐structured interviews were conducted between August 2021 and March 2022 with healthcare professionals working in two intensive care units in Australia. The interviews were analysed using the inductive content analysis, and descriptive statistics were used to summarise participant characteristics. The COREQ checklist was followed when reporting this study. Results: Eleven ICU nurses, five physiotherapists and four physicians participated in the interviews. Three main categories were identified: (i) healthcare professionals' readiness, (ii) mediators of engagement and (iii) foundations for successful implementation. Most participants demonstrated a positive attitude towards an implementation of family engagement in early mobilisation for adult critically ill patients; however, capability and capacity of healthcare professionals, family members' willingness, availability and readiness and the care context were considered factors that could influence the successful implementation. Conclusion: From the perspectives of healthcare professionals, family engagement in early mobilisation is feasible and acceptable to enact but implementation is influenced by contextual factors including, healthcare professionals' capability and capacity and family members' willingness, availability and readiness. Collaborative teamwork and preparing family members and healthcare professionals are needed to support this practice. Relevance to Clinical Practice: The findings provide important information to further identify potential strategies of family engagement in early mobilisation and to help and mitigate factors that impede implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: When handover is conducted at the patient's bedside, active patient participation can be encouraged, which may improve the safety and quality of care. There is a need for valid and reliable tools to measure patient perceptions of participation in bedside handover, to ensure the rising number of implementation and improvement efforts are consistently and effectively evaluated. The aim of this study is to systematically develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a self‐report survey to measure patients' perceptions of participation in bedside handover. Methods: In Phase 1, our team developed a conceptual framework and item pool (n = 130). In Phase 2, content validity was assessed with four health consumers, four nurses and four researchers. Next, 10 current hospital inpatients tested the survey for end‐user satisfaction. In Phase 3, 326 inpatients completed the survey, allowing exploratory factor analysis, reliability analyses and convergent/divergent validity analyses to occur. Results: Phase 1 and 2 resulted in a 42‐item survey. In Phase 3, 321 surveys were available for analysis. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a three‐factor solution, with 24 items, which matched our conceptual framework. The three factors were: 'Conditions for patient participation in bedside handover', 'Level of patient participation in bedside handover' and 'Evaluation of patient participation in bedside handover'. There was strong evidence for factor reliability and validity. Additionally, the correlation between factors was strong. Conclusion: This study furthers our conceptual understanding by showing that nurse facilitating behaviours are a strong precursor for patient participation and perceived handover outcomes, justifying the need for nursing training. A robust survey has been developed to measure patient perceptions of participation in bedside handover, which can effectively evaluate this approach to care. Engaging consumers and nurses as research team members was invaluable in ensuring that the survey is acceptable for end‐users. Patient or Public Contribution: A health consumer and nurse partnered as members of the research team from study inception to dissemination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To explore Registered Nurses' approaches to pressure injury prevention, including how they perceive their roles, how they prioritize pressure injury prevention and factors influencing prevention in the Chinese context. Design: A qualitative descriptive study. Methods: Audio‐recorded, face‐to‐face, semi‐structured individual interviews were conducted with Registered Nurses in a large tertiary hospital in China from August to December 2020. Using the System Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety Model, the interview guide was developed to describe the work system, processes and outcomes (three domains) associated with nurses' pressure injury prevention practices. Deductive and inductive content analyses were used. Findings Twenty‐seven nurses participated in the interviews. Four themes related to two domains of the model emerged: Work system: (i) Nurses lead and coordinate pressure injury prevention; Work processes: (ii) Individualized pressure injury prevention is founded on comprehensive patient assessment; (iii) Collaborating ensures patients receive appropriate pressure injury prevention; and (iv) Competing factors influence the delivery of appropriate pressure injury prevention. One category emerged about work outcome: Nurses strive to do their best in pressure injury prevention but hold major concerns when pressure injuries occur. Conclusions: Nurses play a leading role in pressure injury prevention delivery but require appropriate resources and assistance and support from other healthcare personnel, patients and carers. Understaffing, lack of resources, complex reporting and poor patient compliance challenge nurses in their delivery of pressure injury prevention. Impact Pressure injury prevention is primarily a nursing responsibility therefore nurses' approaches to prevention were explored. Nurses rely on collaboration with others and access to various resources to provide pressure injury prevention. They recognize the patients' and carers' roles and acknowledge the importance of accessing guidance and support from nursing leaders and wound experts. Acknowledging nurses leading role in prevention and ensuring they have adequate resources are important for quality care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence on sepsis screening and care in developing nations is insufficient to inform implementation practices in hospital wards. The aim of this multi‐method study was to describe and evaluate the implementation of a three‐step intervention (sepsis screening, alert activation, care) in five wards in Argentina in 2017. The implementation involved three stages: (1) context assessment, (2) development/participation in implementation strategies, and (3) evaluation of intervention adherence. Results were variable. The context assessment (Stage 1) demonstrated the value of education, proactivity towards care and team structures. Strategies developed (Stage 2) included sepsis screening and response guide, education, team rounding, posters, champions, audit/feedback and knowledge brokering. In Stage 3, staff screened 92% patients (506/547) for sepsis at ≥60% of set times; only 33% (21/64) patients had a sepsis alert activated when needed. A similar proportion of patients who had alerts activated (n = 16, 76%) or not (n = 32, 74%) received at least one element of care. The use of implementation strategies resulted in adherence to some aspects of the intervention. Future research is needed to improve sepsis screening and alert activation and care in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intrahospital handovers are high risk. Standardization of content and process is recommended. Local Problem: Emergency department to inpatient unit handovers were inefficient. Interventions: The intervention was a standardized operating protocol, including checklist and procedures. Methods: The intervention was coproduced and prototyped. Handovers were observed for intervention adherence, and the Handover Evaluation Scale was used to measure nurses' perceived quality of handover. Results: The handover had 3 steps. Step 1 had more content, prompting by the receiver, and family participation postintervention. Step 3 was shorter in duration, had less content, and occurred at the bedside more postintervention. Receiving nurses were able to ask questions and found that information provided was timely, current, and easy to follow. Sending nurses perceived that handover was less succinct postimplementation, despite decreases in handover duration and repetition of information. Conclusions: This project has triggered ongoing improvement initiatives, necessary to keep accommodating the needs of nurses that work across boundaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient‐ and family‐centred care practices are a recommended part of contemporary care for the acutely ill hospitalized adult patients. However, how patient‐ and family‐centred care is enacted in an adult hospital setting is not well understood. Aims and Objectives: The aim of this study is to explore the perceptions of patients, family members and nurses regarding family participation and collaboration in patient care within an acute care setting, including the barriers and facilitators. Design This study used a mixed‐methods sequential design. Methods: Observer‐as‐participant observations and semistructured interviews were undertaken. Integration of the data was achieved through triangulation. Results: Triangulation revealed two metathemes. The first metatheme, 'continuum of family involvement', explained the central viewpoint of how family participation and collaboration in the care of acutely ill hospitalized adult patients was enacted. The second metatheme, 'nurses value family involvement', helped to explain and understand the barriers and facilitators to enacting family participation in the acute care setting. Conclusion: Promoting family participation in the acute care setting requires supporting multiple levels of engagement. Developing a relationship, clear communication and open sharing of information amongst patients, family members and nurses is critical to supporting family involvement. SUMMARY STATEMENT: What is already known about the topic? Health service policy emphasizes that patients and families should be treated with dignity and respect, be active partners in all aspects of care and contribute to the development and improvement of health care.In the acute care setting, both patients and family members express the desire for a larger role in health‐care decision making; yet how this is enacted in an adult hospital setting is not well understood.Research in other settings has demonstrated the clinical benefits of family involvement in care include decreased mortality, reduced hospital length of stay, improved adherence to treatment regimens and decreased readmission rates. What this paper adds? Supporting meaningful family participation in the acute care setting requires supporting multiple levels of engagement. When families felt empowered and participated in care, patients and family members believed it helped nurses to keep the patient safe and individualize care.The tripartite relationship amongst patients, family members and acute care nurses is essential in empowering family members to participate in the care of acutely ill hospitalized adult patients. However, nurses' values, beliefs and attitudes towards involving families in patient care are seen to be crucial to the possibility of embedding family participation in the acute care setting. The implications of this paper: Policies that incorporate the patient and families' voice and behavioural change interventions may lead to the normalization of patient‐ and family‐centred practices in the adult acute care hospital setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Advanced Nursing (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Failure of clinicians to recognise and respond to patient clinical deterioration is associated with increased hospital mortality. Emergency response teams are implemented throughout hospitals to support direct‐care clinicians in managing patient deterioration, but patient clinical deterioration is often not identified or acted upon by clinicians in ward settings. To date, no studies have used an integrative theoretical framework in multiple sites to examine why clinicians' delay identification and action on patients' clinical deterioration. Aim: To identify barriers and facilitators that influence clinicians' absent or delayed response to patient clinical deterioration using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Methods: The Theoretical Domains Framework guided: (a) semi‐structured interviews with clinicians, health consumers and family members undertaken at two sites; (b) deductive analyses of inductive themes to identify barriers and facilitators to optimal care. This study complied with the COREQ research guidelines. Findings: Seven themes identified: (a) information transfer; (b) ownership of patient care; (c) confidence to respond; (d) knowledge and skills; (e) culture; (f) emotion; and (g) environmental context and resources. Discussion: The Theoretical Domains Framework identified traditional social and professional hierarchies and limitations due to environmental contexts and resources as contributors to diminished interprofessional recognition and impediments to the development of effective relationships between professional groups. Communication processes were impacted by these restraints and further confounded by inadequate policy development and limited access to regular effective team‐based training. As a result, patient safety was compromised, and clinicians frustrated. Conclusions: These results inform the development, implementation and evaluation of a behaviour change intervention and increase knowledge about barriers and facilitators to timely response to patient clinical deterioration. Relevance to clinical practice: Results contribute to understanding of why clinicians delay responding to patient clinical deterioration and suggest key recommendations to identify and challenge traditional hierarchies and practices that prevent interdisciplinary collaboration and decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient satisfaction is an indicator of the quality of care that underpins a patient's health care experience. A focus on both the patient and the family is important when evaluating satisfaction from the perspective of patients with trauma and is consistent with delivery of patient- and family- centered care. Using the literature to guide development, we designed and implemented a questionnaire to evaluate attitudes and experiences of patients and families case managed by the trauma service. This article reports the findings of this quality improvement project. Methods: A cross-sectional cohort pragmatic design was used. The questionnaire was conducted with 142 trauma patients and 49 family members. Data included hospital admission data, application of a satisfaction tool, and free text comments. Results: Both patients and their family members rated the trauma service highly in the satisfaction scoring. Differences in the communication practices encountered by patients and families were identified. Conclusions: Strategies to involve family members and promote family-centered care are required in the context of trauma patients to improve the safety, quality, and satisfaction of the care they receive while being managed by the trauma service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the implementation of an intervention for parents to escalate care if concerned about their child's clinical condition. Design: Mixed‐methods health‐care improvement approach guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Methods: Implementation of the 'Calling for Help' (C4H) intervention was informed by previously identified barriers and facilitators. Evaluation involved audit, review of clinical deterioration incidents, interviews and focus groups. Setting: Australian specialist paediatric hospital. Participants: Convenience sample of 75 parents from inpatient areas during the audit, interviews with ten parents who had expressed concern about their child's clinical condition; five focus groups with 35 ward nurses. Main outcome measures: Parent awareness and utilization of C4H, parent and nurse views of factors influencing implementation. Results: Parent awareness of C4H improved to 35% (25/75). Parent concern was documented prior to 21/174 (12%) clinical deterioration events. All interviewed parents and nurses who participated in focus groups were positive about C4H. Parents preferred to be informed about C4H by nurses, but nurses described this as time‐consuming and selectively chose parents who they believed would benefit most. Parents and nurses described frustrations with and trepidation in escalating care. Nurses had used C4H to expedite urgent medical review. Conclusions: There was an improvement in the level of parent awareness of C4H, which was viewed positively by parents and nurses alike. To achieve a high level of parent awareness in a sustainable way, a multifaceted approach is required. Further strategies will be required for parents to feel confident enough to use C4H and to address interprofessional communication barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hospital leaders, policymakers and healthcare professionals are realising the benefits of delivering care that promotes family participation because it is known to enhance the quality of care, and improve patient satisfaction. Aim: The aim of this study was to explore, from the perspective of patients and family members within an adult acute care ward: (a) their beliefs and attitudes towards family participation in patient care and (b) staff behaviours that support or hinder family participation in patient care. Design and methods: A naturalistic approach with an exploratory sequential design was used in a medical assessment and planning unit of a regional referral hospital in Australia. Purposeful maximum variation sampling was used to recruit patients and family members who differed in age, ethnicity, relationship to patient and gender. Observer‐as‐participant observation data and semi‐structured interviews were undertaken. Following separate inductive content analysis, data were triangulated. Results: Thirty‐two patients and 26 family members were recruited. Thirty hours of observational data were gathered. Eighteen patients and 15 family members were interviewed. Analysis uncovered two contrasting categories: (a) disconnected communication and (b) family influence quality. Conclusion: The findings of our study demonstrated that most patients and families perceived staff communication as disconnected and inadequate, which constrained them from engaging in care processes or decision‐making. However, when family felt empowered and participated in patient care, the quality of health care was enhanced. Healthcare professionals can use these findings to make informed evidence‐based changes to the way they practice and communicate to ensure family participation in patient care is optimised in the acute care setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe changes in day of surgery (DOS) cancellations and procedural delays following introduction of a practice improvement intervention to improve team members' participation in the surgical safety checklist (SSC). Methods: Pretest--posttest electronic audit of secondary data collected 12 months before and 12 months after implementation. A consecutive sample of patients who underwent elective surgeries were included. Elective surgeries over two periods (November 2014 to September 2015, and November 2015 to October 2016) were included in the audit and data was collected retrospectively. The practice improvement intervention coined 'pass the baton' was implemented over four weeks in October 2015. Results: Across audit periods 33 017 surgical procedures (16 262 pretest and 16 755 posttest) were performed. DOS cancellations between phases totalled 826 with an increase of 112 in the posttest phase with the largest posttest increase being in suite cancellation (increase of 97). Across phases, there were 1508 procedural delays (pretest n=737, posttest n =771), with the most frequent delay being due to staff availability (p=0.577). Pretest procedural delays averaged 38.7 minutes (SD 52.4) and posttest averaged 36.8 minutes (SD 43.2) (p=0.428). Conclusions: These results suggest no change in clinical efficiencies when the SSC is fully utilised. That is, increased participation in the checklist does not increase delays in surgery. When considering ways to improve clinical efficiency, hospital administrators need to consider skill mix, physical layout of the OR and additional staffing, factors not captured in routine clinical audit data collected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The safety and effectiveness of same day discharge (SDD) following percutaneous coronary intervention are well demonstrated; however, the uptake of this model of care is low. Purpose: The aim was to examine the effectiveness of implementing SDD using a process evaluation methodology. Methods: This study was undertaken in a cardiac services department of a tertiary teaching hospital in southeast Queensland, Australia. It was anticipated before the implementation that 120 patients could be discharged the same day in a 6 months' time period. Patient selection process and guideline adherence were assessed along with patients' and relatives' satisfaction. Results: During implementation, 22 patients were discharged home the same day. It was found that staff did not follow the guideline consistently, with an overall adherence of 77.3%. Conclusion: The uptake of SDD was low in this implementation. The study is important as it provides direction for future improvement both in the criteria and the implementation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Evidence‐based guidelines recommend early oral feeding (EOF) as prescription of an unrestricted diet within 24 hours after colorectal surgery. The present study aimed to understand local postoperative feeding practices after colorectal surgery; identify barriers to EOF implementation; select, tailor and implement stakeholder engagement strategies to facilitate EOF uptake; and evaluate changes to practice. Methods: A longitudinal, mixed methods study was undertaken, guided by the knowledge‐to‐action framework. Phase 1 assessed the nature of the problem using postoperative diet Audits 1 and 2. In Phase 2, staff interviews identified barriers to EOF implementation. Results from Phases 1 and 2 were fed back to inform Phase 3 strategies. Knowledge uptake was monitored in Audits 3 and 4. Phase 4 evaluated outcomes from Audit 5. Results: In Phase 1, median time to commencement of full diet was postoperative Days 4 and 3 in Audits 1 and 2, respectively. Phase 2 identified EOF barriers, including disparities in diet upgrade practices and variable understanding of hospital diets. In Phase 3, planned strategies were implemented to improve EOF (i) educational session describing local hospital diets; (ii) consultant decision to prescribe a full diet on operation notes; and (iii) educational sessions with nursing staff describing changes to EOF practice. In Phase 4, median time to commencement of full diet improved to postoperative Day 0. Patients prescribed a full diet on operation notes increased from 0% to 82%. Conclusions: The present study successfully identified and overcame local barriers to improve EOF practices to align with guideline recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]