Search

OBJECTIVE To describe the variability of allied health services on weekends, relative to weekdays, throughout Australian and New Zealand hospitals. METHODS A prospective, cross-sectional observational study embedded within a cluster randomised control trial. Allied health managers provided administrative data relating to allied health service events. RESULTS In one month, there were a total of 243 549 allied health service events recorded from 91 sampled hospitals. The mean difference between weekday and weekend allied health service events (daily, per ward) for physiotherapy was 6.52 (95% CI 5.65 to 7.40), acute wards 12.03 (95% CI 10.25 to 13.82) and for metropolitan hospitals 14.47 (95% CI 12.22 to 16.73), revealing more allied health service events of longer duration on weekdays compared to weekends. CONCLUSIONS This research is the first of its kind to describe variation in allied health service provision and potential research to practice gaps across weekday and weekend days in various inpatient settings.

Background Implementing evidence into clinical practice is a key focus of healthcare improvements to reduce unwarranted variation. Dissemination of evidence-based recommendations and knowledge brokering have emerged as potential strategies to achieve evidence implementation by influencing resource allocation decisions. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of these two research implementation strategies to facilitate evidence-informed healthcare management decisions for the provision of inpatient weekend allied health services. Methods and findings This multicentre, single-blinded (data collection and analysis), three-group parallel cluster randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation was conducted in Australian and New Zealand hospitals between February 2018 and January 2020. Clustering and randomisation took place at the organisation level where weekend allied health staffing decisions were made (e.g., network of hospitals or single hospital). Hospital wards were nested within these decision-making structures. Three conditions were compared over a 12-month period: (1) usual practice waitlist control; (2) dissemination of written evidence-based practice recommendations; and (3) access to a webinar-based knowledge broker in addition to the recommendations. The primary outcome was the alignment of weekend allied health provision with practice recommendations at the cluster and ward levels, addressing the adoption, penetration, and fidelity to the recommendations. The secondary outcome was mean hospital length of stay at the ward level. Outcomes were collected at baseline and 12 months later. A total of 45 clusters (n = 833 wards) were randomised to either control (n = 15), recommendation (n = 16), or knowledge broker (n = 14) conditions. Four (9%) did not provide follow-up data, and no adverse events were recorded. No significant effect was found with either implementation strategy for the primary outcome at the cluster level (recommendation versus control β 18.11 [95% CI −8,721.81 to 8,758.02] p = 0.997; knowledge broker versus control β 1.24 [95% CI −6,992.60 to 6,995.07] p = 1.000; recommendation versus knowledge broker β −9.12 [95% CI −3,878.39 to 3,860.16] p = 0.996) or ward level (recommendation versus control β 0.01 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.75] p = 0.983; knowledge broker versus control β −0.12 [95% CI −0.54 to 0.30] p = 0.581; recommendation versus knowledge broker β −0.19 [−1.04 to 0.65] p = 0.651). There was no significant effect between strategies for the secondary outcome at ward level (recommendation versus control β 2.19 [95% CI −1.36 to 5.74] p = 0.219; knowledge broker versus control β −0.55 [95% CI −1.16 to 0.06] p = 0.075; recommendation versus knowledge broker β −3.75 [95% CI −8.33 to 0.82] p = 0.102). None of the control or knowledge broker clusters transitioned to partial or full alignment with the recommendations. Three (20%) of the clusters who only received the written recommendations transitioned from nonalignment to partial alignment. Limitations include underpowering at the cluster level sample due to the grouping of multiple geographically distinct hospitals to avoid contamination. Conclusions Owing to a lack of power at the cluster level, this trial was unable to identify a difference between the knowledge broker strategy and dissemination of recommendations compared with usual practice for the promotion of evidence-informed resource allocation to inpatient weekend allied health services. Future research is needed to determine the interactions between different implementation strategies and healthcare contexts when translating evidence into healthcare practice. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000029291., In a cluster randomized controlled implementation trial, Dr. Mitchell N Sarkies and colleagues examine the effectiveness of knowledge brokering and recommendation dissemination in influencing healthcare resource allocation decisions in Australia and New Zealand., Author summary Why was this study done? Healthcare delivery does not always reflect the most up-to-date research evidence. There are high levels of evidence to suggest that inpatient allied health services provided during weekends achieve greatest benefits in subacute rehabilitation wards. Most weekend allied health services are provided to acute general medical and surgical wards, where there is uncertain evidence of impact. Translation of evidence into practice is constrained by a limited understanding of which implementation strategies are most effective for specific settings. What did the researchers do and find? We conducted a cluster randomised controlled implementation trial to compare the effectiveness of two research implementation strategies across 132 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. We provided hospital managers with either evidence-based weekend allied health practice recommendations or access to a knowledge broker in addition to the recommendations, over a 12-month period. Neither implementation strategy was able to be shown effective for ensuring better alignment of weekend allied health provision with practice recommendations; no impacts on hospital length of stay were identified. What do the findings mean? Evidence dissemination and knowledge brokering are thought to facilitate the translation of research evidence into practice. Our study was unable to find whether either of these strategies substantially influenced weekend allied health service decision-making by hospital managers. It is possible to study the impact of research implementation using robust trial designs; however, challenges achieving adequate statistical power are a barrier to these evaluations.

Patients who frequently attend to emergency departments are a varying group and have complex health care needs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of patients who have frequent attendance to emergency departments. A systematic review was performed in line with PRISMA guidelines. A database search was conducted, and studies were included in the final review if they analysed a population of frequent attendance. Meta-analysis was performed only on population-based studies to estimate prevalence. The search yielded 2922 nonduplicate publications, of which 27 were included in the meta-analysis. The most common definition used for frequent attendance was greater than three presentations a year. The proportion of people who frequently attended as a percentage of the total study population ranged from 0.01 to 20.9%, with emergency department presentations from frequent attenders ranging from 0.2 to 34%. When limiting the definition of frequent attendance to greater than three visits in a 12-month period, people who frequently attended contributed between 3 and 10% [pooled estimate 6%; CI 4–7%] of emergency department presentations and between 12 and 34% [pooled estimate 21%; CI 15–27%] of total emergency department presentations. Meta-analysis found substantial heterogeneity between estimates [I2 > 50%]. The prevalence of frequent attendance compared to the total population of patients seeking emergency care was small, but the impact on emergency department utilisation is significant. Early identification of people attending for frequent care at an emergency department provides the opportunity to implement alternative models of care.

Objective The aim of this systematic review was to identify the effect of specific exercise parameters on physical function and quality of life (QOL) in people with chronic heart failure living in the community. Data Sources A total of 5 electronic databases were searched for relevant studies published after 1994. Study Selection The screening process was completed by 2 independent researchers, with a third independent reviewer for conflict resolution. Studies were selected if they included only chronic hHart failure participants, and the sole intervention was a structured exercise training program in an outpatient or community setting. Data Extraction Two independent researchers completed the data extraction and qualiy assessment. Quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation scales. Data Synthesis In total, 40 articles (n=5411) were included in the review for meta-analysis and meta-regression, including 27 randomized control trials and 13 cohort studies. Exercise was shown to have a positive effect on QOL outcomes (standardized mean difference 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.56) with the most commonly used measure, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, showing a clinically significant change of 8.5 points. Physical function was improved postexercise intervention in the 23 included studies (standardized mean difference 0.89; 95% CI, 0.40-1.38), with a clinically significant change of 49.8 m seen in studies using the 6-minute walk test (95% CI, 26.52-73.13). These improvements were independent of study design, study quality, participant demographics, disease severity, and exercise prescription variables. Conclusion Exercise significantly improves QOL and physical function. Current evidence suggests that engagement with exercise is a more important factor in achieving improvement than how the exercise is performed. Future research should aim to identify and address barriers to engagement in exercise rehabilitation in this population.