Search

Aims and objectives The aim of the Paediatric International Nursing Study was to explore the utility of key performance indicators in developing person-centred practice across a range of services provided to sick children. The objective addressed in this paper was evaluating the use of these indicators to benchmark services internationally. Background This study builds on primary research, which produced indicators that were considered novel both in terms of their positive orientation and use in generating data that privileges the patient voice. This study extends this research through wider testing on an international platform within paediatrics. Design The overall methodological approach was a realistic evaluation used to evaluate the implementation of the key performance indicators, which combined an integrated development and evaluation methodology. Methods The study involved children's wards/hospitals in Australia (six sites across three states) and Europe (seven sites across four countries). Qualitative and quantitative methods were used during the implementation process, however, this paper reports the quantitative data only, which used survey, observations and documentary review. Results The findings demonstrate the quality of care being delivered to children and their families across different international sites. The benchmarking does, however, highlight some differences between paediatric and general hospitals, and between the different key performance indicators across all the sites. Conclusions The findings support the use of the key performance indicators as a novel method to benchmark services internationally. Whilst the data collected across 20 paediatric sites suggest services are more similar than different, benchmarking illuminates variations that encourage a critical dialogue about what works and why. Relevance to clinical practice The transferability of the key performance indicators and measurement framework across different settings has significant implications for practice. The findings offer an approach to benchmarking and celebrating the successes within practice, while learning from partners across the globe in further developing person-centred cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Different health state utility (HSU) instruments produce different utilities for the same individuals, thereby compromising the intended comparability of economic evaluations of health care interventions. When developing crosswalks, previous studies have indicated nonlinear relationships. This paper inquires into the degree of nonlinearity across the four most widely used HSU-instruments and proposes exchange rates that differ depending on the severity levels of the health state utility scale.Methods: Overall, 7933 respondents from six countries, 1760 in a non-diagnosed healthy group and 6173 in seven disease groups, reported their health states using four different instruments: EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D. Quantile regressions investigate the degree of nonlinear relationships between these instruments. To compare the instruments across different disease severities, we split the health state utility scale into utility intervals with 0.2 successive decrements in utility starting from perfect health at 1.00. Exchange rates (ERs) are calculated as the mean utility difference between two utility intervals on one HSU-instrument divided by the difference in mean utility on another HSU-instrument.Results: Quantile regressions reveal significant nonlinear relationships across all four HSU-instruments. The degrees of nonlinearities differ, with a maximum degree of difference in the coefficients along the health state utility scale of 3.34 when SF-6D is regressed on EQ-5D. At the lower end of the health state utility scale, the exchange rate from SF-6D to EQ-5D is 2.11, whilst at the upper end it is 0.38.Conclusion: Comparisons at different utility levels illustrate the fallacy of using linear functions as crosswalks between HSU-instruments. The existence of nonlinear relationships between different HSU-instruments suggests that level-specific exchange rates should be used when converting a change in utility on the instrument used, onto a corresponding utility change had another instrument been used. Accounting for nonlinearities will increase the validity of the comparison for decision makers when faced with a choice between interventions whose calculations of QALY gains have been based on different HSU-instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health care organizations need to be responsive to the needs of increasingly diverse patient populations. We compared the contents of six publicly available approaches to organizational responsiveness to diversity. The central questions addressed in this paper are: what are the most consistently recommended issues for health care organizations to address in order to be responsive to the needs of diverse groups that differ from the majority population? How much consensus is there between various approaches?Methods: We purposively sampled six approaches from the US, Australia and Europe and used qualitative textual analysis to categorize the content of each approach into domains (conceptually distinct topic areas) and, within each domain, into dimensions (operationalizations). The resulting classification framework was used for comparative analysis of the content of the six approaches.Results: We identified seven domains that were represented in most or all approaches: organizational commitment, empirical evidence on inequalities and needs, a competent and diverse workforce, ensuring access for all users, ensuring responsiveness in care provision, fostering patient and community participation, and actively promoting responsiveness. Variations in the operationalization of these domains related to different scopes, contexts and types of diversity. For example, approaches that focus on ethnic diversity mostly provide recommendations to handle cultural and language differences; approaches that take an intersectional approach and broaden their target population to vulnerable groups in a more general sense also pay attention to factors such as socio-economic status and gender.Conclusions: Despite differences in labeling, there is a broad consensus about what health care organizations need to do in order to be responsive to patient diversity. This opens the way to full scale implementation of organizational responsiveness in healthcare and structured evaluation of its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The factors related to the treatment of nausea during pregnancy have not yet been investigated in several countries simultaneously. The present study aimed to describe differences in self-reported nausea during pregnancy and the patterns of use for both conventional and herbal medicines across countries. The factors related to nausea and its treatment and the relationships between different self-reported co-morbidities and nausea were also investigated.Methods: This cross-sectional study used data collected by a web-based questionnaire distributed between October 2011 and February 2012 in several countries within five regions: Western, Northern, and Eastern Europe, North America, and Australia. Women who were pregnant or had a child less than one year old were eligible to participate.Results: A total of 9113 women were included in the study, whereof 6701 (73.5%) had experienced nausea during pregnancy. Among respondents with nausea, conventional medicines were used by 1201 (17.9%) women and herbal medicines by 556 (8.3%) women. The extent of self-reported nausea and its treatment varied by country. Education, working status, and folic acid use were significantly associated with the use of conventional medicines against nausea. Respondents who had nausea also had a high burden of co-morbidity.Conclusion: The prevalence of nausea was high across all participating countries but its treatment varied, possibly due to cultural differences and differences in attitudes towards medicines. A high degree of co-morbidity was found among respondents with nausea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is possible that some people who quit smoking experience improved mental health after cessation and therefore remain abstinent, whereas other people who quit may experience worse mental health after cessation and therefore be more likely to relapse to smoking. Thus, in this study we aimed to examine the association between an enduring change in mental health following the cessation period and future risk of relapse.Methods: A secondary analysis of prospective data pooled from five placebo-controlled randomised trials for smoking reduction conducted in Europe, USA and Australia. Change in mental health (SF-36, scored 0-100) was measured from baseline to four months for those who were biologically-validated as point-prevalence abstainers at four month follow-up. Thereafter we assessed whether relapse to smoking by 12 months was more likely in those whose mental health had worsened between baseline and four months compared with those who saw no change or an improvement.Results: After adjustment for baseline mental health and other major covariates, there was no greater tendency to relapse at 12 months for those whose mental health worsened after cessation compared with those who had no change or an improvement. The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval was 1.01 (0.97 to 1.05).Conclusions: People whose mental health worsens after smoking cessation are at no greater risk of subsequent relapse to smoking than those whose mental health stays the same or improves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of our study was to compare various aspects of radiology training schemes in ten countries. A questionnaire was sent to senior residents in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Egypt, India, Malaysia and Greece. The questions concerned length of training, required pre-training experience, the organization of the training scheme, teaching, resources, stages at which residents can independently perform and report examinations, fellowships, and progression to jobs. A wide variety of training, ranging from highly scheduled programs with detailed aims and objectives, to self-learning occurs across the world. Examinations and assessments are also variable. There are lessons to be learned from varying practices; more exchanges of ideas should be encouraged. In view of the "internationalization" of radiology services and the variation in training styles an international qualification for quality assurance purposes may be desirable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]