Search

Abstract Background Patient safety is a fundamental component of good quality health care. Checklists have been proposed as a method of improving patient safety. This systematic review, asked "In acute hospital settings, would the use of safety checklists applied by medical care teams, compared to not using checklists, improve patient safety?" Methods We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials published in English before September 2009. Studies were selected and appraised by two reviewers independently in consultation with colleagues, using inclusion, exclusion and appraisal criteria established a priori. Results Nine cohort studies with historical controls studies from four hospital care settings were included-intensive care unit, emergency department, surgery, and acute care. The studies used a variety of designs of safety checklists, and implemented them in different ways, however most incorporated an educational component to teach the staff how to use the checklist. The studies assessed outcomes occurring a few weeks to a maximum of 12 months post-implementation, and these outcomes were diverse. The studies were generally of low to moderate quality and of low levels of evidence, with all but one of the studies containing a high risk of bias. The results of these studies suggest some improvements in patient safety arising from use of safety checklists, but these were not consistent across all studies or for all outcomes. Some studies showed no difference in outcomes between checklist use and standard care without a checklist. Due to the variations in setting, checklist design, educational training given, and outcomes measured, it was unfeasible to accurately summarise any trends across all studies. Conclusions The included studies suggest some benefits of using safety checklists to improve protocol adherence and patient safety, but due to the risk of bias in these studies, their results should be interpreted with caution. More high quality and studies, are needed to enable confident conclusions about the effectiveness of safety checklists in acute hospital settings.

Abstract Background Evidence mapping describes the quantity, design and characteristics of research in broad topic areas, in contrast to systematic reviews, which usually address narrowly-focused research questions. The breadth of evidence mapping helps to identify evidence gaps, and may guide future research efforts. The Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) Initiative was established in 2007 to create evidence maps providing an overview of existing research in Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI). Methods The GEM evidence mapping method involved three core tasks: 1. Setting the boundaries and context of the map: Definitions for the fields of TBI and SCI were clarified, the prehospital, acute inhospital and rehabilitation phases of care were delineated and relevant stakeholders (patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and policymakers) who could contribute to the mapping were identified. Researchable clinical questions were developed through consultation with key stakeholders and a broad literature search. 2. Searching for and selection of relevant studies: Evidence search and selection involved development of specific search strategies, development of inclusion and exclusion criteria, searching of relevant databases and independent screening and selection by two researchers. 3. Reporting on yield and study characteristics: Data extraction was performed at two levels - 'interventions and study design' and 'detailed study characteristics'. The evidence map and commentary reflected the depth of data extraction. Results One hundred and twenty-nine researchable clinical questions in TBI and SCI were identified. These questions were then prioritised into high (n = 60) and low (n = 69) importance by the stakeholders involved in question development. Since 2007, 58 263 abstracts have been screened, 3 731 full text articles have been reviewed and 1 644 relevant neurotrauma publications have been mapped, covering fifty-three high priority questions. Conclusions GEM Initiative evidence maps have a broad range of potential end-users including funding agencies, researchers and clinicians. Evidence mapping is at least as resource-intensive as systematic reviewing. The GEM Initiative has made advancements in evidence mapping, most notably in the area of question development and prioritisation. Evidence mapping complements other review methods for describing existing research, informing future research efforts, and addressing evidence gaps.

Abstract Background Rates of maternal and perinatal mortality remain high in developing countries despite the existence of effective interventions. Efforts to strengthen evidence-based approaches to improve health in these settings are partly hindered by restricted access to the best available evidence, limited training in evidence-based practice and concerns about the relevance of existing evidence. South East Asia - Optimising Reproductive and Child Health in Developing Countries (SEA-ORCHID) was a five-year project that aimed to determine whether a multifaceted intervention designed to strengthen the capacity for research synthesis, evidence-based care and knowledge implementation improved clinical practice and led to better health outcomes for mothers and babies. This paper describes the development and design of the SEA-ORCHID intervention plan using a logical framework approach. Methods SEA-ORCHID used a before-and-after design to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted tailored intervention at nine sites across Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia, supported by three centres in Australia. We used a logical framework approach to systematically prepare and summarise the project plan in a clear and logical way. The development and design of the SEA-ORCHID project was based around the three components of a logical framework (problem analysis, project plan and evaluation strategy). Results The SEA-ORCHID logical framework defined the project's goal and purpose (To improve the health of mothers and babies in South East Asia and To improve clinical practice in reproductive health in South East Asia), and outlined a series of project objectives and activities designed to achieve these. The logical framework also established outcome and process measures appropriate to each level of the project plan, and guided project work in each of the participating countries and hospitals. Conclusions Development of a logical framework in the SEA-ORCHID project enabled a reasoned, logical approach to the project design that ensured the project activities would achieve the desired outcomes and that the evaluation plan would assess both the process and outcome of the project. The logical framework was also valuable over the course of the project to facilitate communication, assess progress and build a shared understanding of the project activities, purpose and goal.

Abstract Background Fellowships are a component of many professional education programs. They provide opportunities to develop skills and competencies in an environment where time is protected and resources and technical support are more readily available. The SEA-ORCHID fellowships program aimed to increase capacity for evidence-based practice and research synthesis, and to encourage fellows to become leaders in these areas. Methods Fellows included doctors, nurses, midwives and librarians working in the maternal and neonatal areas of nine hospitals in South East Asia. Fellowships were undertaken in Australia and involved specific outputs related to evidence-based practice or research synthesis. Training and support was tailored according to the type of output and the fellow's experience and expertise. We evaluated the fellowships program quantitatively and qualitatively through written evaluations, interviews and follow-up of fellowship activities. Results During 2006-07, 23 fellows from Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines undertook short-term fellowships (median four weeks) in Australia. The main outputs were drafts of Cochrane systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines and protocols for randomised trials, and training materials to support evidence-based practice. Protocols for Cochrane systematic reviews were more likely to be completed than other outcomes. The fellows identified several components that were critical to the program's overall success; these included protected time, tailored training, and access to technical expertise and resources. On returning home, fellows identified a lack of time and limited access to the internet and evidence-based resources as barriers to completing their outputs. The support of colleagues and senior staff was noted as an important enabler of progress, and research collaborators from other institutions and countries were also important sources of support. Conclusions The SEA-ORCHID fellowships program provided protected time to work on an output which would facilitate evidence-based practice. While the fellows faced substantial barriers to completing their fellowship outputs once they returned home, these fellowships resulted in a greater understanding, enthusiasm and skills for evidence-based practice. The experience of the SEA-ORCHID fellowships program may be useful for other initiatives aiming to build capacity in evidence-based practice.

Abstract Background It is important that healthcare provided in crisis settings is based on the best available research evidence. We reviewed guidelines for child and perinatal health care in crisis situations to determine whether they were based on research evidence, whether Cochrane systematic reviews were available in the clinical areas addressed by these guidelines and whether summaries of these reviews were provided in Evidence Aid. Methods Broad internet searches were undertaken to identify relevant guidelines. Guidelines were appraised using AGREE and the clinical areas that were relevant to perinatal or child health were extracted. We searched The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify potentially relevant reviews. For each review we determined how many trials were included, and how many were conducted in resource-limited settings. Results Six guidelines met selection criteria. None of the included guidelines were clearly based on research evidence. 198 Cochrane reviews were potentially relevant to the guidelines. These reviews predominantly addressed nutrient supplementation, breastfeeding, malaria, maternal hypertension, premature labour and prevention of HIV transmission. Most reviews included studies from developing settings. However for large portions of the guidelines, particularly health services delivery, there were no relevant reviews. Only 18 (9.1%) reviews have summaries in Evidence Aid. Conclusions We did not identify any evidence-based guidelines for perinatal and child health care in disaster settings. We found many Cochrane reviews that could contribute to the evidence-base supporting future guidelines. However there are important issues to be addressed in terms of the relevance of the available reviews and increasing the number of reviews addressing health care delivery.

Abstract Background Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines support clinical decision-making by making recommendations to guide clinical practice. These recommendations are developed by integrating the expertise of a multidisciplinary group of clinicians with the perspectives of consumers and the best available research evidence. However studies have raised concerns about the quality of guideline development, and particularly the link between research and recommendations. The reasons why guideline developers are not following the established development methods are not clear. We aimed to explore the barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines in eleven hospitals in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, so as to better understand how evidence-based guideline development could be facilitated in these settings. The research aimed to identify the value clinicians place on guidelines, what clinicians want in guidelines developed in hospital settings and what factors limit rigorous evidence-based guideline development in these settings. Methods Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were undertaken with senior and junior healthcare providers (nurses, midwives, doctors, allied health) from the maternal and neonatal services of the eleven participating hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis undertaken. Results Ninety-three individual, 25 pair and eleven group interviews were conducted. Participants were clear that they want guidelines that are based on evidence and updated regularly. They were also clear that there are major barriers to this. Most of the barriers were shared across countries, and included lack of time, lack of skills in finding, appraising and interpreting evidence, lack of access to relevant evidence and difficulty arranging meetings and achieving consensus. Barriers that were primarily identified in Australian hospitals include cumbersome organisational processes and a feeling that guidelines are being developed for bureaucratic ends. Barriers that were primarily identified in South East Asian hospitals include difficulty accessing evidence due to limited resources available for computers, internet and journal subscriptions and limited skills in computing and English. Conclusions The clinicians in these eleven very different hospitals want evidence-based guidelines. However they are frustrated by guideline development processes that are enormously time, skill and resource intensive. They feel strongly that "there's got to be a better way". The fact that the great majority of the identified barriers were shared across settings may provide an opportunity to develop a more pragmatic way of developing guidelines that can be applied in many contexts.

Abstract Background Recognising the potential of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to improve practice, one of the strategies of the SEA-ORCHID project was to facilitate the development of evidence-based CPGs, and to support clinical staff in each of the four countries to build their skills in development of CPGs in the nine participating hospitals in Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia. This study was undertaken to investigate the impact of the SEA-ORCHID project on development of evidence-based CPGs. Methods Data on the CPGs available to support maternal and perinatal healthcare were collected by SEA-ORCHID team members at each hospital before and after the intervention period of the project. Results There were only a few evidence-based CPGs available in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals before the intervention period. After the intervention period, in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals in Malaysia and Indonesia there was no change in evidence-based CPG development activity in maternal and perinatal care. In Thailand and The Philippines there was a small increase in evidence-based CPG development activity in maternal and perinatal care. Conclusion Despite the wide range of interventions to support evidence-based CPG development implemented in the hospitals participating in the SEA-ORCHID, very little change was seen in the development of evidence-based CPGs.

Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are commonly used to support practitioners to improve practice. However many studies have raised concerns about guideline quality. The reasons why guidelines are not developed following the established development methods are not clear. The SEA-ORCHID project aims to increase the generation and use of locally relevant research and improve clinical practice in maternal and perinatal care in four countries in South East Asia. Baseline data highlighted that development of evidence-based CPGs according to recommended processes was very rare in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals. The project investigators suggested that there were aspects of the recommended development process that made it very difficult in the participating hospitals. We therefore aimed to explore the experience of guideline development and particularly the enablers of and barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines in the nine hospitals in South East Asia participating in the SEA-ORCHID project, so as to better understand how evidence-based guideline development could be facilitated in these settings. Methods Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were undertaken with senior and junior healthcare providers (nurses, midwives, doctors) from the maternal and neonatal services at each of the nine participating hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis undertaken. Results Seventy-five individual, 25 pair and eleven group interviews were conducted. Participants clearly valued evidence-based guidelines. However they also identified several major barriers to guideline development including time, lack of awareness of process, difficulties searching for evidence and arranging guideline development group meetings, issues with achieving multi-disciplinarity and consumer involvement. They also highlighted the central importance of keeping guidelines up-to-date. Conclusion Healthcare providers in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals face a series of barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines. At present, in many hospitals, several of these barriers are insurmountable, and as a result, rigorous, evidence-based guidelines are not being developed. Given the acknowledged benefits of evidence-based guidelines, perhaps a new approach to supporting their development in these contexts is needed.

Abstract Background While the potential of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to support implementation of evidence has been demonstrated, it is not currently being achieved. CPGs are both poorly developed and ineffectively implemented. To improve clinical practice and health outcomes, both well-developed CPGs and effective methods of CPG implementation are needed. We sought to establish whether there is agreement on the fundamental characteristics of an evidence-based CPG development process and to explore whether the level of guidance provided in CPG development handbooks is sufficient for people using these handbooks to be able to apply it. Methods CPG development handbooks were identified through a broad search of published and grey literature. Documents published in English produced by national or international organisations purporting to support development of evidence-based CPGs were included. A list of 14 key elements of a CPG development process was developed. Two authors read each handbook. For each handbook a judgement was made as to how it addressed each element; assigned as: 'mentioned and clear guidance provided', 'mentioned but limited practical detail provided ', or 'not mentioned'. Results Six CPG development handbooks were included. These were produced by the Council of Europe, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the UK, the New Zealand Guidelines Group, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network, and the World Health Organization (WHO). There was strong concordance between the handbooks on the key elements of an evidence-based CPG development process. All six of the handbooks require and provide guidance on establishment of a multidisciplinary guideline development group, involvement of consumers, identification of clinical questions or problems, systematic searches for and appraisal of research evidence, a process for drafting recommendations, consultation with others beyond the guideline development group, and ongoing review and updating of the CPG. Conclusion The key elements of an evidence-based CPG development process are addressed with strong concordance by existing CPG development handbooks. Further research is required to determine why these key elements are often not addressed by CPG developers.

The Bridge from Evidence to Practice Health research promises societal benefit by making better health possible. However, there has always been a gap between research findings (what is known) and [...]

Abstract Background In the Rehabilitation and Aged Care Services Program at Southern Health in Victoria, saline hypodermoclysis is a relatively common method of rehydration. However, there were questions about the safety and effectiveness of subcutaneous infusion of other fluids and, in particular, dextrose solutions. This review aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of rehydration of elderly patients with subcutaneous 5% dextrose solutions compared with intravenous 5% dextrose solutions. Methods We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, IDIS, CINAHL, Current Contents, Premedline, Australasian Medical Index, the Joanna Briggs Institute, the US National Guideline Clearinghouse and bibliographies of retrieved articles. Searching was undertaken in July 2003. Studies selected were primary studies (or systematic reviews of primary studies) providing evidence as to the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous infusion of dextrose solutions for rehydration of elderly patients. We included articles published in English in the last 10 years. Data were extracted by a single researcher. Results From our search we identified 15 potentially relevant articles. We obtained the full text of these articles to determine their relevance. After application of the inclusion criteria, four articles remained for appraisal including one systematic review, two randomised controlled trials and one cohort study. Conclusion The four studies appraised all provide evidence that appropriate volumes of subcutaneous dextrose infusions (in the form of half-normal saline-glucose 5%, 40 g/L dextrose and 30 mmol/L NaCl, or 5% dextrose solution and 4 g/L NaCl, or two-thirds 5% glucose and one-third normal saline) can be used effectively for the treatment of dehydration, with similar rates of adverse effects to intravenous infusion. The evidence in this area is limited, and larger randomised controlled trials using validated outcome measures would be useful to confirm these results.

Background: Producing high-quality, relevant systematic reviews and keeping them up to date is challenging. Cochrane is a leading provider of systematic reviews in health. For Cochrane to continue to contribute to improvements in heath, Cochrane Reviews must be rigorous, reliable and up to date. We aimed to explore existing models of Cochrane Review production and emerging opportunities to improve the efficiency and sustainability of these processes. Methods: To inform discussions about how to best achieve this, we conducted 26 interviews and an online survey with 106 respondents. Results: Respondents highlighted the importance and challenge of creating reliable, timely systematic reviews. They described the challenges and opportunities presented by current production models, and they shared what they are doing to improve review production. They particularly highlighted significant challenges with increasing complexity of review methods; difficulty keeping authors on board and on track; and the length of time required to complete the process. Strong themes emerged about the roles of authors and Review Groups, the central actors in the review production process. The results suggest that improvements to Cochrane's systematic review production models could come from improving clarity of roles and expectations, ensuring continuity and consistency of input, enabling active management of the review process, centralising some review production steps; breaking reviews into smaller "chunks", and improving approaches to building capacity of and sharing information between authors and Review Groups. Respondents noted the important role new technologies have to play in enabling these improvements. Conclusions: The findings of this study will inform the development of new Cochrane Review production models and may provide valuable data for other systematic review producers as they consider how best to produce rigorous, reliable, up-to-date reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is essential that health policies are based on the best available evidence including that from research, to ensure their effectiveness in terms of both cost and health outcomes for the wider community. The present study describes the development of SAGE (Staff Assessment of enGagement with Evidence), a measure that combines an interview and document analysis to evaluate how policymakers engaged with research (i.e., how research was searched for, appraised, or generated, and whether interactions with researchers occurred), how policymakers used research (i.e., conceptually, instrumentally, tactically, or imposed), and what barriers impacted upon the use of research, in the development of a specific policy product. A multifaceted strategy was used to develop the SAGE interview and the accompanying interview-scoring tool. These included consultations with experts in health policy and research, review and analysis of the literature on evidence-informed policymaking and previous measures of research use, qualitative analysis of interviews with policymakers, and pilot-testing with senior policymakers. These steps led to the development of a comprehensive interview and scoring tool that captures and evaluates a broad range of key actions policymakers perform when searching for, appraising, generating, and using research to inform a specific policy product. Policy organizations can use SAGE to not only provide a thorough evaluation of their current level of research engagement and use, but to help shed light on programs to improve their research use capacity, and evaluate the success of these programs in improving the development of evidence-informed policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence-informed policymaking is more likely if organisations have cultures that promote research use and invest in resources that facilitate staff engagement with research. Measures of organisations' research use culture and capacity are needed to assess current capacity, identify opportunities for improvement, and examine the impact of capacity-building interventions. The aim of the current study was to develop a comprehensive system to measure and score organisations' capacity to engage with and use research in policymaking, which we entitled ORACLe (Organisational Research Access, Culture, and Leadership).Method: We used a multifaceted approach to develop ORACLe. Firstly, we reviewed the available literature to identify key domains of organisational tools and systems that may facilitate research use by staff. We interviewed senior health policymakers to verify the relevance and applicability of these domains. This information was used to generate an interview schedule that focused on seven key domains of organisational capacity. The interview was pilot-tested within four Australian policy agencies. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was then undertaken using an expert sample to establish the relative importance of these domains. This data was used to produce a scoring system for ORACLe.Results: The ORACLe interview was developed, comprised of 23 questions addressing seven domains of organisational capacity and tools that support research use, including (1) documented processes for policymaking; (2) leadership training; (3) staff training; (4) research resources (e.g. database access); and systems to (5) generate new research, (6) undertake evaluations, and (7) strengthen relationships with researchers. From the DCE data, a conditional logit model was estimated to calculate total scores that took into account the relative importance of the seven domains. The model indicated that our expert sample placed the greatest importance on domains (2), (3) and (4).Conclusion: We utilised qualitative and quantitative methods to develop a system to assess and score organisations' capacity to engage with and apply research to policy. Our measure assesses a broad range of capacity domains and identifies the relative importance of these capacities. ORACLe data can be used by organisations keen to increase their use of evidence to identify areas for further development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rates of maternal and perinatal mortality remain high in developing countries despite the existence of effective interventions. Efforts to strengthen evidence-based approaches to improve health in these settings are partly hindered by restricted access to the best available evidence, limited training in evidence-based practice and concerns about the relevance of existing evidence. South East Asia - Optimising Reproductive and Child Health in Developing Countries (SEA-ORCHID) was a five-year project that aimed to determine whether a multifaceted intervention designed to strengthen the capacity for research synthesis, evidence-based care and knowledge implementation improved clinical practice and led to better health outcomes for mothers and babies. This paper describes the development and design of the SEA-ORCHID intervention plan using a logical framework approach. Methods: SEA-ORCHID used a before-and-after design to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted tailored intervention at nine sites across Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia, supported by three centres in Australia. We used a logical framework approach to systematically prepare and summarise the project plan in a clear and logical way. The development and design of the SEA-ORCHID project was based around the three components of a logical framework (problem analysis, project plan and evaluation strategy). Results: The SEA-ORCHID logical framework defined the project's goal and purpose (To improve the health of mothers and babies in South East Asia and To improve clinical practice in reproductive health in South East Asia), and outlined a series of project objectives and activities designed to achieve these. The logical framework also established outcome and process measures appropriate to each level of the project plan, and guided project work in each of the participating countries and hospitals. Conclusions: Development of a logical framework in the SEA-ORCHID project enabled a reasoned, logical approach to the project design that ensured the project activities would achieve the desired outcomes and that the evaluation plan would assess both the process and outcome of the project. The logical framework was also valuable over the course of the project to facilitate communication, assess progress and build a shared understanding of the project activities, purpose and goal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]