Search

Purpose Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is effective in reducing VTE events; however, it is underutilized in critically ill patients. We examined trends and risk factors for omission of early thromboprophylaxis within the first 24 h after admission in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units (ICUs) between 2009 and 2020. Methods Retrospective analysis of data from the Australian New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database. Data were obtained for 1,465,020 adult admissions between 2009 and 2020. Mixed effects logistic regression modeling (accounting for the random effects of the contributing ICUs) was used to identify factors associated with omission of early thromboprophylaxis. Results A total of 107,486 (7.3%) ICU patients did not receive any form of thromboprophylaxis within the first 24 h after ICU admission without obvious reasons. Omission of early thromboprophylaxis declined from 13.7% in 2009 to 4% in 2020 (by 70.8%) (P < 0.001). Younger patients were more like to miss out on VTE prophylaxis (odds ratios (OR).sub.per 10-year increase 0.94, 95% CI 0.95-0.99). A documented process for monitoring VTE prophylaxis (ORs 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.93) and having a medical lead, dedicated for coordinating ICU quality (OR.sub.per 0.1 increase in full-time equivalent 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-0.99), are associated with less omission of VTE prophylaxis. Conclusion Omission of thromboprophylaxis within the first 24 h after ICU admission has declined steadily over the past decade. Documented process for monitoring VTE prophylaxis and having a medical lead for coordinating quality of ICU care could be potential targets for sustaining the improvement in VTE prophylaxis use., Author(s): Berhe W. Sahle [sup.1] [sup.2], David Pilcher [sup.3] [sup.4] [sup.5], Karlheinz Peter [sup.6] [sup.7] [sup.8] [sup.9], James D. McFadyen [sup.6] [sup.7] [sup.8] [sup.10], Tracey Bucknall [sup.1] [sup.2] [sup.4] Author [...]

Aim: To explore patient and family narratives about their recognition and response to clinical deterioration and their interactions with clinicians prior to and during Medical Emergency Team (MET) activations in hospital. Background: Research on clinical deterioration has mostly focused on clinicians' roles. Although patients and families can identify subtle cues of early deterioration, little research has focused on their experience of recognising, speaking up and communicating with clinicians during this period of instability. Design: A narrative inquiry. Methods: Using narrative interviewing techniques, 33 adult patients and 14 family members of patients, who had received a MET call, in one private and one public academic teaching hospital in Melbourne, Australia were interviewed. Narrative analysis was conducted on the data. Results: The core story of help seeking for recognition and response by clinicians to patient deterioration yielded four subplots: (1) identifying deterioration, recognition that something was not right and different from earlier; (2) voicing concerns to their nurse or by family members on their behalf; (3) being heard, desiring a response acknowledging the legitimacy of their concerns; and (4) once concerns were expressed, there was an expectation of and trust in clinicians to act on the concerns and manage the situation. Conclusion: Clinical deterioration results in an additional burden for hospitalised patients and families to speak up, seek help and resolve their concerns. Educating patients and families on what to be concerned about and when to notify staff requires a close partnership with clinicians. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: Clinicians must create an environment that enables patients and families to speak up. They must be alert to both subjective and objective information, to acknowledge and to act on the information accordingly. Reporting Method: The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines were used for reporting. Patient or Public Contribution: The consumer researcher was involved in design, data analysis and publication preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Strict patient isolation in hospital is associated with adverse health outcomes. However, there is a lack of high‐quality evidence for effective interventions to improve safety and quality of care for these patients. Aims: To identify patient reported areas for improvement in the care of patients in hospital isolation and to determine the feasibility of collecting patient reported outcomes using validated tools. Methods: Design: An exploratory mixed methods study. Setting: A major metropolitan teaching hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Participants: Patients in hospital isolation for transmissible infections. Data collection: Data were collected by (1) phone interviews with patients in isolation and (2) seven validated measurement tools to assess cognition, loneliness, nutritional status, quality of life, anxiety and depression and physical activity. Data were collected between September and December 2021. Data analysis: Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively including participant characteristics and outcome data. Results: Participants identified areas for improvement including activities to decrease boredom, more contact with staff to mitigate loneliness and increase comfort care, and formalised communication about clinical treatment and discharge plan. Patients with gastrointestinal symptoms were happier to be alone. There were operational challenges within the health service including delays and miscommunication. Only 70% of the participants completed all questionnaires. Conclusion: This study identified areas for improvement in care of patients in isolation and demonstrated that collecting patient reported outcomes using validated tools was feasible. The results of this research will inform development of an intervention to manage adverse effects. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: Patients in hospital isolation require additional consideration to ensure that their needs are met to avoid adverse outcomes. The patient experience and comfort can be negatively affected when fundamental care is lacking. Reporting Method (EQUATOR): EQUATOR guidelines for Mixed Methods Reporting in Rehabilitation & Health Sciences (MMR‐RHS). Patient or Public Contribution: Thirteen patients in hospital isolation agreed to participate in this study, sharing their experiences through interviews and assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mental state deterioration poses significant challenges in healthcare, impacting patients and providers. Symptoms like confusion and agitation can lead to prolonged hospital stays, increased costs, and the use of restrictive interventions. Despite its prevalence, there's a lack of consensus on effective practices for managing mental state deterioration in acute hospital settings. To address this gap, a rapid response team model has been proposed as a potential intervention, aiming to provide early identification and targeted interventions. Methods: Based on realist evaluation steps, first, initial program theories are formulated to understand the logic behind the intervention. Second, literature synthesis identifies empirical evidence on contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes elements, refining initial theories. During the third step, data will be collected using qualitative methods such as field observations and interviews, as well as quantitative methods such as surveys of the staff, audits of electronic medical records, and analysis of incident records of mental state deterioration. Analysing this data informs configurations of contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. In the fifth step, the configurations are synthesised, presenting refined, evidence-informed program theories. Conclusion: This study addresses the knowledge gap by evaluating the rapid response model's effectiveness in managing mental state deterioration in acute hospital settings. Realist principles guide the exploration of causal mechanisms and their interaction with specific implementation contexts. The objective is to identify what works, for whom, and under what circumstances, aiming to manage deterioration, reduce restrictive interventions, and enhance the experience for patients and staff by implementing a proactive model of care. The findings contribute to evidence-based approaches for managing mental state deterioration in hospital settings, informing policy and practice in this crucial area of healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]