Search

Rationale: Delivering optimal patient health care requires interdisciplinary clinician communication. A single communication tool across multiple pre‐hospital and hospital settings, and between hospital departments is a novel solution to current systems. Fit‐for‐purpose, secure smartphone applications allow clinical information to be shared quickly between health providers. Little is known as to what underpins their successful implementation in an emergency care context. Aims: To identify (a) whether implementing a single, digital health communication application across multiple health care organisations and hospital departments is feasible; (b) the barriers and facilitators to implementation; and (c) which factors are associated with clinicians' intentions to use the technology. Methods: We used a multimethod design, evaluating the implementation of a secure, digital communication application (Pulsara™). The technology was trialled in two Australian regional hospitals and 25 Ambulance Victoria branches (AV). Post‐training, clinicians involved in treating patients with suspected stroke or cardiac events were administered surveys measuring perceived organisational readiness (Organisational Readiness for Implementing Change), clinicians' intentions (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) and internal motivations (Self‐Determination Theory) to use Pulsara™, and the perceived benefits and barriers of use. Quantitative data were descriptively summarised with multivariable associations between factors and intentions to use Pulsara™ examined with linear regression. Qualitative data responses were subjected to directed content analysis (two coders). Results: Participants were paramedics (n = 82, median 44 years) or hospital‐based clinicians (n = 90, median 37 years), with organisations perceived to be similarly ready. Regression results (F(11, 136) = 21.28, p = <0.001, Adj R2 = 0.60) indicated Habit, Effort Expectancy, Perceived Organisational Readiness, Performance Expectancy and Organisation membership (AV) as predictors of intending to use Pulsara™. Themes relating to benefits (95% coder agreement) included improved communication, procedural efficiencies and faster patient care. Barriers (92% coder agreement) included network accessibility and remembering passwords. PulsaraTM was initiated 562 times. Conclusion: Implementing multiorganisational, digital health communication applications is feasible, and facilitated when organisations are change‐ready for an easy‐to‐use, effective solution. Developing habitual use is key, supported through implementation strategies (e.g., hands‐on training). Benefits should be emphasised (e.g., during education sessions), including streamlining communication and patient flow, and barriers addressed (e.g., identify champions and local technical support) at project commencement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine current clinical practices for managing behavioural emergencies within Victorian public hospital EDs. Methods: A multi‐centre retrospective study involving all patients who attended ED in 2016 at the Alfred, Ballarat, Dandenong, Geelong and Royal Melbourne Hospitals. The primary outcome was the rate of patient presentations with at least one restrictive intervention. Secondary outcomes included the rate of security calls for unarmed threats (Code Grey), legal status under the Mental Health Act at both the time of ED arrival and the restrictive intervention, and intervention details. For each site, data on 100 patients who had a restrictive intervention were randomly extracted for indication and methods of restraint. Results: In 2016, 327 454 patients presented to the five EDs; the Code Grey rate was 1.49% (95% CI 1.45–1.54). Within the Code Grey population, 942 had at least one restrictive intervention (24.3%, 95% CI 23.0–25.7). Details were extracted on 494 patients. The majority (62.8%, 95% CI 58.4–67.1) were restrained under a Duty of Care. Physical restraint was used for 165 (33.4%, 95% CI 29.3–37.8) patients, 296 were mechanically restrained (59.9%, 95% CI 55.4–64.3), median mechanical restraint time 180 min (IQR 75–360), and 388 chemically restrained (78.5%, 95% CI 74.6–82.0). Conclusions: Restrictive interventions in the ED largely occurred under a Duty of Care. Care of patients managed under legislation that covers assessment and treatment of mental illness has a strong clinical governance framework and focus on minimising restrictive interventions. However, this is not applied to the majority of patients who experience restraint in Victorian EDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]