Search

BackgroundThe web-based BeUpstanding Champion Toolkit was developed to support work teams in addressing the emergent work health and safety issue of excessive sitting. It provides a step-by-step guide and associated resources that equip a workplace representative—the champion—to adopt and deliver the 8-week intervention program (BeUpstanding) to their work team. The evidence-informed program is designed to raise awareness of the benefits of sitting less and moving more, build a supportive culture for change, and encourage staff to take action to achieve this change. Work teams collectively choose the strategies they want to implement and promote to stand up, sit less, and move more, with this bespoke and participative approach ensuring the strategies are aligned with the team’s needs and existing culture. BeUpstanding has been iteratively developed and optimized through a multiphase process to ensure that it is fit for purpose for wide-scale implementation. ObjectiveThe study aimed to describe the current version of BeUpstanding, and the methods and protocol for a national implementation trial. MethodsThe trial will be conducted in collaboration with five Australian workplace health and safety policy and practice partners. Desk-based work teams from a variety of industries will be recruited from across Australia via partner-led referral pathways. Recruitment will target sectors (small business, rural or regional, call center, blue collar, and government) that are of priority to the policy and practice partners. A minimum of 50 work teams will be recruited per priority sector with a minimum of 10,000 employees exposed to the program. A single-arm, repeated-measures design will assess the short-term (end of program) and long-term (9 months postprogram) impacts. Data will be collected on the web via surveys and toolkit analytics and by the research team via telephone calls with champions. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance Framework will guide the evaluation, with assessment of the adoption/reach of the program (the number and characteristics of work teams and participating staff), program implementation (completion by the champion of core program components), effectiveness (on workplace sitting, standing, and moving), and maintenance (sustainability of changes). There will be an economic evaluation of the costs and outcomes of scaling up to national implementation, including intervention affordability and sustainability. ResultsThe study received funding in June 2018 and the original protocol was approved by institutional review board on January 9, 2017, with national implementation trial consent and protocol amendment approved March 12, 2019. The trial started on June 12, 2019, with 48 teams recruited as of December 2019. ConclusionsThe implementation and multimethod evaluation of BeUpstanding will provide the practice-based evidence needed for informing the potential broader dissemination of the program. Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000682347; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372843&isReview=true. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/15756

Objective: Patient expectations in the Australian healthcare system are for coordinated, collaborative practice. There is a need for education institutions, health services, accreditation authorities, and consumers to work together to achieve this goal. As part of a larger body of work, we sought to understand how these stakeholders contribute to the development of collaborative healthcare practice. Method: Nineteen focus groups were conducted in 2022 with 84 participants consisting of education providers (n = 62), consumers (n = 10), representatives from the Health Profession's Education Standing Group (n = 8), and health service practitioners (n = 4). Framework analysis was initially undertaken to understand facilitators of, and barriers to, collaborative practice and learning. In a secondary analysis, the themes were re-organised according to the Bolman and Deal domains of organisational practice, to make explicit the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic factors deemed useful for re-imaging a process for learning about and incentivising collaborative practice. Results: There are multiple factors across healthcare settings that both facilitate and challenge the development of collaborative practice. Co-location of professions and participation in formal interprofessional processes such as team meetings and handovers facilitated learning collaborative practice, although traditional cultures which perpetuate siloed models of healthcare, power differentials between the professions, funding structures, and information sharing limited opportunities. The 'value' of collaborative practice was facilitated through both consistent curriculum messages throughout health professional courses and positive role modelling. Conclusions: Education institutions, health service practitioners, accreditation authorities, and consumers can work together to facilitate the development of collaborative practice through attention to policy and processes, curriculum activities, student participation, health service activities and practice, and resource allocation. What is known about the topic? Patients expect coordinated, collaborative practice in the Australian healthcare system. Health services, education institutions, and accreditation authorities must work together to achieve this goal. What does this paper add? While the value of collaborative practice is embedded through consistent curriculum messages and positive role modelling in health professional courses, accreditation authorities, education institutions, health service practitioners, and consumers need to work together to facilitate the development of collaborative practice through attention to policy and processes, curriculum activities, student participation, health service activities, and resource allocation. What are the implications for practitioners? Through working together on curriculum and health service activities and practice, health service providers, education institutions, and accreditation authorities can develop collaborative practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Vascular Access is the property of Canadian Vascular Access Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study examined the accuracy of self-attachment of the activPAL activity monitor. A convenience sample of 50 participants self-attached the monitor after being presented with written material only (WMO) and then written and video (WV) instructions; and completed a questionnaire regarding the acceptability of the instructional methods. Participants positioned the monitor lower than the instructed position on the thigh (WMO -5.15 ± 2.75 cm, WV -4.16 ± 2.15 cm; p = 0.008 difference) and approximately 2 cm laterally from the thigh midline (WMO 1.90 ± 0.92 cm; WV 2.08 ± 1.24 cm). The orientation of the device was positioned correctly along the midline (within < 1° of vertical). Acceptability was high for both instructional methods although preference was shown for the WV instruction. In conclusion, participants consistently self-attached the activPAL close to the intended placement with either instructional method. The addition of video instruction produced a slightly more accurate attachment and was preferred by the participants.

The Australian Pharmacy Council (APC) is the national accreditation authority for pharmacy education and training in Australia. In 2020, APC published revised Accreditation Standards and a new Performance Outcomes Framework (POF). The POF details expected performance for pharmacy students at the point of graduation and for pharmacy graduates on completion of postgraduate training. The APC and the pharmacist regulator, the Pharmacy Board of Australia collaborated on a project to develop workplace‐based assessment (WBA) tools for use in assessing performance of pharmacy graduates in the postgraduate training period. The objectives of the project were to; identify and develop an initial suite of WBA tools; develop accompanying guidance and supporting documentation; seek feedback from stakeholders; and pilot the WBA tools in community and hospital settings. The WBA tools were developed through consultative process overseen by a group of education experts (a Technical Working Group) and a governance group. The latter comprising members from the Pharmacy Board and APC. The Technical Working Group agreed on the tools to develop based on an available Intern Year Assessment Blueprint and the tools were then drafted by a consultant. APC held consultative forums and a pilot study to gather feedback from intern pharmacists and preceptors. The project resulted in development of a suite of three types of WBA tools; Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs), Case Based Discussions (CbD), and In Training Assessment (ITA) activities covering six areas of focus. All types of tools that were initially agreed upon were made available for use. The WBA tools address 15 performance outcomes in the POF. Future direction will involve further evaluation of the tools in diverse practice settings and expansion of the current suite of tools to cover additional performance outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]