Search

INTRODUCTION: Australia's current healthcare system for children is neither sustainable nor equitable. As children (0-4 years) comprise the largest proportion of all primary care-type emergency department presentations, general practitioners (GPs) report feeling undervalued as an integral member of a child's care, and lacking in opportunities for support and training in paediatric conditions. This Strengthening Care for Children (SC4C) randomised trial aims to evaluate a novel, integrated GP-paediatrician model of care, that, if effective, will improve GP quality of care, reduce burden to hospital services and ensure children receive the right care, at the right time, closer to home. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SC4C is a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 22 general practice clinics in Victoria and New South Wales, Australia. General practice clinics will provide control period data before being exposed to the 12-month intervention which will be rolled out sequentially each month (one clinic per state) until all 22 clinics receive the intervention. The intervention comprises weekly GP-paediatrician co-consultation sessions; monthly case discussions; and phone and email paediatrician support, focusing on common paediatric conditions. The primary outcome of the trial is to assess the impact of the intervention as measured by the proportion of children's (0-<18 years) GP appointments that result in a hospital referral, compared with the control period. Secondary outcomes include GP quality of care; GP experience and confidence in providing paediatric care; family trust in and preference for GP care; and the sustainability of the intervention. An implementation evaluation will assess the model to inform acceptability, adaptability, scalability and sustainability, while a health economic evaluation will measure the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Human research ethics committee (HREC) approval was granted by The Royal C

INTRODUCTION: Implementation evaluations provide insight into how interventions are delivered across varying contexts and why interventions work in some contexts and not in others. This manuscript outlines a detailed protocol of an implementation evaluation embedded in a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial of a model of care, Strengthening Care for Children (SC4C), that integrates paediatric care in general practice. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the pragmatic methods that will be used to capture implementation evaluation process and outcome data within this trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our implementation evaluation will use a mixed methods design, with data collected in the intervention arm of the SC4C trial guided by a logic model developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Proctor and colleague's taxonomy of implementation outcomes. Data collection will be via questionnaires and semistructured interviews with general practitioners, paediatricians, general practice administrative staff and children and families. Each of the 21 general practices recruited into the study will be described in terms of staffing, patient throughput and location, in addition to the nuanced inner and outer contexts, use of the intervention and its acceptability. We will quantify implementation effectiveness in each general practice clinic using the CFIR validated scoring system. Importantly, we have embedded data collection post intervention to enable assessment of the sustainable adoption of the intervention. An inductive approach to the analysis of qualitative data will identify additional emerging themes that may not be covered by the formal frameworks underpinning our analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Royal Children's Hospital Ethics Committee in August 2020 (HREC: 65955). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. T

AIM: To understand what constitutes a good experience of care for inpatient children and young people with intellectual disability as perceived by nursing staff. DESIGN: Interpretive qualitative study. METHODS: Focus groups with clinical nursing staff from speciality neurological/neurosurgical and adolescent medicine wards across two specialist tertiary children's hospitals in Australia were conducted between March and May 2021. Data analysis followed interpretative analysis methods to develop themes and codes which were mapped to a conceptual model of safe care. RESULTS: Six focus groups with 29 nurses of varying experience levels were conducted over 3 months. Themes and codes were mapped to the six themes of the conceptual model: use rapport, know the child, negotiate roles, shared learning, build trust and relationships, and past experiences. The analysis revealed two new themes that extended the conceptual model to include; the unique role of a paediatric nurse, and joy and job satisfaction, with a third contextual theme, impacts of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. With the perspectives of paediatric nurses incorporated into the model we have enhanced our model of safe care specifically for inpatient paediatric nursing care of children and young people with intellectual disability. CONCLUSION: Including perceptions of paediatric nurses confirmed the position of the child with intellectual disability being at the centre of safe care, where care is delivered as a partnership between nursing staff, child or young person and their parents/family and the hospital systems and processes. IMPACT: The enhanced model offers a specialized framework for clinical staff and health managers to optimize the delivery of safe care for children and young people with intellectual disability in hospital.

Contains fulltext : 240615.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Gender-based violence and sexual harassment (GBVH) by and towards academics and students has been under-theorised at an organisational level in higher education institutions (HEIs). The methodology involves a critical review of the literature on GBVH and organizational responses to it, locating it in the context of an analysis of organizational power. The theoretical perspective involves a focus on power and workplace bullying. It identifies three power-related characteristics of academic environments which it is suggested facilitate GBVH: their male-dominant hierarchical character; their neoliberal managerialist ethos and gender/intersectional incompetent leadership which perpetuates male entitlement and toxic masculinities. These characteristics also inhibit tackling GBVH by depicting it as an individual problem, encouraging informal coping and militating against the prosecution of perpetrators. Initiating a discussion and action at organizational and state levels about GBVH as a power-related phenomenon, challenging the dominant neo-liberal ethos and the hierarchical character of HEIs, as well as reducing their male dominance and increasing the gender competence of those in positions of power are seen as initial steps in tackling the problem.

The involvement of young people in the planning of research continues to be rare, particu-larly for young people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This paper describes our experience in establishing a Youth Research Advisory Group (YRAG) in South West Sydney (SWS), including barriers and successful strategies. One hundred and fifteen students between school Years 7 and 12 (ages 11–18) took part in at least one of five sessions between 2019 and 2021. In total, we carried out 26 YRAG sessions, with between five and 30 students in each. Sessions focused on mapping the health priorities of the participants and co-developing research project proposals related to their health priorities. Our work with students revealed that their main areas of concern were mental health and stress. This led to material changes in our research strategy, to include “Mental Health” as a new research stream and co-develop new mental health-related projects with the students. Important strategies that enabled our research included maintaining flexibility to work seamlessly with organisational and individual preferences, and ensuring our processes were directed by the schools and—most importantly—the students themselves. Strategies such as maintaining an informal context, responding rapidly to student preference, and regularly renegotiating access enabled us to engage with the students to deepen our understanding of their experiences.

Background: Multisource feedback (MSF), involves the collection of feedback from multiple groups of assessors, including those without a traditional hierarchal responsibility to evaluate doctors. Allied healthcare professionals (AHCPs), administrative staff, peers, patients and their families may all contribute to the formative assessment of physicians. Theoretically, this feedback provides a thorough view of physician performance; however, the ability of MSF programs to consistently impact physician behavior remains in question. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore perceptions and prerequisites to an effective MSF program in postgraduate medical education from the perspectives of both pediatric residents and AHCPs. Methods: This exploratory study was conducted in a pediatric inpatient unit prior to implementation of a MSF program. Focus groups were conducted with purposefully recruited participants from three distinct groups: junior pediatric residents, senior pediatric residents, and AHCPs. Discussions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Both residents and AHCPs expressed a strong interest in the concept of MSF. However, more in depth discussions identified barriers to residents' acceptance of, and AHCPs' provision of feedback. Roles and responsibilities, perceptions of expertise, hospital culture/interprofessionalism and power dynamics were identified as barriers to the acceptance and provision of feedback. All groups expressed interest in opportunities to engage in bi-directional feedback. Conclusions: The identified barriers and prerequisites to providing and accepting MSF suggest limits to the efficacy of the MSF process. Our findings suggest that these factors should be considered in the design and implementation of MSF programs.