Search

Children with intellectual disability experience significant challenges in accessing and receiving high-quality healthcare leading to poorer health outcomes and negative patient experiences. Families of these children often report a need for healthcare staff to better understand, communicate, and collaborate for better care while staff acknowledge a lack of training. To address this, we utilised an action research framework with a pre- and post-survey to evaluate an integrated continuing professional development and quality improvement program combining strategies from education, behavioural psychology and quality improvement that was delivered in two departments within a tertiary children's Hospital in Metropolitan Sydney in 2019-2020. Parents reported noticeable changes in the clinical practice of staff, and staff acknowledged and attributed their shift in behaviour to raising awareness and discussions around necessary adaptations. The program demonstrates a novel method for knowledge translation to practice and systems improvements.

Background: Children with intellectual disability are vulnerable to adverse events in hospital due to limited staff skills and system safeguards. Method: A systematic review of the literature explored healthcare staff (HCS) experiences in providing care for children and young persons with intellectual disability in hospital using thematic analysis. Results: Eleven of the 735 publications extracted identified the following themes: distress, communication, partnerships, identification, training and education and optimising care. Consistent findings suggest that HCS feel unskilled in providing care for the child with intellectual disability in hospital settings. HCS recognised the role of parents as experts of their child but also feel unsettled when challenged by them. Skills in communicating with the child, developing partnerships with parents, having identification systems to plan for reasonable adjustments was key to improving care. Conclusions: Organisational advocacy, practical skills training in identification, reasonable adjustments and improved attitudes are important for HCS to provide safe and quality care.

Policy PointsThe implementation of large‐scale health care interventions relies on a shared vision, commitment to change, coordination across sites, and a spanning of siloed knowledge.Enablers of the system should include building an authorizing environment; providing relevant, meaningful, transparent, and timely data; designating and distributing leadership and decision making; and fostering the emergence of a learning culture.Attention to these four enablers can set up a positive feedback loop to foster positive change that can protect against the loss of key staff, the presence of lone disruptors, and the enervating effects of uncertainty. Context: Large‐scale transformative initiatives have the potential to improve the quality, efficiency, and safety of health care. However, change is expensive, complex, and difficult to implement and sustain. This paper advances system enablers, which will help to guide large‐scale transformation in health care systems. Methods: A realist study of the implementation of a value‐based health care program between 2017 and 2021 was undertaken in every public hospital (n = 221) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Four data sources were used to elucidate initial program theories beginning with a set of literature reviews, a program document review, and informal discussions with key stakeholders. Semistructured interviews were then conducted with 56 stakeholders to confirm, refute, or refine the theories. A retroductive analysis produced a series of context‐mechanism‐outcome (CMO) statements. Next, the CMOs were validated with three health care quality expert panels (n = 51). Synthesized data were interrogated to distill the overarching system enablers. Findings: Forty‐two CMO statements from the eight initial program theory areas were developed, refined, and validated. Four system enablers were identified: (1) build an authorizing environment; (2) provide relevant, authentic, timely, and meaningful data; (3) designate and distribute leadership and decision making; and (4) support the emergence of a learning culture. The system enablers provide a nuanced understanding of large‐system transformation that illustrates when, for whom, and in what circumstances large‐system transformation worked well or worked poorly. Conclusions: System enablers offer nuanced guidance for the implementation of large‐scale health care interventions. The four enablers may be portable to similar contexts and provide the empirical basis for an implementation model of large‐system value‐based health care initiatives. With concerted application, these findings can pave the way not just for a better understanding of greater or lesser success in intervening in health care settings but ultimately to contribute higher quality, higher value, and safer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Specialist care units cater to targeted cohorts of patients, applying evidence-based practice to people with a specific condition (e.g., dementia) or meeting other specific criteria (e.g., children). This paper aimed to collate perceptions of local consumers and health providers around specialist care units, as a model of care that may be considered for a new local healthcare facility. Methods: This was a qualitative study using two-hour workshops and interviews to collect data. Participants were consumers and health providers in the planned facility's catchment: 49 suburbs in metropolitan Australia. Consumers and health providers were recruited through advertisements and emails. An initial survey collected demographic details. Consumers and health providers participated in separate two-hour workshops in which a scenario around the specialist unit model was presented and discussion on benefits, barriers and enablers of the model was led by researchers. Detailed notes were taken for analysis. Results: Five consumer workshops (n = 22 participants) and five health provider workshops (n = 42) were conducted. Participants were representative of this culturally diverse region. Factors identified by participants as relevant to the specialist unit model of care included: accessibility; a perceived narrow scope of practice; coordination with other services; resources and infrastructure; and awareness and expectations of the units. Some factors identified as risks or barriers when absent were identified as strengths and enablers when present by both groups of participants. Conclusions: Positive views of the model centred on the higher perceived quality of care received in the units. Negative views centred on a perceived narrow scope of care and lack of flexibility. Consumers hinted, and providers stated explicitly, that the model needed to be complemented by an integrated model of care model to enable continuity of care and easy transfer of patients into and out of the specialist unit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]