Search

Background: When researchers' careers are disrupted by life events-such as illness or childbirth-they often need to take extended time off. This creates a gap in their research output that can reduce their chances of winning funding. In Australia, applicants can disclose their career disruptions and peer reviewers are instructed to make appropriate adjustments. However, it is not clear if and how applicants use career disruption sections or how reviewers adjust and if they do it consistently.Methods: To examine career disruption, we used surveys of the Australian health and medical research community. We used both a random sample of Australian authors on PubMed and a non-random convenience sample.Results: Respondents expressed concerns that sharing information on career disruption would harm their chances of being funded, with 13% saying they have medical or social circumstances but would not include it in their application, with concerns about appearing 'weak'. Women were more reluctant to include disruption. There was inconsistency in how disruption was adjusted for, with less time given for those with depression compared with caring responsibilities, and less time given for those who did not provide medical details of their disruption.Conclusions: The current system is likely not adequately adjusting for career disruption and this may help explain the ongoing funding gap for senior women in Australia.Funding: National Health and Medical Research Council Senior Research Fellowship (Barnett).

Background: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) remain a significant patient safety issue, with point prevalence estimates being ~5% in high-income countries. In 2016–2017, the Researching Effective Approaches to Cleaning in Hospitals (REACH) study implemented an environmental cleaning bundle targeting communication, staff training, improved cleaning technique, product use, and audit of frequent touch-point cleaning. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the environmental cleaning bundle for reducing the incidence of HAIs. Methods: A stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial was conducted in 11 hospitals recruited from 6 Australian states and territories. Bundle effectiveness was measured by the numbers of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, Clostridium difficile infection, and vancomycin-resistant enterococci infections prevented in the intervention phase based on estimated reductions in the relative risk of infection. Changes to costs were defined as the cost of implementing the bundle minus cost savings from fewer infections. Health benefits gained from fewer infections were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit of adopting the cleaning bundle over existing hospital cleaning practices. Results: Implementing the cleaning bundle cost $349 000 Australian dollars (AUD) and generated AUD$147 500 in cost savings. Infections prevented under the cleaning bundle returned a net monetary benefit of AUD$1.02 million and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4684 per QALY gained. There was an 86% chance that the bundle was cost-effective compared with existing hospital cleaning practices. Conclusions: A bundled, evidence-based approach to improving hospital cleaning is a cost-effective intervention for reducing the incidence of HAIs.

Background Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) remain a significant patient safety issue, with point prevalence estimates being ~5% in high-income countries. In 2016–2017, the Researching Effective Approaches to Cleaning in Hospitals (REACH) study implemented an environmental cleaning bundle targeting communication, staff training, improved cleaning technique, product use, and audit of frequent touch-point cleaning. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the environmental cleaning bundle for reducing the incidence of HAIs. Methods A stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial was conducted in 11 hospitals recruited from 6 Australian states and territories. Bundle effectiveness was measured by the numbers of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, Clostridium difficile infection, and vancomycin-resistant enterococci infections prevented in the intervention phase based on estimated reductions in the relative risk of infection. Changes to costs were defined as the cost of implementing the bundle minus cost savings from fewer infections. Health benefits gained from fewer infections were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit of adopting the cleaning bundle over existing hospital cleaning practices. Results Implementing the cleaning bundle cost $349 000 Australian dollars (AUD) and generated AUD$147 500 in cost savings. Infections prevented under the cleaning bundle returned a net monetary benefit of AUD$1.02 million and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4684 per QALY gained. There was an 86% chance that the bundle was cost-effective compared with existing hospital cleaning practices. Conclusions A bundled, evidence-based approach to improving hospital cleaning is a cost-effective intervention for reducing the incidence of HAIs.

Objective: To evaluate women’s experiences after hysterectomy and predictors of their contentment and regret with the surgical approaches. Methods:Cross-sectional, Patient-Reported Experience Measures survey in 2319 Australian women aged 21 to 90 years (median age of 52 years) who had received hysterectomy in the preceding 2 years. Results: Overall, the vast majority of women (>96%) did not regret having had the hysterectomy. Women who received an open abdominal hysterectomy reported slower recovery with about 7% of women still not fully recovered after 12 months compared to those whose surgery was through a less invasive approach. Women who reported no adverse events, having been given a choice of type of hysterectomy, women who received an alternative to open abdominal hysterectomy, and women who felt prepared for discharge from hospital were significantly more likely to be content with their hysterectomy and report positive patient experiences. Conclusions: Compared with those who received a less invasive approach to hysterectomy, women who received open surgery were more likely to express negative experiences relating to their hospital stay and recovery from surgery. The results inform future improvements of care for women planning a hysterectomy.

Background: The hospital environment is a reservoir for the transmission of microorganisms. The effect of improved cleaning on patient-centred outcomes remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an environmental cleaning bundle to reduce health care-associated infections in hospitals. Methods: The REACH study was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised trial done in 11 acute care hospitals in Australia. Eligible hospitals had an intensive care unit, were classified by the National Health Performance Authority as a major hospital (public hospitals) or having more than 200 inpatient beds (private hospitals), and had a health-care-associated infection surveillance programme. The stepped-wedge design meant intervention periods varied from 20 weeks to 50 weeks. We introduced the REACH cleaning bundle, a multimodal intervention, focusing on optimising product use, technique, staff training, auditing with feedback, and communication, for routine cleaning. The primary outcomes were incidences of health-care-associated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia, Clostridium difficile infection, and vancomycin-resistant enterococci infection. The secondary outcome was the thoroughness of cleaning of frequent touch points, assessed by a fluorescent marking gel. This study is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, number ACTRN12615000325505. Findings: Between May 9, 2016, and July 30, 2017, we implemented the cleaning bundle in 11 hospitals. In the pre-intervention phase, there were 230 cases of vancomycin-resistant enterococci infection, 362 of S aureus bacteraemia, and 968 C difficile infections, for 3 534 439 occupied bed-days. During intervention, there were 50 cases of vancomycin-resistant enterococci infection, 109 of S aureus bacteraemia, and 278 C difficile infections, for 1 267 134 occupied bed-days. After the intervention, vancomycin-resistant enterococci infections reduced fro

Background The Researching Effective Approaches to Cleaning in Hospitals (REACH) study tested a multimodal cleaning intervention in Australian hospitals. This article reports findings from a pre/post questionnaire, embedded into the REACH study, that was administered prior to the implementation of the intervention and at the conclusion of the study. Methods A cross-sectional questionnaire, nested within a stepped-wedge trial, was administered. The REACH intervention was a cleaning bundle comprising 5 interdependent components. The questionnaire explored the knowledge, reported practice, attitudes, roles, and perceived organizational support of environmental services staff members in the hospitals participating in the REACH study. Results Environmental services staff members in 11 participating hospitals completed 616 pre- and 307 post-test questionnaires (n = 923). Increases in knowledge and practice were seen between the pre-and post-test questionnaires. Minimal changes were observed in attitudes regarding the role of cleaning and in perceived organizational support. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first study to report changes in knowledge, attitudes, and perceived organizational support in environmental services staff members, in the context of a large multicenter clinical trial. In this underexplored group of hospital workers, findings suggest that environmental services staff members have a high level of knowledge related to cleaning practices and understand the importance of their role.

Background This study aims to establish dominant factors influencing general practitioner (GP) decision-making on antibiotic prescribing in the Australian primary health-care sector. Two research questions were posed: What influences antibiotic prescribing from the perspective of GPs? How do GPs trade-off on factors influencing antibiotic prescribing? Methods An exploratory sequential mixed methods design was used, comprising semi-structured interviews followed by a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Ten GPs practising in Brisbane and Greater Brisbane, Queensland were interviewed in September/October 2015. Interview data were used to develop the DCE, which was conducted online from July to October 2016. Twenty-three GPs participated in the DCE. Results Three main themes influencing antibiotic prescribing emerged from the semi-structured interviews: prescribing challenges, delayed antibiotic prescriptions, and patient ex- pectations. From the DCE, “Duration of symptoms” and “Patient expectations” exerted the most influence on antibiotic prescribing. Taken together, these results suggest that key challenges to prudent antibiotic prescribing are: patient expectations, an important barrier which is surmountable; prescribing practices of medical colleagues, cultural memes and professional etiquette; and uncertainty of diagnosis coupled with patient expectations for antibiotics exert prescribing pressure on GPs. Conclusion Patient expectation for antibiotics is the dominant modifiable factor influencing GP antibiotic prescribing behaviours. Key challenges to prudent antibiotic prescribing can be overcome through upskilling GPs to manage patient expectations efficaciously, and through two new emphases for public health campaigns -- consumers have the power to reduce the use of antibiotics and the GP as a wise advocate for the patient.