Search

Nawar Alotaibi,1 Brigitte M Borg,2,3 Michael J Abramson,3 Eldho Paul,3 Nicholas Zwar,4 Grant Russell,5 Sally Wilson,1,6 Anne E Holland,2,7 Billie Bonevski,8 Ajay Mahal,9 Johnson George1,3 1Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 2Respiratory Medicine, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 3School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 4Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia; 5Department of General Practice, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 6Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 7Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 8College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia; 9The Nossal Institute for Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, AustraliaCorrespondence: Johnson George, Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia, Email Johnson.George@monash.eduAim: Diagnosis of COPD in primary care is hindered by underuse of spirometry. Case finding using validated symptom and health status questionnaires, and simple handheld devices in high-risk populations may improve diagnosis. This study aimed to determine the best combination of measures to optimise COPD diagnosis in the primary care setting.Methods: We recruited 335 current or ex-smokers, including those with an established diagnosis of COPD from general practices. Participants’ FEV1 and FEV6 were measured using a handheld spirometry device (COPD-6®). Each completed the COPD assessment test (CAT), a modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea scale, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and smoking history questionnaire. From these data we calculated the predictive validity for spirometry-confirmed di

Aim: To explore the factors influencing the use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy for infants with bronchiolitis. Design: Qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews. Methods: The semi-structured interviews (face-to-face or virtual) were conducted between September 2020 and February 2021. Deductive content analysis was used to map key influencing factors for use of HFNC therapy to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Results: Nineteen interviews were undertaken before reaching thematic saturation (7 nurses, 12 doctors) in emergency departments and paediatric wards from four purposively selected hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. Influencing factors were mapped to eight domains in the TDF with 21 themes identified. Main findings included: (1) Health professionals' expectations of HFNC therapy on patient deterioration, work of breathing and oxygenation; (2) Staff emotions relating to concern and anxiety about deterioration and “need to do something”; (3) Social influences from other health professionals and parents and (4) Environmental factors relating to logistics of care and patient transfer considerations. These factors, combined with the ready availability of HFNC equipment and health professionals having the required skills to administer the therapy, contributed to its initiation. Conclusion: Individual/personal and contextual/environmental factors contribute to the use of HFNC therapy for infants with bronchiolitis. It is evident these influences contribute substantially to increased use, despite evidence-based guidelines recommending a more nuanced approach to this therapy. These findings will inform a targeted implementation intervention to promote evidence-based use of HFNC therapy in infants with bronchiolitis.

Introduction: A common neurosurgical condition, chronic subdural haematoma (cSDH) typically affects older people with other underlying health conditions. The care of this potentially vulnerable cohort is often, however, fragmented and suboptimal. In other complex conditions, multidisciplinary guidelines have transformed patient experience and outcomes, but no such framework exists for cSDH. This paper outlines a protocol to develop the first comprehensive multidisciplinary guideline from diagnosis to long-term recovery with cSDH. Methods: The project will be guided by a steering group of key stakeholders and professional organisations and will feature patient and public involvement. Multidisciplinary thematic working groups will examine key aspects of care to formulate appropriate, patient-centered research questions, targeted with evidence review using the GRADE framework. The working groups will then formulate draft clinical recommendations to be used in a modified Delphi process to build consensus on guideline contents. Conclusions: We present a protocol for the development of a multidisciplinary guideline to inform the care of patients with a cSDH, developed by cross-disciplinary working groups and arrived at through a consensus-building process, including a modified online Delphi.