Search

ABSTRACT Aim Design Methods Results Conclusions Impact Reporting Method Patient or Public Contribution Trial Registration To develop an evidence‐driven, behaviour change focused strategy to maximise implementation and uptake of HIRAID (History including Infection risk, Red flags, Assessment, Interventions, Diagnostics, communication and reassessment) in 30 Australian rural, regional and metropolitan emergency departments.An embedded, mixed‐methods study.This study is the first phase of a step‐wedge cluster randomised control trial of HIRAID involving over 1300 emergency nurses. Concurrent quantitative and qualitative data were collected via an electronic survey sent to all nurses to identify preliminary barriers and enablers to HIRAID implementation. The survey was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, which is a synthesis of behavioural change theories that applies the science of intervention implementation in health care to effect change. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data with inductive content analysis. Data were then integrated to generate barriers and enablers to HIRAID implementation which were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Corresponding intervention functions and Behaviour Change techniques were selected and an overarching implementation strategy was developed through stakeholder consultation and application of the APEASE criteria (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness, Acceptability, Side‐effects/safety and Equity).Six barriers to HIRAID implementation were identified by 670 respondents (response rate ~58%) representing all 30 sites: (i) lack of knowledge about HIRAID; (ii) high workload, (iii) lack of belief anything would change; (iv) not suitable for workplace; (v), uncertainty about what to do and (vi) lack of support or time for education. The three enablers were as follows: (i) willingness to learn and adopt something new; (ii) recognition of the need for something new and (iii) wanting to do what is best for patient care. The 10 corresponding domains were mapped to seven intervention functions, 21 behaviour change techniques and 45 mechanisms. The major components of the implementation strategy were a scaffolded education programme, clinical support and environmental modifications.A systematic process guided by the behaviour change wheel resulted in the generation of a multifaceted implementation strategy to implement HIRAID across rural, regional and metropolitan emergency departments. Implementation fidelity, reach and impact now require evaluation. HIRAID emergency nursing assessment framework reduced clinical deterioration relating to emergency care and improved self‐confidence and documentation in emergency departments in pilot studies. Successful implementation of any intervention in the emergency department is notoriously difficult due to workload unpredictability, the undifferentiated nature of patients and high staff turnover. Key barriers and enablers were identified, and a successful implementation strategy was developed. This study uses theoretical frameworks to identify barriers and enablers to develop a data‐driven, behavioural‐focused implementation strategy to optimise the uptake of HIRAID in geographically diverse emergency departments which can be used to inform future implementation efforts involving emergency nurses. The CROSS reporting method (Supporting Information S3) was used to adhere to EQUATOR guidelines.No Patient or Public Contribution.Australian New Zealand; Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) number: ACTRN12621001456842, registered 25/10/2021 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A comprehensive patient assessment is essential for safe patient care. Patient assessment frameworks for nurses are generally restricted to patients who already have altered vital signs and are at risk of deterioration, or to specific risks or body systems such as falls, pressure injury and the Glasgow Coma Score. Comprehensive and structured evidence‐based nursing assessment frameworks that consider the whole patient and extend beyond vital signs, specific risks and single systems are not routinely used in inpatient settings but are important to establish early risks for patient deterioration. Aim: The aim of this review was to identify nursing assessment tools or frameworks used to holistically assess hospitalized patients and to identify the impact of these tools on patient and health service outcomes. Methods: A scoping literature review was conducted. Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis, Embase and Scopus were databases used in the search. The initial search was conducted in August 2021 and repeated in November 2022. No date parameters were set. The Participants, Concept, Context (PCC) framework was used to guide the development of the research question and consolidate inclusion and exclusion criteria. The PRISMA‐ScR Checklist Item was followed to ensure a methodologically sound checklist was used. Results: Ten primary research studies evaluating six nursing assessment frameworks were included. Of the five nursing assessment frameworks, none were explicitly designed for general ward nursing, but rather the emergency department or specific patient cohorts, such as oncology. Four studies reported on reliability and/or validity; two reported on patient outcomes and four on staff satisfaction. Conclusion: Evidence‐based nursing patient assessment frameworks for use in general inpatient wards are lacking. Existing assessment tools are largely designed for specific patient cohorts, specific body systems or the already deteriorating patient. Implications for the Profession and Patient Care: A framework to enable a structured approach to patient assessment in this environment is needed for patient safety, consistency in assessment, nursing staff enablement and confidence to escalate care. Routine systematic nursing assessment could also aid timely patient escalation. Impact: What problem did the study address? This study addresses the lack of evidence‐based nursing assessment frameworks for use in hospitalized patients. The impact of this is that it highlights the need for an evidence‐based, whole of patient assessment framework for use by nurses for patients admitted to a ward environment. What were the main findings? This review identified limited comprehensive, patient assessment frameworks for use in general ward inpatient areas. Those identified were not validated for this patient cohort and are aimed at patients already deteriorating. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? This review has the potential to impact future research and patient care. It highlights that most research is focussed on processes to detect and escalate care for the already deteriorating patient. There is a need for an evidence‐based routine nursing assessment framework for patients admitted to a ward environment to promote positive patient outcomes and prevent deterioration. Patient and Public Contribution: This review contributes to existing knowledge of nursing patient assessment frameworks, yet it also highlights several gaps. Currently, there are no known, validated, holistic, structured nursing patient assessment frameworks for use in general ward inpatient settings. However, areas that do use such assessment frameworks (e.g. the emergency department) have shown positive patient outcomes and staff usability. Hospitalized ward patients would benefit from routine, structured nursing assessments targeting positive patient outcomes prior to the onset of deterioration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To reduce perceived unnecessary resource use, we modified our tiered trauma response. If a patient was not physiologically compromised, surgical registrar attendance was not mandated. We investigated the effect of this change on missed injury, unplanned representation to ED, diagnostic imaging rates and staff satisfaction. Methods: A retrospective case series study assessing the 3‐month period before and after the intervention was conducted. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between ordering of computerised tomography (CT) and ED length of stay (LOS), injury severity (ISS), age, surgical review and admission. A staff survey was conducted to investigate staff perceptions of the practice change. Free text data were analysed using inductive content analysis. Results: There were 105 patients in the control and 166 in the intervention group and their mean (SD) ISS was the same (ISS [SD] = 4 [±4] [P = 0.608]). A higher proportion of the control group were admitted (56.3% vs 42.2% [P = 0.032]) and they had a shorter ED LOS (274 min [202–456] vs 326 min [225–560], P = 0.044). The rate of missed injury was unchanged. A surgical review resulted in a 26‐fold increase in receipt of a whole‐body CT scan (odds ratio = 26.89, 95% confidence interval = 3.31–218.17). Just over half of survey respondents felt the change was safe (54.4%), and more surgical (90%) than ED staff (69%) reported the change as positive. Conclusion: The removal of the surgical registrar from the initial trauma standby response did not result in any adverse events, reduced admissions, pathology and imaging, but resulted in an increased ED LOS and time to surgical review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Hip fracture in older adults results in significant mortality and is one of the costliest fall-related injuries. The Australian Commission for Quality and Safety in Health Care hip fracture clinical care standards consolidate the best available evidence for managing this patient group; however, uptake is variable. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a multidisciplinary early activation mechanism and bundle of care (eHIP) on patient and health service outcomes. Methods: This controlled pre- and post-test study was conducted from June 2019–June 2021 at a large regional hospital in Australia. We hypothesised that eHIP would result in at least 50% of hip fracture patients receiving six or more components of the ACSQHC Hip Fracture Clinical Care Standard. Secondary outcomes include hospital-acquired complication rates and acute treatment costs. Results: There were 565 cases included for analysis. After implementation of eHIP (the post-period), 88% of patients received a correct activation of the eHIP pathway, sustained over 12 months. The proportion of patients receiving the primary outcome of six or more components increased from 36% to 49%. Care at presentation (pain and cognitive assessment) increased by 23%, and unrestricted mobilisation within 24 h improved by 10%. Prescription of appropriate analgesia improved 10-fold (5.2–57%), and patients receiving the gold standard fascia iliaca block increased from 68% to 88%. Acute treatment costs did not significantly change. Discussion/Conclusion: eHIP, a hip fracture care program incorporating evidence-based behaviour change theory, resulted in sustained improvements to patient care as recommended by the ACSQHC Hip Fracture Clinical Care Standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]