首页 > 最新文献

International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare最新文献

英文 中文
The Joanna Briggs Institute clinical fellowship program: a gateway opportunity for evidence-based quality improvement and organizational culture change. 乔安娜布里格斯研究所临床奖学金项目:循证质量改进和组织文化变革的门户机会。
Q3 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000221
Craig Lockwood, Daphne Stannard, Zoe Jordan, Kylie Porritt
Practising health professionals trained and prepared for best practice lead the provision of high quality, evidencebased healthcare (EBHC), as many researchers have consistently demonstrated. Nurses in particular have a high level of knowledge and acceptance of EBHC, high uptake of EBHC principals in undergraduate and postgraduate nursing programs, and increasing integration of evidence in nurse-led quality improvement initiatives. There havebeenmany benefits to the uptake of EBHC, not just in terms of practice improvement, but also in understanding individual and organizational barriers and facilitators and indeed the process of change itself. However, nurses are not always professionally enabled to contribute to EBHC initiatives. While EBHC has supported nurses to make substantive contributions to professional nursing knowledge and practice, there are still gaps. A lack of autonomy in the strategic and cultural domains of healthcare organization and delivery is problematic.Withoutmechanisms to address these systemic, organizational issues, the promise and potential contribution of nursing will not be fully realized. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) was established as an international research institute in 1996 with a vision for a world in which the best available evidence is used to inform policy and practice to improve health in communities globally. While many associate JBI with systematic reviews of the best available evidence, that is only one element of their work. JBI is also involved with knowledge transfer and knowledge implementation as the JBI Model (Fig. 1) illustrates. The JBI Evidence-Based Clinical Fellowship Program (EBCFP) focuses on implementation and was designed for busy healthcare practitioners, managers, and administrators, who have an interest in implementing best practice, but may not have familiarity with the suite of skills needed to lead and sustain practice change. The program is delivered over 6 months; participants attend an intensive 1-week workshop that provides foundational knowledge on change management,
{"title":"The Joanna Briggs Institute clinical fellowship program: a gateway opportunity for evidence-based quality improvement and organizational culture change.","authors":"Craig Lockwood, Daphne Stannard, Zoe Jordan, Kylie Porritt","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000221","url":null,"abstract":"Practising health professionals trained and prepared for best practice lead the provision of high quality, evidencebased healthcare (EBHC), as many researchers have consistently demonstrated. Nurses in particular have a high level of knowledge and acceptance of EBHC, high uptake of EBHC principals in undergraduate and postgraduate nursing programs, and increasing integration of evidence in nurse-led quality improvement initiatives. There havebeenmany benefits to the uptake of EBHC, not just in terms of practice improvement, but also in understanding individual and organizational barriers and facilitators and indeed the process of change itself. However, nurses are not always professionally enabled to contribute to EBHC initiatives. While EBHC has supported nurses to make substantive contributions to professional nursing knowledge and practice, there are still gaps. A lack of autonomy in the strategic and cultural domains of healthcare organization and delivery is problematic.Withoutmechanisms to address these systemic, organizational issues, the promise and potential contribution of nursing will not be fully realized. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) was established as an international research institute in 1996 with a vision for a world in which the best available evidence is used to inform policy and practice to improve health in communities globally. While many associate JBI with systematic reviews of the best available evidence, that is only one element of their work. JBI is also involved with knowledge transfer and knowledge implementation as the JBI Model (Fig. 1) illustrates. The JBI Evidence-Based Clinical Fellowship Program (EBCFP) focuses on implementation and was designed for busy healthcare practitioners, managers, and administrators, who have an interest in implementing best practice, but may not have familiarity with the suite of skills needed to lead and sustain practice change. The program is delivered over 6 months; participants attend an intensive 1-week workshop that provides foundational knowledge on change management,","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000221","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37711495","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12
Are results from randomized trials in anesthesiology robust or fragile? An analysis using the fragility index. 麻醉随机试验的结果是可靠的还是脆弱的?使用脆弱性指数的分析。
Q3 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000200
Kale Goerke, Matthew Parke, Jarryd Horn, Chase Meyer, Kody Dormire, Brad White, T. Bright, Corbin G Walters, M. Vassar
AIMIn anesthesiology, the findings from randomized controlled trials often underpin guidelines influencing clinical decision-making and therefore directly affect patient care. The aim of this study is to evaluate the fragility index and fragility quotient of randomized controlled trials published in the eight highest ranked anesthesiology journals. In addition, we assess the extent to which risk of bias scores, loss to follow-up, Web of Science Citation Index, and journal impact factor influence fragility index and fragility quotient.METHODSWe included randomized trials published between 2014 and 2016 from the eight highest ranking anesthesiology journals based on Clarivate Analytics' Science Citation Index and Google Scholar Metrics: Anesthesiology subcategory. We included journals that published general anesthesia topics and omitted specialty anesthesia journals. The fragility index and fragility quotient for all included trials were calculated. Risk of bias for each trial was evaluated using the Cochrane 'risk of bias' Tool 2.0.RESULTSOne hundred and thirty one randomized control trials were included in this analysis. The median fragility index was 3 (interquartile range 1.0-5.5) with a fragility quotient of 0.03 (interquartile range 0.01-0.08). In 11% (14/131) of trials, the number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than the corresponding fragility index. Weak correlations were found between fragility index and total sample size (r = 0.13) and between fragility index and event frequency (r = 0.19). A near-negligible correlation was found between 5-year impact factor and fragility index (r = -0.03) and, similarly, between fragility index and Science Citation Index (r = -0.05). Ten trials were at high risk of bias with the randomization process found to be the domain at the highest risk of bias.CONCLUSIONIn assessing the fragility of randomized controlled trials published in the top eight anesthesiology journals, our study suggests that statistically significant results in these journals are disconcertingly fragile. The median fragility index calculated from our 131 primary studies reveals that only three nonevents must be replaced with events to negate statistical significance. Although a current scale does not exist for fragility index ranges, many trials published by the top journals in anesthesiology are based on concerning methodology and highly fragile outcomes. With small median sample sizes and few patient events characterizing a large number of these trials, many of today's current guidelines and clinical practices may be founded on research containing statistical significance but lacking clinical significance.
在麻醉学中,随机对照试验的结果通常是影响临床决策的指导方针的基础,因此直接影响到患者的护理。本研究的目的是评估发表在8种排名最高的麻醉学期刊上的随机对照试验的脆弱性指数和脆弱性商数。此外,我们评估了偏倚风险评分、随访损失、Web of Science引文索引和期刊影响因子对脆弱性指数和脆弱性商数的影响程度。方法:我们纳入了2014年至2016年间发表在8种排名最高的麻醉学期刊(基于Clarivate Analytics的科学引文索引和Google Scholar Metrics:麻醉学子类)上的随机试验。我们纳入了发表全身麻醉主题的期刊,而省略了专业麻醉期刊。计算所有纳入试验的脆弱性指数和脆弱性商数。使用Cochrane“偏倚风险”工具2.0评估每个试验的偏倚风险。结果纳入131项随机对照试验。脆弱性指数中位数为3(四分位数范围为1.0-5.5),脆弱性商为0.03(四分位数范围为0.01-0.08)。在11%(14/131)的试验中,失访患者的数量大于相应的脆弱性指数。脆弱性指数与总样本量呈弱相关(r = 0.13),脆弱性指数与事件发生频率呈弱相关(r = 0.19)。5年影响因子与脆弱性指数之间的相关性几乎可以忽略不计(r = -0.03),脆弱性指数与科学引文指数之间的相关性同样可以忽略不计(r = -0.05)。10项试验存在高偏倚风险,随机化过程是偏倚风险最高的领域。结论在评估发表在八大麻醉学期刊上的随机对照试验的脆弱性时,我们的研究表明,在这些期刊上发表的具有统计学意义的结果是令人不安的脆弱性。从我们的131项主要研究中计算出的中位数脆弱性指数显示,只有三个非事件必须被事件取代才能否定统计显著性。虽然目前还没有脆弱性指数范围的量表,但麻醉学顶级期刊发表的许多试验都是基于不可靠的方法和高度脆弱的结果。由于中位样本量较小,并且这些试验中很少有患者事件,因此今天的许多现行指南和临床实践可能建立在具有统计意义但缺乏临床意义的研究基础上。
{"title":"Are results from randomized trials in anesthesiology robust or fragile? An analysis using the fragility index.","authors":"Kale Goerke, Matthew Parke, Jarryd Horn, Chase Meyer, Kody Dormire, Brad White, T. Bright, Corbin G Walters, M. Vassar","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000200","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000200","url":null,"abstract":"AIM\u0000In anesthesiology, the findings from randomized controlled trials often underpin guidelines influencing clinical decision-making and therefore directly affect patient care. The aim of this study is to evaluate the fragility index and fragility quotient of randomized controlled trials published in the eight highest ranked anesthesiology journals. In addition, we assess the extent to which risk of bias scores, loss to follow-up, Web of Science Citation Index, and journal impact factor influence fragility index and fragility quotient.\u0000\u0000\u0000METHODS\u0000We included randomized trials published between 2014 and 2016 from the eight highest ranking anesthesiology journals based on Clarivate Analytics' Science Citation Index and Google Scholar Metrics: Anesthesiology subcategory. We included journals that published general anesthesia topics and omitted specialty anesthesia journals. The fragility index and fragility quotient for all included trials were calculated. Risk of bias for each trial was evaluated using the Cochrane 'risk of bias' Tool 2.0.\u0000\u0000\u0000RESULTS\u0000One hundred and thirty one randomized control trials were included in this analysis. The median fragility index was 3 (interquartile range 1.0-5.5) with a fragility quotient of 0.03 (interquartile range 0.01-0.08). In 11% (14/131) of trials, the number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than the corresponding fragility index. Weak correlations were found between fragility index and total sample size (r = 0.13) and between fragility index and event frequency (r = 0.19). A near-negligible correlation was found between 5-year impact factor and fragility index (r = -0.03) and, similarly, between fragility index and Science Citation Index (r = -0.05). Ten trials were at high risk of bias with the randomization process found to be the domain at the highest risk of bias.\u0000\u0000\u0000CONCLUSION\u0000In assessing the fragility of randomized controlled trials published in the top eight anesthesiology journals, our study suggests that statistically significant results in these journals are disconcertingly fragile. The median fragility index calculated from our 131 primary studies reveals that only three nonevents must be replaced with events to negate statistical significance. Although a current scale does not exist for fragility index ranges, many trials published by the top journals in anesthesiology are based on concerning methodology and highly fragile outcomes. With small median sample sizes and few patient events characterizing a large number of these trials, many of today's current guidelines and clinical practices may be founded on research containing statistical significance but lacking clinical significance.","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74811623","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12
Using patient self-checklist to improve the documentation of risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting: an implementation project. 应用病人自我检查表改进术后恶心呕吐风险记录:一个实施项目。
Q3 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000213
Zhen Zheng, Jennifer Layton, Wanda Stelmach, Julie Crabbe, Jason Ma, Juris Briedis, Jeanette Atme, Debra Bourne, Raphael Hau, Sonja Cleary, Charlie C Xue

Background and aims: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common surgical complication, affecting 30-50% of patients and 80% in high risk populations. Successful prevention and management of PONV relies on accurately assessing individual risk prior to surgery. A valid and reliable Apfel score is commonly used to assess patients' risk. It is however challenging to translate this evidence into clinical practice. This evidence-based project aimed to identify the current practice of assessing and documenting the risk factors of PONV prior to surgery, and to develop strategies to improve the practice.

Methods: The project had three phrases, including forming a team and conducting the baseline audit; identifying problems and developing strategies; and conducting a follow-up tool to assess the impact on compliance with best practice. A research team was formed. A baseline audit was conducted at a public hospital in Victoria in June 2016 to examine PONV risk assessment practice through checking medical files of surgical patients. A getting research into practice audit and feedback tool was used to identify barriers, implementation strategies, stakeholders and resources. After implementation, a second audit was conducted between June and October 2017. Audit criteria were based on a reliable and valid Apfel score.

Results: At baseline, accurate PONV risk could only be calculated from 8% of patient files with no file formally recording the risk factors. The proportion of patients with three risk factors preoperatively, indicating high PONV risk, was 5.3%. Barriers identified were the perceived lack of necessity to record the risk, time constraint and too much paperwork. A self-checklist for risk assessment was developed to enable patients to check their own level of risk. Its face validity, construct validity and accuracy were examined. The checklist was then implemented for patients to complete prior to surgery. A number of strategies were used to improve the implementation. The second audit of 1308 files showed that at the end of audit period, 74% of patients had risk assessment conducted and documented postimplementation. 16.8% of the patients were identified as having high PONV risk, nearly triple the number identified at baseline.

Conclusion: A simple self-checklist of PONV risk was implemented. It greatly improved PONV risk assessment and documentation in a public hospital in Australia and enabled the identification of patients at high risk.

背景和目的:术后恶心和呕吐(PONV)是一种常见的手术并发症,影响了30-50%的患者和80%的高危人群。PONV的成功预防和管理依赖于在手术前准确评估个体风险。有效可靠的Apfel评分通常用于评估患者的风险。然而,将这些证据转化为临床实践是具有挑战性的。本以证据为基础的项目旨在确定目前在手术前评估和记录PONV危险因素的做法,并制定改进做法的策略。方法:项目分为三个阶段,分别是组建团队和进行基线审核;发现问题并制定策略;并使用后续工具来评估对遵守最佳实践的影响。成立了一个研究小组。2016年6月,在维多利亚州的一家公立医院进行了基线审计,通过检查手术患者的医疗档案来检查PONV风险评估实践。对实践审计和反馈工具的研究被用于识别障碍、实施策略、利益相关者和资源。实施后,在2017年6月至10月期间进行了第二次审计。审计标准基于可靠和有效的Apfel评分。结果:在基线时,准确的PONV风险只能从8%的患者档案中计算出来,没有正式记录危险因素的档案。术前同时存在3种危险因素的患者中,有较高PONV风险的比例为5.3%。确定的障碍是认为没有必要记录风险、时间限制和太多的文书工作。制定了风险评估自我检查表,使患者能够检查自己的风险水平。并对其表面效度、结构效度和准确性进行了检验。然后实施检查表,让患者在手术前完成。采用了一些策略来改进执行。对1308份文件的第二次审核显示,在审核期结束时,74%的患者进行了风险评估,并记录了实施后的风险。16.8%的患者被确定为具有高PONV风险,几乎是基线时的三倍。结论:采用简单的PONV风险自检表。它极大地改进了澳大利亚一家公立医院的PONV风险评估和记录,并能够识别高风险患者。
{"title":"Using patient self-checklist to improve the documentation of risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting: an implementation project.","authors":"Zhen Zheng,&nbsp;Jennifer Layton,&nbsp;Wanda Stelmach,&nbsp;Julie Crabbe,&nbsp;Jason Ma,&nbsp;Juris Briedis,&nbsp;Jeanette Atme,&nbsp;Debra Bourne,&nbsp;Raphael Hau,&nbsp;Sonja Cleary,&nbsp;Charlie C Xue","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000213","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common surgical complication, affecting 30-50% of patients and 80% in high risk populations. Successful prevention and management of PONV relies on accurately assessing individual risk prior to surgery. A valid and reliable Apfel score is commonly used to assess patients' risk. It is however challenging to translate this evidence into clinical practice. This evidence-based project aimed to identify the current practice of assessing and documenting the risk factors of PONV prior to surgery, and to develop strategies to improve the practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The project had three phrases, including forming a team and conducting the baseline audit; identifying problems and developing strategies; and conducting a follow-up tool to assess the impact on compliance with best practice. A research team was formed. A baseline audit was conducted at a public hospital in Victoria in June 2016 to examine PONV risk assessment practice through checking medical files of surgical patients. A getting research into practice audit and feedback tool was used to identify barriers, implementation strategies, stakeholders and resources. After implementation, a second audit was conducted between June and October 2017. Audit criteria were based on a reliable and valid Apfel score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At baseline, accurate PONV risk could only be calculated from 8% of patient files with no file formally recording the risk factors. The proportion of patients with three risk factors preoperatively, indicating high PONV risk, was 5.3%. Barriers identified were the perceived lack of necessity to record the risk, time constraint and too much paperwork. A self-checklist for risk assessment was developed to enable patients to check their own level of risk. Its face validity, construct validity and accuracy were examined. The checklist was then implemented for patients to complete prior to surgery. A number of strategies were used to improve the implementation. The second audit of 1308 files showed that at the end of audit period, 74% of patients had risk assessment conducted and documented postimplementation. 16.8% of the patients were identified as having high PONV risk, nearly triple the number identified at baseline.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A simple self-checklist of PONV risk was implemented. It greatly improved PONV risk assessment and documentation in a public hospital in Australia and enabled the identification of patients at high risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000213","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37506953","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
An evaluation of a training intervention to support the use of evidence in healthcare commissioning in England. 一个培训干预的评估,以支持使用证据在英格兰的医疗保健委托。
Q3 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000208
A. Sabey
AIMClinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England are responsible for the health of their populations through the services they provide, yet we know that the use of evidence to inform commissioning decisions is low. A programme of training in seven CCGs in England was instigated in a joint piece of work by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care and Academic Health Science Network in the West of England, to help build an evidence informed culture in commissioning.METHODSEvidence workshops were delivered in each of the seven CCGs in the West of England by an experienced senior lecturer (the author) and local healthcare librarians. The workshop was developed by the author and an information scientist and included guidance and demonstration of a systematic evidence search covering both traditional and grey literature, and a brief look at quality of evidence including a critical appraisal activity. Participants were asked to evaluate the workshop on the day and to indicate an intended action they would take as a result of the workshop; a short follow-up interview was carried out with a sample of participants between 3 and 6 months later, to identify any longer term impact of the training.RESULTSA total of 63 staff in a variety of commissioning-related roles attended the workshops between March and September 2016. 95% rated the workshop overall as either 'excellent' or 'good'. Of particular value was the involvement of the local healthcare librarian, helping to promote their expertise and services; and the discussion of grey literature as a valuable source of evidence. A variety of intended actions as a result of the training included initiating a thorough search for evidence for new projects, use of bibliographic databases, and making use of local library services for evidence searching. Follow-up interviews with nine staff revealed a positive impact in the longer-term. This ranged from simply triggering an interest in using evidence, boosting motivation and sharing information with colleagues; to changes in processes such as broadening the responsibility for finding and filtering evidence for business cases; to one clear case of financial savings resulting from a search for evidence by a senior commissioning manager.CONCLUSIONOffering short, interactive training workshops is valued by healthcare commissioners and can make a difference to their approach to and use of evidence in decision-making. There is a need for a flexible approach to the concept of evidence in healthcare commissioning, which includes the use of grey literature, and training can encourage and support the systematic search for an appraisal of this type of evidence. Tools for improving and sustaining this aspect of evidence use by commissioners are included here.
英国的AIMClinical调试小组(ccg)通过他们提供的服务对其人口的健康负责,但我们知道,在调试决策中使用证据的情况很低。英国国家卫生研究合作研究所应用卫生研究和护理领导与英格兰西部学术卫生科学网络联合开展了一项在英格兰7个CCGs开展的培训方案,以帮助在委托中建立一种循证文化。方法由一位经验丰富的高级讲师(作者)和当地卫生保健图书馆员在英格兰西部的7个ccg中每个ccg举办证据研讨会。该研讨会由作者和一位信息科学家共同开展,内容包括指导和演示涵盖传统文献和灰色文献的系统证据检索,以及对证据质量的简要考察,包括一项关键的评估活动。参与者被要求评估当天的研讨会,并指出他们将采取的预期行动作为研讨会的结果;3至6个月后,对参与者样本进行了简短的随访访谈,以确定培训的长期影响。结果在2016年3月至9月期间,共有63名与调试相关的工作人员参加了研讨会。95%的人对整个车间的评价是“优秀”或“良好”。特别有价值的是当地医疗保健图书管理员的参与,帮助推广他们的专业知识和服务;并讨论灰色文献作为有价值的证据来源。培训后打算采取的各种行动包括开始为新项目彻底搜寻证据、使用书目数据库和利用当地图书馆服务进行证据搜寻。对9名工作人员的后续访谈显示长期的积极影响。这包括简单地激发对使用证据的兴趣,提高动机和与同事分享信息;改变流程,例如扩大寻找和过滤业务案例证据的责任;一个由高级委托经理查找证据而节省资金的明显案例。结论提供简短的互动式培训讲习班受到卫生保健专员的重视,可以使他们的决策方法和证据的使用有所不同。需要对医疗保健委托中的证据概念采取灵活的方法,其中包括使用灰色文献,培训可以鼓励和支持对这类证据的评估进行系统的搜索。这里包括了改善和维持专员在这方面使用证据的工具。
{"title":"An evaluation of a training intervention to support the use of evidence in healthcare commissioning in England.","authors":"A. Sabey","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000208","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000208","url":null,"abstract":"AIM\u0000Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England are responsible for the health of their populations through the services they provide, yet we know that the use of evidence to inform commissioning decisions is low. A programme of training in seven CCGs in England was instigated in a joint piece of work by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care and Academic Health Science Network in the West of England, to help build an evidence informed culture in commissioning.\u0000\u0000\u0000METHODS\u0000Evidence workshops were delivered in each of the seven CCGs in the West of England by an experienced senior lecturer (the author) and local healthcare librarians. The workshop was developed by the author and an information scientist and included guidance and demonstration of a systematic evidence search covering both traditional and grey literature, and a brief look at quality of evidence including a critical appraisal activity. Participants were asked to evaluate the workshop on the day and to indicate an intended action they would take as a result of the workshop; a short follow-up interview was carried out with a sample of participants between 3 and 6 months later, to identify any longer term impact of the training.\u0000\u0000\u0000RESULTS\u0000A total of 63 staff in a variety of commissioning-related roles attended the workshops between March and September 2016. 95% rated the workshop overall as either 'excellent' or 'good'. Of particular value was the involvement of the local healthcare librarian, helping to promote their expertise and services; and the discussion of grey literature as a valuable source of evidence. A variety of intended actions as a result of the training included initiating a thorough search for evidence for new projects, use of bibliographic databases, and making use of local library services for evidence searching. Follow-up interviews with nine staff revealed a positive impact in the longer-term. This ranged from simply triggering an interest in using evidence, boosting motivation and sharing information with colleagues; to changes in processes such as broadening the responsibility for finding and filtering evidence for business cases; to one clear case of financial savings resulting from a search for evidence by a senior commissioning manager.\u0000\u0000\u0000CONCLUSION\u0000Offering short, interactive training workshops is valued by healthcare commissioners and can make a difference to their approach to and use of evidence in decision-making. There is a need for a flexible approach to the concept of evidence in healthcare commissioning, which includes the use of grey literature, and training can encourage and support the systematic search for an appraisal of this type of evidence. Tools for improving and sustaining this aspect of evidence use by commissioners are included here.","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74497204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Integrated physical and mental healthcare: an overview of models and their evaluation findings. 综合身心保健:模型概述及其评价结果。
Q3 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000215
Dominiek Coates, Danielle Coppleson, Virginia Schmied

Background: Comorbid physical and mental health problems are common across the age spectrum. However, services addressing these health concerns are typically siloed and disconnected. Over the past 2 decades efforts have been made to design integrated services to address the physical and mental health needs of the population but little is known about the characteristics of effective integrated care models. The aim of the review was to map the design of integrated care initiatives/models and to describe how the models were evaluated and their evaluation findings.

Method: Using a scoping review methodology, quantitative and qualitative evidence was systematically considered. To identify studies, Medline, PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL were searched for the period from 2003 to 2018, and reference lists of included studies and review articles were examined.

Results: The current review identified 43 studies, describing 37 models of integrated physical and mental healthcare. Although modest in terms of evaluation design, it is evident that models are well received by consumers and providers, increase service access, and improve physical and mental health outcomes. Key characteristics of models include shared information technology, financial integration, a single-entry point, colocated care, multidisciplinary teams, multidisciplinary meetings, care coordination, joint treatment plan, joint treatment, joint assessment/joint assessment document, agreed referral criteria and person-centred care. Although mostly modest in term of research design, models were well received by consumers and providers, increased service access and improved physical and mental health outcomes. There was no clear evidence regarding whether models of integrated care are cost neutral, increase or reduce costs.

Conclusion: Future research is needed to identify the elements of integrated care that are associated with outcomes, measure cost implications and identify the experiences and priorities of consumers and clinicians.

背景:共病的身体和精神健康问题是普遍的年龄谱。但是,解决这些运行状况问题的服务通常是孤立的和断开连接的。在过去20年里,人们努力设计综合服务,以满足人口的身心健康需求,但对有效的综合护理模式的特点知之甚少。回顾的目的是绘制综合护理计划/模式的设计图,并描述如何评估这些模式及其评估结果。方法:采用范围评价方法,系统地考虑定量和定性证据。为了确定研究,检索了2003年至2018年期间的Medline、PubMed、PsychINFO、CINAHL,并检查了纳入的研究和综述文章的参考文献列表。结果:目前的综述确定了43项研究,描述了37种综合身心保健模型。虽然在评价设计方面比较有限,但很明显,这些模式深受消费者和提供者的欢迎,增加了服务的可及性,并改善了身心健康结果。这些模式的主要特点包括共享信息技术、财务整合、单一入口点、联合护理、多学科团队、多学科会议、护理协调、联合治疗计划、联合治疗、联合评估/联合评估文件、商定的转诊标准和以人为本的护理。虽然这些模型在研究设计方面大多不太完善,但它们受到了消费者和提供者的好评,增加了服务的可及性,改善了身心健康结果。关于综合护理模式是否成本中立、增加或减少成本,没有明确的证据。结论:未来的研究需要确定与结果相关的综合护理要素,衡量成本影响,确定消费者和临床医生的经验和优先事项。
{"title":"Integrated physical and mental healthcare: an overview of models and their evaluation findings.","authors":"Dominiek Coates,&nbsp;Danielle Coppleson,&nbsp;Virginia Schmied","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000215","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Comorbid physical and mental health problems are common across the age spectrum. However, services addressing these health concerns are typically siloed and disconnected. Over the past 2 decades efforts have been made to design integrated services to address the physical and mental health needs of the population but little is known about the characteristics of effective integrated care models. The aim of the review was to map the design of integrated care initiatives/models and to describe how the models were evaluated and their evaluation findings.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using a scoping review methodology, quantitative and qualitative evidence was systematically considered. To identify studies, Medline, PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL were searched for the period from 2003 to 2018, and reference lists of included studies and review articles were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The current review identified 43 studies, describing 37 models of integrated physical and mental healthcare. Although modest in terms of evaluation design, it is evident that models are well received by consumers and providers, increase service access, and improve physical and mental health outcomes. Key characteristics of models include shared information technology, financial integration, a single-entry point, colocated care, multidisciplinary teams, multidisciplinary meetings, care coordination, joint treatment plan, joint treatment, joint assessment/joint assessment document, agreed referral criteria and person-centred care. Although mostly modest in term of research design, models were well received by consumers and providers, increased service access and improved physical and mental health outcomes. There was no clear evidence regarding whether models of integrated care are cost neutral, increase or reduce costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Future research is needed to identify the elements of integrated care that are associated with outcomes, measure cost implications and identify the experiences and priorities of consumers and clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000215","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37514155","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Risk factors for prescription drug diversion among people living with HIV: a systematic scoping review. 艾滋病毒感染者处方药转移的危险因素:系统的范围审查。
Q3 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000167
Buyisile Chibi, Neusa F Torres, Zinhle P Sokhela, Tivani P Mashamba-Thompson

Background: In addition to numerous infections and frequent pain constantly affecting people living with HIV (PLWH), various risk factors might contribute to prescription drug diversion. The purpose of the study is to map existing evidence on risk factors contributing to prescription drug diversion among PLWH.

Methods: Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the recommendation by Levac et al. (2010) guided this study. We searched for relevant literature from the following databases: PubMed; Google Scholar; EBSCOhost (Academic Search Complete, MEDLINE and Newspaper Source), Cochrane, WHO, HIV, ScienceDirect and Open Access Theses and Dissertations. Studies reporting evidence on risk factors contributing to prescription drug diversion and published in the period January 1996 to July 2017 were included. Thematic content analysis was performed to summarize the findings.

Results: The search identified 734 studies. After full-text screening of the eligible studies, risk factors contributing to prescription drug diversion among PLWH were reported in 20 included studies. It was found that there is limited research on prescription drug diversion among PLWH in low-middle-income countries (LMICs). Risk factors contributing to prescription drug diversion were being a substance user or substance dependent; being male; young in age; being stigmatized; not disclosed HIV status; diagnosed with mental health problems; being HIV infected; poor health and well being; being White; being homeless or not owing a home; having low educational level; having history of diversion, misuse or abuse; in possession of addictive prescriptions; being unemployed and living in high neighbourhood disorder.

Conclusion: Evidence shows that there is limited research on prescription drug diversion among PLWH in LMICs. The study findings show that the risk factors contributing to prescription drug diversion are related with risk factors for HIV transmission and infection.

Prospero registration number: CRD42017074076.

背景:除了不断影响HIV感染者(PLWH)的多种感染和频繁疼痛外,各种危险因素可能导致处方药转移。该研究的目的是绘制现有证据的危险因素,有助于处方药转移在PLWH。方法:Arksey和O'Malley的框架和Levac et al.(2010)的建议指导了本研究。我们从以下数据库检索相关文献:PubMed;谷歌学者;EBSCOhost(学术检索完整,MEDLINE和报纸来源),Cochrane, WHO, HIV, ScienceDirect和开放获取论文。纳入了1996年1月至2017年7月期间发表的报告导致处方药转移风险因素证据的研究。进行主题内容分析,总结研究结果。结果:搜索确定了734项研究。在对符合条件的研究进行全文筛选后,在纳入的20项研究中报告了导致PLWH处方药转移的危险因素。研究发现,中低收入国家公共卫生服务人员处方药转移的研究有限。导致处方药转移的风险因素是药物使用者或药物依赖者;男性;年轻的;年轻的;被指责;未披露艾滋病毒状况;被诊断有精神健康问题;感染艾滋病毒;健康状况不佳;白色;无家可归的:无家可归或没有家的;受教育程度低的;有挪用、误用、滥用历史的;持有成瘾性处方的;失业,邻里关系高度混乱。结论:有证据表明,对中低收入国家PLWH中处方药转移的研究有限。研究结果表明,导致处方药转移的危险因素与HIV传播和感染的危险因素有关。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42017074076。
{"title":"Risk factors for prescription drug diversion among people living with HIV: a systematic scoping review.","authors":"Buyisile Chibi,&nbsp;Neusa F Torres,&nbsp;Zinhle P Sokhela,&nbsp;Tivani P Mashamba-Thompson","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000167","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000167","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In addition to numerous infections and frequent pain constantly affecting people living with HIV (PLWH), various risk factors might contribute to prescription drug diversion. The purpose of the study is to map existing evidence on risk factors contributing to prescription drug diversion among PLWH.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the recommendation by Levac et al. (2010) guided this study. We searched for relevant literature from the following databases: PubMed; Google Scholar; EBSCOhost (Academic Search Complete, MEDLINE and Newspaper Source), Cochrane, WHO, HIV, ScienceDirect and Open Access Theses and Dissertations. Studies reporting evidence on risk factors contributing to prescription drug diversion and published in the period January 1996 to July 2017 were included. Thematic content analysis was performed to summarize the findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 734 studies. After full-text screening of the eligible studies, risk factors contributing to prescription drug diversion among PLWH were reported in 20 included studies. It was found that there is limited research on prescription drug diversion among PLWH in low-middle-income countries (LMICs). Risk factors contributing to prescription drug diversion were being a substance user or substance dependent; being male; young in age; being stigmatized; not disclosed HIV status; diagnosed with mental health problems; being HIV infected; poor health and well being; being White; being homeless or not owing a home; having low educational level; having history of diversion, misuse or abuse; in possession of addictive prescriptions; being unemployed and living in high neighbourhood disorder.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Evidence shows that there is limited research on prescription drug diversion among PLWH in LMICs. The study findings show that the risk factors contributing to prescription drug diversion are related with risk factors for HIV transmission and infection.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42017074076.</p>","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000167","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37305716","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Reducing adverse medication events in mental health: Australian National Survey. 减少心理健康中的药物不良事件:澳大利亚国家调查。
Q3 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000154
Svetla Gadzhanova, Elizabeth Roughead, Helen Lowy, Daniel O'Connor

Aim: To determine the extent to which evidence-based medication safety practices have been implemented in public and private mental health inpatient units across Australia.

Methods: The Reducing Adverse Medication Events in Mental Health survey was piloted in Victoria, Australia, in 2015, and rolled out nationally in 2016. In total, 235 mental health inpatient units from all States and Territories in Australia were invited to participate. The survey included questions about the demographics of the mental health unit, evidence-based strategies to improve prescription writing, the administration and dispensing of medicines and pharmacy-led interventions, and also questions relating to consumer engagement in medication management and shared decision-making.

Results: The response rate was 45% (N = 106 units). Overall, the survey found that 57% of the mental health units had fully or partially implemented evidence-based medication safety practices. High levels of implementation (80%) were reported for the use of standardized medication charts such as the National Inpatient Medication Chart as a way to improve medication prescription writing. Most (71%) of the units were using standardized forms for recording medication histories, and 56% were using designated forms for Medication Management Plans. However, less than one-fifth of the units had implemented electronic medication management systems, and the majority of units still relied on paper-based documentation systems.Interventions to improve medicine administration and dispensing were not highly utilized. Individual patient-based medication distribution systems were fully implemented in only 9% of the units, with a high reliance (81%) on ward stock or imprest systems. Tall Man lettering for labelling was implemented in only one-third of the units.Pharmacy services were well represented in mental health units, with 80% having access to onsite pharmacist services providing assessments of current medications and clinical review services, adverse drug reaction reporting and management services, patient and carer education and counselling, and medicines information services. However, pharmacists were involved in only half of medical reconciliations. Their involvement in post-discharge follow-up was limited to 4% of units.

Conclusions: Gaps in medication safety practices included limited use of individual patient supply systems for medication distribution, a high reliance on ward stock systems and high reliance on paper-based systems for medication prescribing and administration. With regards to service provision, clinical pharmacist involvement in medical reconciliation services, therapeutic drug monitoring and interdisciplinary ward rounds should be increased. Discharge and post-discharge services were major gaps in service provision.

目的:确定在澳大利亚公立和私立精神卫生住院单位实施循证药物安全实践的程度。方法:2015年在澳大利亚维多利亚州试点开展“减少心理健康不良用药事件”调查,并于2016年在全国推广。总共邀请了澳大利亚所有州和地区的235个精神卫生住院单位参加。调查的问题包括:精神卫生单位的人口统计数据、改善处方书写的循证战略、药物的管理和分配以及药房主导的干预措施,以及与消费者参与药物管理和共同决策有关的问题。结果:有效率为45% (N = 106个单位)。总体而言,调查发现57%的精神卫生单位完全或部分实施了基于证据的药物安全实践。据报道,使用标准化药物图表(如国家住院患者药物图表)作为改进药物处方写作的一种方式的执行率很高(80%)。大多数(71%)单位使用标准化表格记录用药史,56%的单位使用药物管理计划指定表格。然而,只有不到五分之一的单位实施了电子药物管理系统,大多数单位仍然依赖于纸质文件系统。改善药物管理和配药的干预措施没有得到高度利用。只有9%的单位完全实施了以患者为基础的个人药物分配系统,高度依赖病房库存或预付系统(81%)。只有三分之一的单位采用了“高个子”字样的标签。药房服务在精神卫生单位有很好的代表性,80%的人可以获得现场药剂师服务,提供现有药物评估和临床审查服务、药物不良反应报告和管理服务、患者和护理人员教育和咨询,以及药物信息服务。然而,药剂师只参与了一半的医疗和解。他们参与出院后随访的比例仅为4%。结论:药物安全实践方面的差距包括:有限地使用个体患者供应系统进行药物分配,高度依赖病房库存系统,以及高度依赖纸质系统进行药物处方和给药。在服务提供方面,应增加临床药师参与医疗调解服务、治疗药物监测和跨学科查房。出院和出院后服务是提供服务的主要差距。
{"title":"Reducing adverse medication events in mental health: Australian National Survey.","authors":"Svetla Gadzhanova,&nbsp;Elizabeth Roughead,&nbsp;Helen Lowy,&nbsp;Daniel O'Connor","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000154","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000154","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the extent to which evidence-based medication safety practices have been implemented in public and private mental health inpatient units across Australia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Reducing Adverse Medication Events in Mental Health survey was piloted in Victoria, Australia, in 2015, and rolled out nationally in 2016. In total, 235 mental health inpatient units from all States and Territories in Australia were invited to participate. The survey included questions about the demographics of the mental health unit, evidence-based strategies to improve prescription writing, the administration and dispensing of medicines and pharmacy-led interventions, and also questions relating to consumer engagement in medication management and shared decision-making.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate was 45% (N = 106 units). Overall, the survey found that 57% of the mental health units had fully or partially implemented evidence-based medication safety practices. High levels of implementation (80%) were reported for the use of standardized medication charts such as the National Inpatient Medication Chart as a way to improve medication prescription writing. Most (71%) of the units were using standardized forms for recording medication histories, and 56% were using designated forms for Medication Management Plans. However, less than one-fifth of the units had implemented electronic medication management systems, and the majority of units still relied on paper-based documentation systems.Interventions to improve medicine administration and dispensing were not highly utilized. Individual patient-based medication distribution systems were fully implemented in only 9% of the units, with a high reliance (81%) on ward stock or imprest systems. Tall Man lettering for labelling was implemented in only one-third of the units.Pharmacy services were well represented in mental health units, with 80% having access to onsite pharmacist services providing assessments of current medications and clinical review services, adverse drug reaction reporting and management services, patient and carer education and counselling, and medicines information services. However, pharmacists were involved in only half of medical reconciliations. Their involvement in post-discharge follow-up was limited to 4% of units.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Gaps in medication safety practices included limited use of individual patient supply systems for medication distribution, a high reliance on ward stock systems and high reliance on paper-based systems for medication prescribing and administration. With regards to service provision, clinical pharmacist involvement in medical reconciliation services, therapeutic drug monitoring and interdisciplinary ward rounds should be increased. Discharge and post-discharge services were major gaps in service provision.</p>","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000154","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36510184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Nursing documentation for chemotherapy in a university hospital's bone marrow transplant unit: a best practice implementation project. 某大学医院骨髓移植科化疗护理文件:最佳实践实施项目。
Q3 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000216
Kelli Borges Dos Santos, Caroline S Campos, Ana Carolina Amaral de São José Perrone, Camila M de Araújo Silva Vieira, Davi Pereira Coelho, Abrahão Elias Hallack-Neto, Craig Lockwood, Vilanice Alves de Araújo Püschel

Aim: The aim of this evidence implementation project was to improve the documentation of chemotherapy administration by nursing staff in a bone marrow transplant unit, to improve patient care and safety, as well as meet the legal and educational responsibilities of the nursing staff.

Methods: This evidence implementation project used the Joanna Briggs Institute's Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System and Getting Research into Practice audit and feedback framework for the design and development of an evidence-based audit and feedback change project. A baseline audit was conducted to assess current practices against best practice and identify areas requiring improvement. Next, the project team reflected on the results of the audit to develop and implement strategies for documentation improvement. Lastly, a follow-up audit was conducted to assess changes in practice improvement.

Results: The baseline audit results revealed practice areas requiring improvement; facilitators of and barriers to nursing documentation and practice improvement were identified. A checklist, educational session, Nursing Documentation Guidelines for Chemotherapy Administration, was implemented to improve nursing documentation. The follow-up audit demonstrated improved adherence across all audit criteria.

Conclusion: The checklist implemented for nursing documentation and education contributed to improved practices. To promote additional improvements, nurses will continue to utilize the tools developed and receive continued education through formal training and staff meetings. Future auditing is planned to ensure sustainability.

目的:本证据实施项目的目的是改善骨髓移植单位护理人员化疗给药的文件记录,改善患者的护理和安全,并履行护理人员的法律和教育责任。方法:本证据实施项目采用乔安娜布里格斯研究所的临床证据系统的实际应用和将研究转化为实践的审计和反馈框架,设计和开发一个循证审计和反馈变化项目。进行了基线审计,以根据最佳实践评估当前实践,并确定需要改进的领域。接下来,项目团队对审计结果进行反思,以制定和实施文件改进策略。最后,进行了跟踪审计,以评估实践改进方面的变化。结果:基线审计结果揭示了需要改进的实践领域;确定了护理文件和实践改进的促进因素和障碍。一份检查表,教育课程,化疗给药护理文件指南,被实施以改善护理文件。后续审计表明,所有审计标准的遵守情况得到了改善。结论:检查表的实施对护理记录和教育的改进起到了促进作用。为了促进进一步的改进,护士将继续利用开发的工具,并通过正式培训和员工会议继续接受教育。计划未来的审计以确保可持续性。
{"title":"Nursing documentation for chemotherapy in a university hospital's bone marrow transplant unit: a best practice implementation project.","authors":"Kelli Borges Dos Santos,&nbsp;Caroline S Campos,&nbsp;Ana Carolina Amaral de São José Perrone,&nbsp;Camila M de Araújo Silva Vieira,&nbsp;Davi Pereira Coelho,&nbsp;Abrahão Elias Hallack-Neto,&nbsp;Craig Lockwood,&nbsp;Vilanice Alves de Araújo Püschel","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000216","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this evidence implementation project was to improve the documentation of chemotherapy administration by nursing staff in a bone marrow transplant unit, to improve patient care and safety, as well as meet the legal and educational responsibilities of the nursing staff.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This evidence implementation project used the Joanna Briggs Institute's Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System and Getting Research into Practice audit and feedback framework for the design and development of an evidence-based audit and feedback change project. A baseline audit was conducted to assess current practices against best practice and identify areas requiring improvement. Next, the project team reflected on the results of the audit to develop and implement strategies for documentation improvement. Lastly, a follow-up audit was conducted to assess changes in practice improvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The baseline audit results revealed practice areas requiring improvement; facilitators of and barriers to nursing documentation and practice improvement were identified. A checklist, educational session, Nursing Documentation Guidelines for Chemotherapy Administration, was implemented to improve nursing documentation. The follow-up audit demonstrated improved adherence across all audit criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The checklist implemented for nursing documentation and education contributed to improved practices. To promote additional improvements, nurses will continue to utilize the tools developed and receive continued education through formal training and staff meetings. Future auditing is planned to ensure sustainability.</p>","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000216","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37711497","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Evaluation of the JBI scoping reviews methodology by current users. 当前用户对JBI范围审查方法的评估。
Q3 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000202
H. Khalil, M. Bennett, C. Godfrey, P. McInerney, Z. Munn, M. Peters
BACKGROUNDIn 2014, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) published a comprehensive methodology for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews based on previous frameworks and guidance. Further work on scoping review methodology and particularly reporting is needed. To assist with refinements to the methodology, this survey was undertaken to evaluate users' experiences of following the process methodology. An electronic survey was generated to explore authors' experiences with the methodology and to seek feedback on the stages of scoping review development.METHODAn online survey administered using Qualtrics - a secure survey platform - was distributed through invitations to a total of 51 registered users in the Joanna Briggs Database of Systematic reviews and Implementation reports. We analysed the questionnaire data using descriptive statistics. The qualitative data were grouped together, and free text comments were inductively themed and coded by the authors.RESULTSThirty-one participants completed the survey (response rate of 61%). The majority of the participants identified themselves as researchers (55%) followed by educators (25%). Most participants were university employees (77%) and only 10% were based in hospitals. Forty-two percent of the participants reported that the scoping review they had been involved with had taken between 6 and 12 months, and 32% of participants spent over a year completing their reviews. Eighty-seven percent of participants stated that their scoping reviews led to further work such as developing a systematic review, a basis for a grant application, formation of a part of students' doctoral studies, and informing further work in a research project. Some of the limitations listed by the participants were the lack of examples in each section of the methodology, especially in the inclusion criteria, and presentation of the results sections.CONCLUSIONThe overall evaluation by the participants of the JBI scoping review methodology highlighted the need for additional detailed guidance for inclusion criteria and presentation of the results. Provision of clear examples for each step was also requested for future improvement.
2014年,乔安娜·布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute, JBI)发布了一种基于先前框架和指南的范围审查的综合方法。需要进一步开展范围界定、审查方法和特别是报告方面的工作。为了帮助改进方法,进行了这项调查,以评估用户遵循过程方法的经验。产生了一项电子调查,以探索作者使用该方法的经验,并寻求关于范围审查发展阶段的反馈。方法使用Qualtrics(一个安全的调查平台)管理的在线调查,通过邀请向乔安娜布里格斯系统审查和实施报告数据库中的51名注册用户分发。我们使用描述性统计分析问卷数据。将定性数据分组在一起,作者对自由文本评论进行归纳主题化和编码。结果共31人完成调查,回复率为61%。大多数参与者认为自己是研究人员(55%),其次是教育工作者(25%)。大多数参与者是大学雇员(77%),只有10%在医院工作。42%的参与者报告说,他们参与的范围审查花了6到12个月,32%的参与者花了一年多的时间完成他们的审查。87%的参与者表示,他们的范围审查导致了进一步的工作,如开发系统审查、资助申请的基础、形成学生博士研究的一部分,以及为研究项目的进一步工作提供信息。参与者列出的一些限制是,方法的每一部分都缺乏例子,特别是在纳入标准和结果展示部分。参与者对JBI范围审查方法的总体评价强调了对纳入标准和结果呈现的额外详细指导的必要性。还要求为每个步骤提供明确的示例,以便将来改进。
{"title":"Evaluation of the JBI scoping reviews methodology by current users.","authors":"H. Khalil, M. Bennett, C. Godfrey, P. McInerney, Z. Munn, M. Peters","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000202","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\u0000In 2014, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) published a comprehensive methodology for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews based on previous frameworks and guidance. Further work on scoping review methodology and particularly reporting is needed. To assist with refinements to the methodology, this survey was undertaken to evaluate users' experiences of following the process methodology. An electronic survey was generated to explore authors' experiences with the methodology and to seek feedback on the stages of scoping review development.\u0000\u0000\u0000METHOD\u0000An online survey administered using Qualtrics - a secure survey platform - was distributed through invitations to a total of 51 registered users in the Joanna Briggs Database of Systematic reviews and Implementation reports. We analysed the questionnaire data using descriptive statistics. The qualitative data were grouped together, and free text comments were inductively themed and coded by the authors.\u0000\u0000\u0000RESULTS\u0000Thirty-one participants completed the survey (response rate of 61%). The majority of the participants identified themselves as researchers (55%) followed by educators (25%). Most participants were university employees (77%) and only 10% were based in hospitals. Forty-two percent of the participants reported that the scoping review they had been involved with had taken between 6 and 12 months, and 32% of participants spent over a year completing their reviews. Eighty-seven percent of participants stated that their scoping reviews led to further work such as developing a systematic review, a basis for a grant application, formation of a part of students' doctoral studies, and informing further work in a research project. Some of the limitations listed by the participants were the lack of examples in each section of the methodology, especially in the inclusion criteria, and presentation of the results sections.\u0000\u0000\u0000CONCLUSION\u0000The overall evaluation by the participants of the JBI scoping review methodology highlighted the need for additional detailed guidance for inclusion criteria and presentation of the results. Provision of clear examples for each step was also requested for future improvement.","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76777542","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29
Modelling management response and online reviews for improved financial performance of hospitals. 模拟管理响应和在线评论,以改善医院的财务绩效。
Q3 Medicine Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000205
Mayukh Saha, J. K. Jha, J. Maiti
Hospitals are increasingly changing their online review strategy from active listening to proactive engagement to ensure proper responses to patients. Reviews of and responses from hospitals vary in different regions of the world, thereby the process of ranking of hospitals is bounded to a specific region. On the other hand, working conditions in public hospitals have been of great concern worldwide for healthcare personnel. Due to the poor review of a hospital, financial performance is gradually deteriorating, which leads to the migration of healthcare personnel from one hospital to another. This study investigates the combined effect of management responses and online reviews on the financial performance of hospitals by concentrating on three areas of concern. First, how variation in management responses, both within a hospital and on peer review sites, affects the motivation of healthcare personnel towards service and number of patients seeking services. Second, a cyclic link depicting interrelationships among four major domains, namely rating, management response, financial performance, and recommendation, has been presented. Third, a generic model is proposed to improve the performance of hospitals in each of the above domains, and analysis has been done to make the model region-specific. A case study on Indian hospitals is performed to depict the sufficiency of models. It is found that management intervention on social media should be strategic, and a higher average rating tends to mitigate the effect of negative responses.
医院越来越多地改变他们的在线审查策略,从积极倾听到积极参与,以确保对患者做出适当的反应。世界不同地区对医院的评价和反应各不相同,因此医院排名的过程仅限于特定地区。另一方面,公立医院的工作条件一直是全世界卫生保健人员非常关注的问题。由于对医院的不良审查,财务业绩逐渐恶化,导致保健人员从一家医院迁移到另一家医院。本研究通过集中在三个关注领域调查管理响应和在线评论对医院财务绩效的综合影响。首先,在医院内部和同行评议网站上,管理反应的差异如何影响医疗保健人员对服务的动机和寻求服务的患者数量。其次,描述了四个主要领域(即评级、管理层回应、财务绩效和推荐)之间相互关系的循环链接。第三,提出了一个通用模型,以提高医院在上述各个领域的绩效,并进行了分析,使模型具有区域特异性。为了说明模型的充分性,对印度医院进行了案例研究。研究发现,管理层对社交媒体的干预应该是战略性的,较高的平均评分往往会减轻负面反应的影响。
{"title":"Modelling management response and online reviews for improved financial performance of hospitals.","authors":"Mayukh Saha, J. K. Jha, J. Maiti","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000205","url":null,"abstract":"Hospitals are increasingly changing their online review strategy from active listening to proactive engagement to ensure proper responses to patients. Reviews of and responses from hospitals vary in different regions of the world, thereby the process of ranking of hospitals is bounded to a specific region. On the other hand, working conditions in public hospitals have been of great concern worldwide for healthcare personnel. Due to the poor review of a hospital, financial performance is gradually deteriorating, which leads to the migration of healthcare personnel from one hospital to another. This study investigates the combined effect of management responses and online reviews on the financial performance of hospitals by concentrating on three areas of concern. First, how variation in management responses, both within a hospital and on peer review sites, affects the motivation of healthcare personnel towards service and number of patients seeking services. Second, a cyclic link depicting interrelationships among four major domains, namely rating, management response, financial performance, and recommendation, has been presented. Third, a generic model is proposed to improve the performance of hospitals in each of the above domains, and analysis has been done to make the model region-specific. A case study on Indian hospitals is performed to depict the sufficiency of models. It is found that management intervention on social media should be strategic, and a higher average rating tends to mitigate the effect of negative responses.","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84253267","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
期刊
International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1