Dataset Information

Evaluation of the effect of multidisciplinary simulation-based team training on patients, staff and organisations: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-mixed methods study of a national, insurer-funded initiative for surgical teams in New Zealand public hospitals.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:NetworkZ is a national, insurer-funded multidisciplinary simulation-based team-training programme for all New Zealand surgical teams. NetworkZ is delivered in situ, using full-body commercial simulators integrated with bespoke surgical models. Rolled out nationally over 4?years, the programme builds local capacity through instructor training and provision of simulation resources. We aim to improve surgical patient outcomes by improving teamwork through regular simulation-based multidisciplinary training in all New Zealand hospitals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Our primary hypothesis is that surgical patient outcomes will improve following NetworkZ. Our secondary hypotheses are that teamwork processes will improve, and treatment injury claims will decline. In addition, we will explore factors that influence implementation and sustainability of NetworkZ and identify organisational changes following its introduction. The study uses a stepped-wedge cluster design. The intervention will roll out at yearly intervals to four cohorts of five District Health Boards. Allocation to cohort was purposive for year 1, and subsequently randomised. The primary outcome measure is Days Alive and Out of Hospital at 90 days using patient data from an existing national administrative database. Secondary outcomes measures will include analysis of postoperative complications and treatment injury claims, surveys of teamwork and safety culture, in-theatre observations and stakeholder interviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:We believe this is the first surgical team training intervention to be implemented on a national scale, and a unique opportunity to evaluate a nation-wide team-training intervention for healthcare teams. By using a pre-existing large administrative data set, we have the potential to demonstrate a difference to surgical patient outcomes. This will be of interest to those working in the field of healthcare teamwork, quality improvement and patient safety. New Zealand Health and Disability Ethic Committee approval (#16/NTB/143). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID ACTRN12617000017325 and the Universal Trial Number is U1111-1189-3992.

SUBMITTER: Weller J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7045010 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of the effect of multidisciplinary simulation-based team training on patients, staff and organisations: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-mixed methods study of a national, insurer-funded initiative for surgical teams in New Zealand public hospitals.

Weller Jennifer J Long Jennifer Anne JA Beaver Peter P Cumin David D Frampton Chris C Garden Alexander L AL Moore Matthew M Webster Craig S CS Merry Alan A

BMJ open 20200219 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>NetworkZ is a national, insurer-funded multidisciplinary simulation-based team-training programme for all New Zealand surgical teams. NetworkZ is delivered in situ, using full-body commercial simulators integrated with bespoke surgical models. Rolled out nationally over 4 years, the programme builds local capacity through instructor training and provision of simulation resources. We aim to improve surgical patient outcomes by improving teamwork through regular simulation-bas ...[more]

PMID: 32079573

Similar Datasets

Project description:The study was conducted to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of enhanced multi-disciplinary teams (EMDTs) vs. 'usual care' for the treatment of pressure ulcers in long term care (LTC) facilities in Ontario, CanadaWe conducted a multi-method study: a pragmatic cluster randomized stepped-wedge trial, ethnographic observation and in-depth interviews, and an economic evaluation. Long term care facilities (clusters) were randomly allocated to start dates of the intervention. An advance practice nurse (APN) with expertise in skin and wound care visited intervention facilities to educate staff on pressure ulcer prevention and treatment, supported by an off-site hospital based expert multi-disciplinary wound care team via email, telephone, or video link as needed. The primary outcome was rate of reduction in pressure ulcer surface area (cm2/day) measured on before and after standard photographs by an assessor blinded to facility allocation. Secondary outcomes were time to healing, probability of healing, pressure ulcer incidence, pressure ulcer prevalence, wound pain, hospitalization, emergency department visits, utility, and cost.12 of 15 eligible LTC facilities were randomly selected to participate and randomized to start date of the intervention following the stepped wedge design. 137 residents with a total of 259 pressure ulcers (stage 2 or greater) were recruited over the 17 month study period. No statistically significant differences were found between control and intervention periods on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. The economic evaluation demonstrated a mean reduction in direct care costs of $650 per resident compared to 'usual care'. The qualitative study suggested that onsite support by APN wound specialists was welcomed, and is responsible for reduced costs through discontinuation of expensive non evidence based treatments. Insufficient allocation of nursing home staff time to wound care may explain the lack of impact on healing.Enhanced multi-disciplinary wound care teams were cost effective, with most benefit through cost reduction initiated by APNs, but did not improve the treatment of pressure ulcers in nursing homes. Policy makers should consider the potential yield of strengthening evidence based primary care within LTC facilities, through outreach by APNs.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01232764.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This study assessed whether a theoretically conceptualised tailored intervention centred on multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) increased clinician referral behaviours in line with clinical practice guideline recommendations. METHODS:Nine hospital Sites in New South Wales (NSW), Australia with a urological MDT and involvement in a state-wide urological clinical network participated in this pragmatic stepped wedge, cluster randomised implementation trial. Intervention strategies included flagging of high-risk patients by pathologists, clinical leadership, education, and audit and feedback of individuals' and study Sites' practices. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients referred to radiation oncology within 4 months after prostatectomy. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients discussed at a MDT meeting within 4 months after surgery; proportion of patients who consulted a radiation oncologist within 6 months; and the proportion who commenced radiotherapy within 6 months. Urologists' attitudes towards adjuvant radiotherapy were surveyed pre- and post-intervention. A process evaluation measured intervention fidelity, response to intervention components and contextual factors that impacted on implementation and sustainability. RESULTS:Records for 1071 high-risk post-RP patients operated on by 37 urologists were reviewed: 505 control-phase; and 407 intervention-phase. The proportion of patients discussed at a MDT meeting increased from 17% in the control-phase to 59% in the intervention-phase (adjusted RR?=?4.32; 95% CI [2.40 to 7.75]; p?<?0·001). After adjustment, there was no significant difference in referral to radiation oncology (intervention 32% vs control 30%; adjusted RR?=?1.06; 95% CI [0.74 to 1.51]; p?=?0.879). Sites with the largest relative increases in the percentage of patients discussed also tended to have greater increases in referral (p?=?0·001). In the intervention phase, urologists failed to provide referrals to more than half of patients whom the MDT had recommended for referral (78 of 140; 56%). CONCLUSIONS:The intervention resulted in significantly more patients being discussed by a MDT. However, the recommendations from MDTs were not uniformly recorded or followed. Although practice varied markedly between MDTs, the intervention did not result in a significant overall change in referral rates, probably reflecting a lack of change in urologists' attitudes. Our results suggest that interventions focused on structures and processes that enable health system-level change, rather than those focused on individual-level change, are likely to have the greatest effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12611001251910 ). Registered 6 December 2011.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:An ageing population has become an urgent concern for Asia in recent times. In nursing homes, polypharmacy has also become a compounding issue. Deprescribing practice is an evidence-based strategy to provide a better outcome in this group of patients; however, its implementation in nursing homes is often challenging, and prospective outcome data on deprescribing practice in the elderly is lacking. Our study assesses the implementation of team-care deprescribing to understand the benefits of this practice in geriatric setting and to explore the factors affecting deprescribing practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This multicentre prospective study consists of a prestudy interview questionnaire, and a preintervention and postintervention study to be conducted in the nursing home setting on residents at least 65 years old and on five or more medications. We will employ a cluster randomised stepped-wedge interventional design, based on a five-step (reviewing, checking, discussion, communication and documentation) team-care deprescribing practice coupled with the use of a deprescribing guide (consisting of Beers and STOPP criteria, as well as drug interaction checking), to assess the health and pharmacoeconomic outcome in nursing homes' practice. Primary outcome measures of the intervention will consist of fall risks using a fall risk assessment tool. Other outcomes assessed include fall rates, pill burden including number of pills per day, number of doses per day and number of medications prescribed. Cost-related measures will include the use of cost-benefit analysis, which is calculated from the medication cost savings from deprescribing. For the prestudy interview questionnaire, findings will be analysed qualitatively using thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study is approved by the Domain Specific Review Board of National Healthcare Group, Singapore (2016/00422) and Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (2016-1430-7791). The study findings shall be disseminated in international conferences and peer-reviewed publications. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02863341), Pre-results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are an integral component in the delivery of health care. This is particularly evident in the delivery of cancer care, where multidisciplinary teams are internationally recognized as the preferred method for service delivery. The use of health information systems and technology are key enabling factors for building the capacity of MDTs to engage in improvement and implementation projects but there is scant research on how MDTs make use of technology and information systems or the kinds of systems needed for them to undertake improvement and implementation research. This paper reports findings on how seven MDTs in cancer care utilized technological and information systems and the barriers and enabling factors that impacted on their uptake. METHODS:Seven multidisciplinary teams from two large metropolitan hospitals participated in the study. Qualitative methods including structured observations and semi structured interviews that explored how teams engaged in research and improvement activities were utilized. Participants were also observed and interviewed in relation to their use of data and health information systems. Findings were subject to content analysis and key themes were identified. Interviews were transcribed and de-identified and key themes were subsequently discussed with participants to allow for member checking and further clarification of findings. RESULTS:A total of 43 MDT meetings across seven tumor streams were observed. Of these, observation notes from 13 meetings contained direct references to emerging technologies and health information systems. Findings from 15 semi-structured interviews were also analyzed in relation to how MDTs used technology in weekly meetings, and the perceived impact of technology. Three broad themes emerged: (1) methods for data collection and use by MDTs, (2) the impact of technology on the MDT meeting environment, and (3) the impact of technology and information systems on clinical decision making. CONCLUSION:The study demonstrates that real time data collection and imaging may improve patient centered care coordination. However, ICTs can be used sub-optimally by teams. We therefore urge additional research to identify the enabling factors that support better collection and use of outcome data from ICT.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Multidisciplinary teams (MDT) formulate expert informed treatment recommendations for people with cancer. We set out to examine how the factors proposed by the functional perspective of group decision making (DM), that is, interaction process, internal factors (factors emanating from within the group such as group size), external circumstances (factors coming from the outside of the team), and case-complexity affect the quality of MDT decision making. METHODS:This was a cross-sectional observational study. Three cancer MDTs were recruited with 44 members overall and 30 of their weekly meetings filmed. Validated observational instruments were used to measure quality of DM, interactions, and complexity of 822 case discussions. RESULTS:The full regression model with the variables proposed by the functional perspective was significant, R2 = 0.52, F(20, 801) = 43.47, P < .001, adjusted R2 = 0.51. Positive predictors of DM quality were asking questions (P = .001), providing answers (P = .001), team size (P = .007), gender balance (P = .003), and clinical complexity (P = .001), while negative socioemotional reactions (P = .007), gender imbalance (P = .003), logistical issues (P = .001), time-workload pressures (P = .002), and time spent in the meeting (P = .001) were negative predictors. Second half of the meetings also saw significant decrease in the DM quality (P = .001), interactions (P = .001), group size (P = .003), and clinical complexity (P = .001), and an increase in negative socioemotional reactions (P = .001) and time-workload pressures (P = .001). DISCUSSION:To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to attempt to assess the factors proposed by the functional perspective in cancer MDTs. One novel finding is the effect of sociocognitive factors on team DM quality, while another is the cognitive-catch 22 effect: while the case discussions are significantly simpler in the second half of the meeting, there is significantly less time left to discuss the remaining cases, further adding to the cognitive taxation in teams who are now rapidly attempting to close their time-workload gap. Implications are discussed in relation to quality and safety.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to examine effectiveness of codesigned quality-improving interventions with a multidisciplinary team (MDT) with high workload and prolonged meetings to ascertain: (1) presence and impact of decision-making (DM) fatigue on team performance in the weekly MDT meeting and (2) impact of a short meeting break as a countermeasure of DM fatigue.Design and interventionsThis is a longitudinal multiphase study with a codesigned intervention bundle assessed within team audit and feedback cycles. The interventions comprised short meeting breaks, as well as change of room layout and appointing a meeting chair.Setting and participantsA breast cancer MDT with 15 members was recruited between 2013 and 2015 from a teaching hospital of the London (UK) metropolitan area.MeasuresA validated observational tool (Metric for the Observation of Decision-making) was used by trained raters to assess quality of DM during 1335 patient reviews. The tool scores quality of information and team contributions to reviews by individual disciplines (Likert-based scores), which represent our two primary outcome measures.ResultsData were analysed using multivariate analysis of variance. DM fatigue was present in the MDT meetings: quality of information (M=16.36?to M=15.10) and contribution scores (M=27.67?to M=21.52) declined from first to second half of meetings at baseline. Of the improvement bundle, we found breaks reduced the effect of fatigue: following introduction of breaks (but not other interventions) information quality remained stable between first and second half of meetings (M=16.00?to M=15.94), and contributions to team DM improved overall (M=17.66?to M=19.85).ConclusionQuality of cancer team DM is affected by fatigue due to sequential case review over often prolonged periods of time. This detrimental effect can be reversed by introducing a break in the middle of the meeting. The study offers a methodology based on 'team audit and feedback' principle for codesigning interventions to improve teamwork in cancer care.

Project description:ObjectivesFrontline insights into care delivery correlate with patients' clinical outcomes. These outcomes might be improved through near-real time identification and mitigation of staff concerns. We evaluated the effects of a prospective frontline surveillance system on patient and team outcomes.DesignProspective, stepped wedge, non-randomised, cluster controlled trial; prespecified per protocol analysis for high-fidelity intervention delivery.ParticipantsSeven interdisciplinary medical ward teams from two hospitals in the UK.InterventionProspective clinical team surveillance (PCTS): structured daily interdisciplinary briefings to capture staff concerns, with organisational facilitation and feedback.Main measuresThe primary outcome was excess length of stay (eLOS): an admission more than 24?hours above the local average for comparable patients. Secondary outcomes included safety and teamwork climates, and incident reporting. Mixed-effects models adjusted for time effects, age, comorbidity, palliation status and ward admissions. Safety and teamwork climates were measured with the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. High-fidelity PCTS delivery comprised high engagement and high briefing frequency.ResultsImplementation fidelity was variable, both in briefing frequency (median 80% working days/month, IQR 65%-90%) and engagement (median 70 issues/ward/month, IQR 34-113). 1714/6518 (26.3%) intervention admissions had eLOS versus 1279/4927 (26.0%) control admissions, an absolute risk increase of 0.3%. PCTS increased eLOS in the adjusted intention-to-treat model (OR 1.32, 95%?CI 1.10 to 1.58, p=0.003). Conversely, high-fidelity PCTS reduced eLOS (OR 0.79, 95%?CI 0.67 to 0.94, p=0.006). High-fidelity PCTS also increased total, high-yield and non-nurse incident reports (incidence rate ratios 1.28-1.79, all p<0.002). Sustained PCTS significantly improved safety and teamwork climates over time.ConclusionsThis study highlighted the potential benefits and pitfalls of ward-level interdisciplinary interventions. While these interventions can improve care delivery in complex, fluid environments, the manner of their implementation is paramount. Suboptimal implementation may have an unexpectedly negative impact on performance.Trial registration numberISRCTN 34806867 (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN34806867).

Dataset Information

Evaluation of the effect of multidisciplinary simulation-based team training on patients, staff and organisations: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-mixed methods study of a national, insurer-funded initiative for surgical teams in New Zealand public hospitals.

Publications

Evaluation of the effect of multidisciplinary simulation-based team training on patients, staff and organisations: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-mixed methods study of a national, insurer-funded initiative for surgical teams in New Zealand public hospitals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure