Project description:ObjectivesThe primary objective was to estimate the incidence of patients in the Central Denmark Region triaged to bypass the local emergency department without being part of a predefined fast-track protocol. The secondary objective was to describe these triage decisions in more detail with regard to the most common diagnoses, incidence of direct referral sorted by the prehospital critical care team (PHCCT) and the destination hospital.DesignRetrospective descriptive study.Setting and participantsThe emergency medical service in the Central Denmark Region primarily consists of emergency medical technician (EMT)-staffed ambulances and anaesthesiologist-EMT-staffed PHCCTs. Patients treated by the nine ground-based PHCCTs in the region constituted the study population. The inclusion criteria were all patients treated by the PHCCTs during 2013 and 2014. The exclusion criteria were interhospital transfers, and patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, stroke or were in active labour.EndpointsIncidence of prehospital critical care anaesthesiologist-initiated direct referral, prehospital tentative diagnoses and transport destination.ResultsDuring the study period, the PHCCTs treated 39 396 patients and diverted 989 (2.5%) patients not covered by a predefined fast-track protocol to a specialised hospital department. 'Resuscitated from cardiac arrest' (n=143), 'treatment and observations following road traffic accident' (n=105) and 'observation and treatment for an unspecified disease/condition' (n=78) were the most common prehospital tentative diagnoses, accounting for 33.0% of all diverted patients. In total, 943 (95.3%) of the PHCCT-diverted patients were diverted to a department at Aarhus University Hospital.ConclusionOur results demonstrate that in 1 out of 40 patient contacts, the anaesthesiologist-staffed PHCCTs in the Central Denmark Region divert critically ill and injured patients directly to a specialised hospital department, bypassing local emergency departments and potentially reducing time to definitive care for these patients. There may be a potential for increased referral of patients with no predefined fast-track directly to specialised departments in the Central Denmark Region.

Project description:There is a lack of evidence to guide district nurses in using nurse-sensitive patient outcomes as it is unclear how these outcomes are currently used in daily district nursing practice. Therefore, we aimed to explore (1) which nurse-sensitive patient outcomes are measured and how these outcomes are measured, (2) how district nurses use the outcomes to learn from and improve current practice and (3) the barriers and facilitators to using outcomes in current district nursing practice. An exploratory cross-sectional survey study was conducted. The survey was distributed online among nurses working for various district nursing care organisations across the Netherlands. The responses from 132 nurses were analysed, demonstrating that different instruments or questionnaires are available and used in district nursing care as outcome measures. The nurse-sensitive patient outcomes most often measured with validated instruments are pain using the Numeric Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale, delirium using the Delirium Observation Scale, weight loss using the Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire and caregiver burden using the Caregiver Strain Index or a Dutch equivalent. Falls and client satisfaction with delivered care are most often measured using unvalidated outcome measures. The other nurse-sensitive outcomes are measured in different ways. Outcomes are measured, reported and fed back to the nursing team multiple times and in various ways to learn from and improve current practice. In general, nurses have a positive attitude towards using nurse-sensitive outcomes in practice, but there is a lack of facilitation to support them. Because insight into how nurses can and should be supported is still lacking, exploring their needs in further research is desirable. Additionally, due to the high variation in the utilisation of outcomes in current practice, it is recommended to create more uniformity by developing (inter)national guidelines on using nurse-sensitive patient outcomes in district nursing care.

Project description:Critical access hospitals (CAHs) play a crucial role in the US rural safety net. Current policy efforts have focused primarily on helping these small, isolated hospitals remain financially viable to ensure access for individuals living in rural areas in the United States; however, little is known about the quality of care they provide or the outcomes their patients achieve.To examine the quality of care and patient outcomes at CAHs and to understand why patterns of care might differ for CAHs vs non-CAHs.A retrospective analysis in 4738 US hospitals of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (10,703 for CAHs vs 469,695 for non-CAHs), congestive heart failure (CHF) (52,927 for CAHs vs 958,790 for non-CAHs), and pneumonia (86,359 for CAHs vs 773,227 for non-CAHs) who were discharged in 2008-2009.Clinical capabilities, performance on processes of care, and 30-day mortality rates, adjusted for age, sex, race, and medical comorbidities.Compared with other hospitals (n = 3470), 1268 CAHs (26.8%) were less likely to have intensive care units (380 [30.0%] vs 2581 [74.4%], P < .001), cardiac catheterization capabilities (6 [0.5%] vs 1654 [47.7%], P < .001), and at least basic electronic health records (80 [6.5%] vs 445 [13.9%], P < .001). The CAHs had lower performance on processes of care than non-CAHs for all 3 conditions examined (concordance with Hospital Quality Alliance process measures for AMI, 91.0% [95% CI, 89.7%-92.3%] vs 97.8% [95% CI, 97.7%-97.9%]; for CHF, 80.6% [95% CI, 79.2%-82.0%] vs 93.5% [95% CI, 93.3%-93.7%]; and for pneumonia, 89.3% [95% CI, 88.6%-90.0%] vs 93.7% [95% CI, 93.6%-93.9%]; P < .001 for each). Patients admitted to CAHs had higher 30-day mortality rates for each condition than those admitted to non-CAHs (for AMI: 23.5% vs 16.2%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-1.80; P < .001; for CHF: 13.4% vs 10.9%; adjusted OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.23-1.32; P < .001; and for pneumonia: 14.1% vs 12.1%; adjusted OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.16-1.24; P < .001).Compared with non-CAHs, CAHs had fewer clinical capabilities, worse measured processes of care, and higher mortality rates for patients with AMI, CHF, or pneumonia.

Project description:BackgroundUse of teams has shown to be an important factor for organizational performance. However, research has shown that a team has to meet certain criteria and operate in a certain way to realize the potential benefits of team organizing. There are few studies that have examined how teams operate in the nursing home sector and their effect on quality of care. This study investigates the relationship between teams that meet an academic definition of the team concept and quality of care in nursing homes.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of forty nursing home wards throughout Norway was used to collect the data. Five sources of data were utilized to test our research question: (1) self-report questionnaires to 444 employees, (2) interviews with 40 ward managers, (3) self-report questionnaires to 40 ward managers, (4) telephone interviews with 378 relatives, and (5) 900 hours of field observations. Use of teams in nursing home wards was assessed by field observations and by interviews with ward mangers. Quality of care was assessed by data from surveys and interviews with relatives and staff and through field observations. All data were aggregated to the ward level and two-level analyses were used to assess the relationships.ResultsThe multi-level analyses showed that teams - as operationalized in the present study - were significantly positively related to two out of the three quality of care indices when controlled for ward size, days of sick leave and care level. One significant interaction effect was found between teams and days of sick leave, implying that the effect of teams decreased with higher numbers of days of sick leave.ConclusionsThe results suggest that teams are related to higher levels of quality of care in nursing homes. However, the study shows that there is a substantial difference between real, functional teams that meet an academic definition of the concept and quasi teams, the latter having a significantly lower effect on quality of care. Hence, nursing home leaders, directors and ward leaders should be aware of the substantial differences betweens dysfunctional - or quasi - teams and real teams, and encourage the development of real functional teams to take advantage of the potential benefits of team organizing.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of chronic illness and multimorbidity rises with population aging, thereby increasing the acuity of care. Consequently, the demand for emergency and critical care services has increased. However, the forecasted requirements for physicians have shown a continued shortage. Among efforts underway to search for innovations to strengthen the workforce, there is a heightened interest to have nurses in advanced practice participate in patient care at a great extent. Therefore, it is of interest to evaluate the impact of increasing the autonomy of nurses assuming advanced practice roles in emergency and critical care settings on patient outcomes.ObjectivesThe objectives of this study are to present, critically appraise, and synthesize the best available evidence on the impact of advanced practice nursing on quality of care, clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and cost in emergency and critical care settings.Review methodsA comprehensive and systematic search of nine electronic databases and a hand-search of two key journals from 2006 to 2016 were conducted to identify studies evaluating the impact of advanced practice nursing in the emergency and critical care settings. Two authors were involved selecting the studies based on the inclusion criteria. Out of the original search yield of 12,061 studies, 15 studies were chosen for appraisal of methodological quality by two independent authors and subsequently included for analysis. Data was extracted using standardized tools.ResultsNarrative synthesis was undertaken to summarize and report the findings. This review demonstrates that the involvement of nurses in advanced practice in emergency and critical care improves the length of stay, time to consultation/treatment, mortality, patient satisfaction, and cost savings.ConclusionsCapitalizing on nurses in advanced practice to increase patients' access to emergency and critical care is appealing. This review suggests that the implementation of advanced practice nursing roles in the emergency and critical care settings improves patient outcomes. The transformation of healthcare delivery through effective utilization of the workforce may alleviate the impending rise in demand for health services. Nevertheless, it is necessary to first prepare a receptive context to effect sustainable change.

Dataset Information

The Structure of Critical Care Nursing Teams and Patient Outcomes: A Network Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets