Dataset Information

Developing and testing a matrix to achieve ready-everyday nursing standards (RENS): an observational study protocol.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) set criteria for the delivery of healthcare services in Australia. While a voluntary process, continual accreditation with ACHS is an expectation of, and for, Australian healthcare providers. Juxtapositioned with the ACHS, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (NMBA) set the mandatory practice requirements of, and for, Australian nurses. Despite these overarching quality and governance directives, a regional Queensland Hospital and Health Service (HHS) demonstrated deficits in the quality of nursing care. Accordingly, a HHS project was commissioned with the aim of producing a quantum shift in the quality of nursing services such that the service was ready-everyday for accreditation assessment, and nursing practice exemplified the NMBA standards.Several barriers to achieving the aim were identified and it was considered that the implementation of critical system changes would structurally and operationally support the achievement of the aim. The system changes are pivoted around an interactive matrix that links nursing care services to the array of nursing professional and practice standards and provides real-time quantitative output measures. This paper outlines the protocol that will be used to establish, implement and evaluate the matrix. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A participatory action research design with a modified Delphi methodology will be used for the development the matrix. The organisational change management around the matrix implementation will be informed by Kotter's model and supported by the use of the McKinsey 7S. The matrix implementation phase will be conducted using a modified Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services model. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected over a 12 month pre-test/post-test design to measure the statistical significance of the matrix in supporting compliance with nursing standards and the achievement of quality nursing care. Quantitative data from quality of care assessments will be analysed using descriptive and comparative statistics. Qualitative data from staff surveys will be analysed by content analysis of the major themes (n~200). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The project has ethics approval from a Queensland Health Human Research Ethics Committee. Results will be reported to participants and other stakeholders at seminars and conferences and through peer-reviewed publications.

SUBMITTER: Ratsch A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6719822 | biostudies-other | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Developing and testing a matrix to achieve <i>ready-everyday nursing standards</i> (RENS): an observational study protocol.

Ratsch Angela A Sewell Fiona F Pennington Adrian A

BMJ open 20190824 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) set criteria for the delivery of healthcare services in Australia. While a voluntary process, continual accreditation with ACHS is an expectation of, and for, Australian healthcare providers. Juxtapositioned with the ACHS, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (NMBA) set the mandatory practice requirements of, and for, Australian nurses. Despite these overarching quality and governance directives, a regional Queens ...[more]

PMID: 31446420

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDespite widespread availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), considerable gaps continue between the care that is recommended ('appropriate care') and the care provided. Problems with current CPGs are commonly cited as barriers to providing 'appropriate care'.Our study aims to develop and test an alternative method to keep CPGs accessible and up to date. This method aims to mitigate existing problems by using a single process to develop clinical standards (embodied in clinical indicators) collaboratively with researchers, healthcare professionals, patients and consumers. A transparent and inclusive online curated (purpose-designed, custom-built, wiki-type) system will use an ongoing and iterative documentation process to facilitate synthesis of up-to-date information and make available its provenance. All participants are required to declare conflicts of interest. This protocol describes three phases: engagement of relevant stakeholders; design of a process to develop clinical standards (embodied in indicators) for 'appropriate care' for common medical conditions; and evaluation of our processes, products and feasibility.Methods and analysisA modified e-Delphi process will be used to gain consensus on 'appropriate care' for a range of common medical conditions. Clinical standards and indicators will be developed through searches of national and international guidelines, and formulated with explicit criteria for inclusion, exclusion, time frame and setting. Healthcare professionals and consumers will review the indicators via the wiki-based modified e-Delphi process. Reviewers will declare conflicts of interest which will be recorded and managed according to an established protocol. The provenance of all indicators and suggestions included or excluded will be logged from indicator inception to finalisation. A mixed-methods formative evaluation of our research methodology will be undertaken.Ethics and disseminationHuman Research Ethics Committee approval has been received from the University of South Australia. We will submit the results of the study to relevant journals and offer national and international presentations.

Project description:BackgroundDispensed prescription medicine labels (prescription labels) are important information sources supporting safe and appropriate medicines use.ObjectiveTo develop and user test patient-centred prescription label formats.MethodsFive stages: developing 12 labels for four fictitious medicines of varying dosage forms; diagnostic user testing of labels (Round 1) with 40 consumers (each testing three labels); iterative label revision, and development of Round 2 labels (n = 7); user testing of labels (Round 2) with 20 consumers (each testing four labels); labelling recommendations. Evaluated labels stated the active ingredient and brand name, using various design features (eg upper case and bold). Dosing was expressed differently across labels: frequency of doses/day, approximate times of day (eg morning), explicit times (eg 7 to 9 AM), and/or explicit dosing interval. Participants' ability to find and understand medicines information and plan a dosing schedule were assessed.ResultsParticipants demonstrated satisfactory ability to find and understand the dosage for all label formats. Excluding active ingredient and dosing schedule, 14/19 labels (8/12 in Round 1; 6/7 in Round 2) met industry standard on performance. Participants' ability to correctly identify the active ingredient varied, with clear medicine name sign-posting enabling all participants evaluating these labels to find and understand the active ingredient. When planning a dosing schedule, doses were correctly spaced if the label stated a dosing interval, or frequency of doses/day. Two-thirds planned appropriate dosing schedules using a dosing table.ConclusionsEffective prescription label formatting and sign-posting of active ingredient improved communication of information on labels, potentially supporting safe medicines use.Patient and public involvementConsumers actively contributed to the development of dispensed prescription medicine labels. Feedback from consumers following the first round was incorporated in revisions of the labels for the next round. Patient and public involvement in this study was critical to the development of readable and understandable dispensed prescription medicine labels.

Project description:BackgroundEffective standardisation of methodologies to analyse the microbiome is essential to the entire microbiome community. Despite the microbiome field being established for over a decade, there are no accredited or certified reference materials available to the wider community. In this study, we describe the development of the first reference reagents produced by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) for microbiome analysis by next-generation sequencing. These can act as global working standards and will be evaluated as candidate World Health Organization International Reference Reagents.ResultsWe developed the NIBSC DNA reference reagents Gut-Mix-RR and Gut-HiLo-RR and a four-measure framework for evaluation of bioinformatics tool and pipeline bias. Using these reagents and reporting system, we performed an independent evaluation of a variety of bioinformatics tools by analysing shotgun sequencing and 16S rRNA sequencing data generated from the Gut-Mix-RR and Gut-HiLo-RR. We demonstrate that key measures of microbiome health, such as diversity estimates, are largely inflated by the majority of bioinformatics tools. Across all tested tools, biases were present, with a clear trade-off occurring between sensitivity and the relative abundance of false positives in the final dataset. Using commercially available mock communities, we investigated how the composition of reference reagents may impact benchmarking studies. Reporting measures consistently changed when the same bioinformatics tools were used on different community compositions. This was influenced by both community complexity and taxonomy of species present. Both NIBSC reference reagents, which consisted of gut commensal species, proved to be the most challenging for the majority of bioinformatics tools tested. Going forward, we recommend the field uses site-specific reagents of a high complexity to ensure pipeline benchmarking is fit for purpose.ConclusionsIf a consensus of acceptable levels of error can be agreed on, widespread adoption of these reference reagents will standardise downstream gut microbiome analyses. We propose to do this through a large open-invite collaborative study for multiple laboratories in 2020. Video Abstract.

Project description:Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted health care systems' vulnerabilities. Hospitals face increasing risk of periods of scarcity of life-sustaining resources such as ventilators for mechanical respiratory support, as has been the case in Italy as of March, 2020. The National Academy of Medicine has provided guidance on crisis standards of care, which call for the reallocation of scarce medical resources to those who will benefit most during extreme situations. Given that this will require a departure from the usual fiduciary duty of the bedside clinician, we determined and mapped potential barriers to the implementation of the guidelines from stakeholders using an implementation science framework. Methods: A protocol was created to operationalize national and state guidelines for triaging ventilators during crisis conditions. Focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted from July-September 2018 with clinicians at three acute care hospitals of an urban academic medical center. Respiratory therapists, intensivists, nursing leadership and the palliative care interdisciplinary team participated in focus groups. Key informant interviews were conducted with emergency management, respiratory therapy and emergency medicine. Subjects were presented the protocol and their reflections were elicited using a semi-structured interview guide. Data from transcripts and notes were categorized using a coding strategy based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results: Participants anticipated that implementing this protocol would challenge their roles and identities as clinicians including both their fiduciary duty to the patient and their decision-making autonomy. Despite this, many participants acknowledged the need for such a protocol to standardize care and minimize bias as well as to mitigate potential consequences for individual clinicians. Participants identified the question of considering patient quality of life in triage decisions as an important and unresolved ethical issue in disaster triage. Conclusion: Clinicians' discomfort with shifting roles and obligations could pose implementation barriers for crisis standards of care.

Project description:IntroductionIn many African countries, including Kenya, a major barrier to achieving child survival goals is the slow decline in neonatal mortality that now represents 45% of the under-5 mortality. In newborn care, nurses are the primary caregivers in newborn settings and are essential in the delivery of safe and effective care. However, due to high patient workloads and limited resources, nurses may often consciously or unconsciously prioritise the care they provide resulting in some tasks being left undone or partially done (missed care). Missed care has been associated with poor patient outcomes in high-income countries. However, missed care, examined by direct observation, has not previously been the subject of research in low/middle-income countries.Methods and analysisThe aim of this study is to quantify essential neonatal nursing care provided to newborns within newborn units. We will undertake a cross-sectional study using direct observational methods within newborn units in six health facilities in Nairobi City County across the public, private-for-profit and private-not-for-profit sectors. A total of 216 newborns will be observed between 1 September 2017 and 30 May 2018. Stratified random sampling will be used to select random 12-hour observation periods while purposive sampling will be used to identify newborns for direct observation. We will report the overall prevalence of care left undone, the common tasks that are left undone and describe any sharing of tasks with people not formally qualified to provide care.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this study has been granted by the Kenya Medical Research Institute Scientific and Ethics Review Unit. Written informed consent will be sought from mothers and nurses. Findings from this work will be shared with the participating hospitals, an expert advisory group that comprises members involved in policy-making and more widely to the international community through conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Project description:ImportanceThe American College of Surgeons National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) promotes multidisciplinary care to improve oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer. However, accreditation requirements may be difficult to achieve for the lowest-performing institutions. Thus, it is unknown whether the NAPRC will motivate care improvement in these settings or widen disparities.ObjectivesTo characterize hospitals' readiness for accreditation and identify differences in the patients cared for in hospitals most and least prepared for accreditation.Design, setting, and participantsA total of 1315 American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer-accredited hospitals in the National Cancer Database from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2015, were sorted into 4 cohorts, organized by high vs low volume and adherence to process standards, and patient and hospital characteristics and oncologic outcomes were compared. The patients included those who underwent surgical resection with curative intent for rectal adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, or signet ring cell carcinoma. Data analysis was performed from November 2017 to January 2018.ExposuresHospitals' readiness for accreditation, as determined by their annual resection volume and adherence to 5 available NAPRC process standards.Main outcomes and measuresHospital characteristics, patient sociodemographic characteristics, and 5-year survival by hospital.ResultsAmong the 1315 included hospitals, 38 (2.9%) met proposed thresholds for all 5 NAPRC process standards and 220 (16.7%) met the threshold on 4 standards. High-volume hospitals (≥20 resections per year) tended to be academic institutions (67 of 104 [64.4%] vs 159 of 1211 [13.1%]; P = .001), whereas low-volume hospitals (<20 resections per year) tended to be comprehensive community cancer programs (530 of 1211 [43.8%] vs 28 of 104 [26.9%]; P = .001). Patients in low-volume hospitals were more likely to be older (11 429 of 28 076 [40.7%] vs 4339 of 12 148 [35.7%]; P < .001) and have public insurance (13 054 of 28 076 [46.5%] vs 4905 of 12 148 [40.4%]; P < .001). Low-adherence hospitals were more likely to care for black and Hispanic patients (1980 of 19 577 [17.2%] vs 3554 of 20 647 [10.1%]; P < .001). On multivariable Cox proportional hazards model regression, high-volume hospitals had better 5-year survival outcomes than low-volume hospitals (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P < .001), but there was no significant survival difference by hospital process standard adherence.Conclusions and relevanceHospitals least likely to receive NAPRC accreditation tended to be community institutions with worse survival outcomes, serving patients at a lower socioeconomic position. To possibly avoid exacerbating disparities in access to high-quality rectal cancer care, the NAPRC study findings suggest enabling access for patients with socioeconomic disadvantage or engaging in quality improvement for hospitals not yet achieving accreditation benchmarks.

Dataset Information

Developing and testing a matrix to achieve ready-everyday nursing standards (RENS): an observational study protocol.

Publications

Developing and testing a matrix to achieve <i>ready-everyday nursing standards</i> (RENS): an observational study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets