The SUMAMOS EXCELENCIA Project

Aim: The gap between research and clinical practice leads to inconsistent decision‐making and clinical audits are an effective way of improving the implementation of best practice. Our aim is to assess the effectiveness of a model that implements evidence‐based recommendations for patient outcomes and healthcare quality. Design: National quasi‐experimental, multicentre, before and after study. Methods: This study focuses on patients attending primary care and hospital care units and associated socio‐healthcare services. It uses the Joanna Brigg's Institute Getting Research into Practice model, which improves processes by referring to prior baseline clinical audits. The variables are process and outcome criteria for pain, urinary incontinence, and fall prevention, with data collection at baseline and key points over 12 months drawn from clinical histories and records. Project funding was received from the Spanish Strategic Health Action in November 2014. Discussion: The project results will provide knowledge on the effectiveness of the Getting Research into Practice model, to apply evidence‐based recommendations for the detection and management of pain, urinary incontinence, and fall prevention. It will also establish whether using research results, based on clinical audits and situation analysis, is effective for implementing evidence‐based recommendations and improving patients’ health. Impact: This nationwide Spanish project aims to detect and prevent high‐prevalence healthcare problems, namely pain in patients at any age and falls and urinary incontinence in people aged 65 and over. Tailoring clinical practice to evidence‐based recommendations will reduce unjustified clinical variations in providing healthcare services. Clinical Trial ID: NCT03725774.This project is funded by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Competitiveness/Strategic Health Action 2014 (PI14CIII/00044)

Fragmentation of care threatens patient safety in peripheral vascular catheter management in acute care--a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The use of peripheral vascular catheters (PVCs) is an extremely common and necessary clinical intervention, but inappropriate PVC care poses a major patient safety risk in terms of infection. Quality improvement initiatives have been proposed to reduce the likelihood of adverse events, but a lack of understanding about factors that influence behaviours of healthcare professionals limits the efficacy of such interventions. We undertook qualitative interviews with clinical staff from a large group of hospitals in order to understand influences on PVC care behaviors and subsequent patient safety. METHODS: Ten doctors, ten clinical pharmacists, 18 nurses and one midwife at a National Health Service hospital group in London (United Kingdom) were interviewed between December 2010 and July 2011 using qualitative methods. Responses were analysed using a thematic framework. RESULTS: FOUR KEY THEMES EMERGED: 1) Fragmentation of management and care, demonstrated with a lack of general overview and insufficient knowledge about expected standards of care or responsibility of different professionals; 2) feelings of resentment and frustration as a result of tensions in the workplace, due to the ambiguity about professional responsibilities; 3) disregard for existing hospital policy due to perceptions of flaws in the evidence used to support it; and 4) low-risk perception for the impact of PVC use on patient safety. CONCLUSION: Fragmentation of practice resulted in ill-defined responsibilities and interdisciplinary resentment, which coupled with a generally low perception of risk of catheter use, appeared to result in lack of maintaining policy PVC standards which could reduced patient safety. Resolution of these issues through clearly defining handover practice, teaching interdisciplinary duties and increasing awareness of PVC risks could result in preventing thousands of BSIs and other PVC-related infections annually

The effectiveness of strategies to change organisational culture to improve healthcare performance: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Organisational culture is an anthropological metaphor used to inform research and consultancy and to explain organisational environments. In recent years, increasing emphasis has been placed on the need to change organisational culture in order to improve healthcare performance. However, the precise function of organisational culture in healthcare policy often remains underspecified and the desirability and feasibility of strategies to be adopted have been called into question. The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of strategies to change organisational culture in order to improve healthcare performance.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO, Business and Management, EThOS, Index to Theses, Intute, HMIC, SIGLE, and Scopus until October 2009. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) was searched for related reviews. We also searched the reference lists of all papers and relevant reviews identified, and we contacted experts in the field for advice on further potential studies. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or well designed quasi-experimental studies (controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series (ITS) analyses). Studies could be set in any type of healthcare organisation in which strategies to change organisational culture in order to improve healthcare performance were applied. Our main outcomes were objective measures of professional performance and patient outcome.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The search strategy yielded 4,239 records. After the full text assessment, two CBA studies were included in the review. They both assessed the impact of interventions aimed at changing organisational culture, but one evaluated the impact on work-related and personal outcomes while the other measured clinical outcomes. Both were at high risk of bias. Both reported positive results.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Current available evidence does not identify any effective, generalisable strategies to change organisational culture. Healthcare organisations considering implementing interventions aimed at changing culture should seriously consider conducting an evaluation (using a robust design, <it>e.g.</it>, ITS) to strengthen the evidence about this topic.</p

Virological and clinical characteristics of hepatitis delta virus in South Asia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background & Aims</p> <p>There is a paucity of data on the impact of hepatitis D virus (HDV) in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection from South Asia. We studied the impact of HDV co-infection on virological and clinical characteristics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We collected data of 480 patients with HBsAg positive and a detectable HBV DNA PCR, who presented to the Aga Khan University, Karachi and Isra University in Hyderabad, Pakistan in the last 5 years. HDV co-infection was diagnosed on the basis of anti-HDV. ALT, HBeAg, HBeAb and HBV DNA PCR quantitative levels were checked in all patients. We divided all patients into two groups based on anti-HDV, and compared their biochemical, serological & virological labs and clinical spectrum. Clinical spectrum of disease included asymptomatic carrier (AC), chronic active hepatitis (CAH), immuno-tolerant phase (IP), and compensated cirrhosis (CC).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>HDV co-infection was found in 169 (35.2%). There were 164 (34.6%) HBeAg positive and 316 (65.4%) HBeAg negative patients. Mean ALT level was 66 ± 73 IU. 233 (48.5%) had raised ALT. HBV DNA level was ≥ 10e5 in 103(21.5%) patients. Overall, among HBV/HDV co-infection, 146/169 (86.4%) had suppressed HBV DNA PCR as compared to 231/311 (74.3%) patients with HBV mono-infection; p-value = 0.002. Among HBeAg negative patients 71/128(55.5%) had raised ALT levels among HBV/HDV co-infection as compared to 71/188 (37.8%) with HBV mono-infection (p-value = 0.002); levels of HBV DNA were equal in two groups; there were 27/128 (21%) patients with CC among HBV/HDV co-infection as compared to 23 (12%) in HBV mono-infection (p-value = 0.009); there were less AC (p-value = 0.009) and more CAH (p-value = 0.009) among HBV/HDV co-infection patients. Among HBeAg positive patients, serum ALT, HBV DNA levels and the spectrum of HBV were similar in the two groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>HBV/HDV co-infection results in the suppression of HBV DNA. A fair proportion of HBV/HDV co-infected patients with HBeAg negative have active hepatitis B infection and cirrhosis as compared to those with mono-infection.</p

The impact of financial incentives on the implementation of asthma or diabetes self-management: A systematic review

Introduction: Financial incentives are utilised in healthcare systems in a number of countries to improve quality of care delivered to patients by rewarding practices or practitioners for achieving set targets. Objectives: To systematically review the evidence investigating the impact of financial incentives for implementation of supported self-management on quality of care including: organisational process outcomes, individual behavioural outcomes, and health outcomes for individuals with asthma or diabetes; both conditions with an extensive evidence base for self-management. Methods: We followed Cochrane methodology, using a PICOS search strategy to search eight databases in November 2015 (updated May 2017) including a broad range of implementation methodologies. Studies were weighted by robustness of methodology, number of participants and the quality score. We used narrative synthesis due to heterogeneity of studies. Results: We identified 2,541 articles; 12 met our inclusion criteria. The articles were from the US (n = 7), UK (n = 4) and Canada (n = 1). Measured outcomes were HbA1c tests undertaken and/or the level achieved (n = 10), written action plans for asthma (n = 1) and hospital/emergency department visits (n = 1). Three of the studies were part of a larger incentive scheme including many conditions; one focused on asthma; eight focussed on diabetes. In asthma, the proportion receiving ‘perfect care’ (including providing a written action plan) increased from 4% to 88% in one study, and there were fewer hospitalisations/emergency department visits in another study. Across the diabetes studies, quality-of-care/GP performance scores improved in three, were unchanged in six and deteriorated in one. Conclusions: Results for the impact of financial incentives for the implementation of self-management were mixed. The evidence in diabetes suggests no consistent impact on diabetic control. There was evidence from a single study of improved process and health outcomes in asthma. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and understand the process by which financial incentives may impact (or not) on care

Impact of the introduction and withdrawal of financial incentives on the delivery of alcohol screening and brief advice in English primary health care : an interrupted time–series analysis

Aim To evaluate the impact of the introduction and withdrawal of financial incentives on alcohol screening and brief advice delivery in English primary care. Design Interrupted time–series using data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. Data were split into three periods: (1) before the introduction of financial incentives (1 January 2006–31 March 2008); (2) during the implementation of financial incentives (1 April 2008–31 March 2015); and (3) after the withdrawal of financial incentives (1 April 2015–31 December 2016). Segmented regression models were fitted, with slope and step change coefficients at both intervention points. Setting England. Participants Newly registered patients (16+) in 500 primary care practices for 2006–16 (n = 4 278 723). Measurements The outcome measures were percentage of patients each month who: (1) were screened for alcohol use; (2) screened positive for higher‐risk drinking; and (3) were reported as having received brief advice on alcohol consumption. Findings There was no significant change in the percentage of newly registered patients who were screened for alcohol use when financial incentives were introduced. However, the percentage fell (P < 0.001) immediately when incentives were withdrawn, and fell by a further 2.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.21–3.70] patients per 1000 each month thereafter. After the introduction of incentives, there was an immediate increase of 9.05 (95% CI = 3.87–14.23) per 1000 patients screening positive for higher‐risk drinking, but no significant further change over time. Withdrawal of financial incentives was associated with an immediate fall in screen‐positive rates of 29.96 (95% CI = 19.56–40.35) per 1000 patients, followed by a rise each month thereafter of 2.14 (95% CI = 1.51–2.77) per 1000. Screen‐positive patients recorded as receiving alcohol brief advice increased by 20.15 (95% CI = 12.30–28.00) per 1000 following the introduction of financial incentives, and continued to increase by 0.39 (95% CI = 0.26–0.53) per 1000 monthly until withdrawal. At this point, delivery of brief advice fell by 18.33 (95% CI = 11.97–24.69) per 1000 patients and continued to fall by a further 0.70 (95% CI = 0.28–1.12) per 1000 per month. Conclusions Removing a financial incentive for alcohol prevention in English primary care was associated with an immediate and sustained reduction in the rate of screening for alcohol use and brief advice provision. This contrasts with no, or limited, increase in screening and brief advice delivery rates following the introduction of the scheme

No more 'business as usual' with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention

Background: Audit and feedback interventions in healthcare have been found to be effective, but there has been little progress with respect to understanding their mechanisms of action or identifying their key ‘active ingredients.’ Discussion: Given the increasing use of audit and feedback to improve quality of care, it is imperative to focus further research on understanding how and when it works best. In this paper, we argue that continuing the ‘business as usual’ approach to evaluating two-arm trials of audit and feedback interventions against usual care for common problems and settings is unlikely to contribute new generalizable findings. Future audit and feedback trials should incorporate evidence- and theory-based best practices, and address known gaps in the literature. Summary: We offer an agenda for high-priority research topics for implementation researchers that focuses on reviewing best practices for designing audit and feedback interventions to optimize effectiveness