Development of a Consumer Engagement Framework

Objective: The purpose of this project was to develop a Consumer Engagement Model to plan for effective baby boomer engagement to inform policy makers in the healthcare system. This is the first stage of that process. Design: Initial model development for healthcare systems based on literature review and author group experience in evidence-based practice and research, and consumer advocacy and engagement. Setting and population: South Australian health and community service systems, and healthcare professionals that work with baby boomers. Findings: To develop an evidence-based Consumer Engagement Plan, it is recommended that policy makers undertake the four steps outlined in this document to design a question, determine consumer and community segments and scope of engagement, determine the breadth and depth of engagement and address the implications, assess risk and develop strategic partnerships to ensure the Plan is evidencebased,reasonable and achievable. Conclusions: We believe this process provides a framework for planning consumer engagement and for implementation, monitoring, evaluation and review of consumer engagement for policy excellence. We propose to undertake a validation of the model thus populating the model with examples of practice-based strategies and revising the model accordingly. Abbreviations: EBP – Evidence-Based Practice; IAP2 – International Association of Public Participation; PIO – Patient Intervention and Outcome

Allied health assistants and what they do: A systematic review of the literature

Lucylynn Lizarondo1, Saravana Kumar1, Lisa Hyde2, Dawn Skidmore21International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide; 2South Australian Health Allied and Scientific Health Office, Adelaide, AustraliaObjective: Allied health assistants (AHAs) are an emerging group in allied health practice with the potential to improve quality of care and safety of patients. This systematic review summarizes the evidence regarding the roles and responsibilities of AHAs and describes the benefits and barriers to utilizing AHAs in current health care settings.Methods: A systematic process of literature searching was undertaken. A search strategy which included a range of electronic databases was searched using key terms. Studies which examined the roles and responsibilities of AHAs (across all allied health disciplines) were included in the review. Only publications written in the English language were considered, with no restriction on publication date. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility of the articles. Data extraction was performed by the same reviewers. A narrative summary of findings was presented.Results: Of the initial 415 papers, 10 studies were included in the review. The majority of papers reported roles performed by general health care assistants or rehabilitation assistants who work in multiple settings or are not specifically affiliated to a health discipline. All ­current AHAs duties have elements of direct patient care and indirect support via clerical and ­administrative or housekeeping tasks. Benefits from the introduction of the AHA role in health care include improved clinical outcomes, increased patient satisfaction, higher-level services, and more “free” time for allied health professionals to concentrate on patients with complex needs. ­Barriers to the use of AHAs are related to blurred role boundaries, which raises issues associated with professional status and security.Conclusions: There is consensus in the literature that AHAs make a valuable contribution to allied health care. Whilst there are clear advantages associated with the use of AHAs to support allied health service delivery, ongoing barriers to their effective use persist.Keywords: allied health assistants, health care assistants, rehabilitation assistants, allied health workforc

Exploring the perspectives of allied health practitioners toward the use of journal clubs as a medium for promoting evidence-based practice: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Research evidence suggests that journal clubs (JCs) are one approach which can be used to bridge the gap between research and clinical practice. However, there are issues which potentially threaten their viability such as on-going participation or compliance with attendance, which require further exploration. The objectives of this study are: to explore the views and perspectives of allied health practitioners (AHPs) regarding the use of any type of JC in promoting evidence-based practice (EBP); to identify ways in which an innovative model of JC developed by the International Centre for Allied Health Evidence (<it>i</it>CAHE) might be refined.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A qualitative descriptive study utilising focus group interviews with various groups of AHP was undertaken-- those who have been exposed to the <it>i</it>CAHE JC model and those who have no experience of the <it>i</it>CAHE model (although they may have had exposure to other forms of JC). Maximum variation sampling was used to recruit participants for the study. Transcripts of focus groups were coded and distilled into content-related categories.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Six focus groups with 39 AHPs were facilitated. Allied health practitioners perspectives' on JCs were classified in five broad categories: utility and benefits of a JC, elements of an effective and sustainable JC, barriers to participation, incentives for participation, and opportunities for improvement in the current <it>i</it>CAHE JC model. Overall, JCs were seen as a forum for reflective practice and keeping up-to-date with research evidence, and a venue for learning the processes involved in critical appraisal. Limited knowledge of statistics and heavy clinical workload were reported as barriers to participation in a JC. Strategies such as mentoring, strong support from managers, and providing CPD (continuing professional development) points can potentially address these barriers. Opportunities for refinement of the current <it>i</it>CAHE model were raised.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study suggests that a structured model of JC such as <it>i</it>CAHE's model is acceptable, and likely to be used with enthusiasm by AHP to achieve EBP. Future research should explore the impact of <it>i</it>CAHE JC compared with no JC exposure, and other forms of exposure to JCs, in influencing change in allied health practitioners behaviours and evidence implementation.</p

Barriers and enablers to implementation of pressure injury prevention in hospitalized adults: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.

Objective: The objective of the proposed systematic review is to determine the barriers and enablers (or facilitators) to the implementation of pressure injury prevention among adults receiving care in the hospital setting. Introduction: Hospital-acquired pressure injuries are preventable; however, they remain an ongoing safety and quality healthcare concern in many countries. There are various evidence-based preventative interventions for pressure injuries, but their implementation in clinical practice is limited. An understanding of the different factors that support (enablers or facilitators) and inhibit (barriers) the implementation of these interventions from different perspectives is important, so that targeted strategies can be incorporated into implementation plans. Inclusion criteria: This review will include quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies that investigate barriers and/or enablers in relation to hospital-acquired pressure injury prevention in hospitalized adults. Only English publications will be considered, with no publication date restrictions. Methods: The systematic review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for mixed methods systematic review. Published studies will be searched in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus. Gray literature will also be considered. Critical appraisal and data extraction will be performed using standardized tools, followed by data transformation. Data synthesis will follow the convergent integrated approach

Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews.

Objective: The objective of this paper is to outline the updated methodological approach for conducting a JBI MMSR with a focus on data synthesis, specifically, methods related to how data are combined and the overall integration of the quantitative and qualitative evidence. Introduction: Mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSRs) provide a more complete basis for complex decision making than that currently offered by single method reviews, thereby maximizing their usefulness to clinical and policy decision makers. Although MMSRs are gaining traction, guidance regarding the methodology of combining quantitative and qualitative data is limited. In 2014, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group developed guidance for MMSRs; however, since the introduction of this guidance, there have been significant developments in mixed methods synthesis. As such, the methodology group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align it with the current state of knowledge on evidence synthesis methodology Methods: Between 2015 and 2019, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group undertook an extensive review of the literature, held annual face-to-face meetings (which were supplemented by teleconferences and regular email correspondence), sought advice from experts in the field and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to the development of guidance in the form of a chapter included in the JBI Reviewer’s Manual, the official guidance for conducting JBI systematic reviews. In 2019, the guidance was ratified by the JBI International Scientific Committee. Results: The updated JBI methodological guidance for conducting an MMSR recommends that reviewers take a convergent approach to synthesis and integration whereby the specific method utilized is dependent on the nature/type of question(s) that is (are) posed in the systematic review. The JBI guidance is primarily based on Hong et al. and Sandelowski’s typology on MMSRs. If the review question can be addressed by both quantitative and qualitative research designs, the convergent integrated approach should be followed, which involves data transformation and allows reviewers to combine quantitative and qualitative data. If the focus of the review is on different aspects or dimensions of a particular phenomenon of interest, the convergent segregated approach is undertaken, which involves independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data leading to the generation of quantitative and qualitative evidence, which are then integrated together. Conclusions: The updated guidance on JBI MMSRs provides foundational work to a rapidly evolving methodology and aligns with other seminal work undertaken in the field of mixed methods synthesis. Limitations to the current guidance are acknowledged, and a series of methodological projects identified by the JBI Mixed Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are proposed. Mixed methods review offers an innovative framework for generating unique insights related to the complexities associated with healthcare quality and safety

Debriefing about the challenges of working in a remote area: A qualitative study of Australian allied health professionals' perspectives on clinical supervision.

BackgroundThe benefits of clinical supervision are more pronounced for health professionals in rural and remote areas. Most clinical supervision studies to date have occurred in metropolitan centres and have used the survey methodology to capture participant experiences. There is a lack of qualitative research that captures participants' lived experiences with clinical supervision at the frontline.MethodsParticipants were recruited from rural and remote sites of two Australian states using a purposive maximum variation sampling strategy. Data were collected through individual, semi-structured interviews with participants. Data were analysed using content analysis and themes were developed. Sixteen participants from six professions completed the interviews.ResultsEight themes were developed including the content of supervision, context of supervision, value of supervision, increased need for professional support and unique characteristics of rural and remote clinical supervision.ConclusionsThis study has highlighted the value of clinical supervision for the rural and remote health professional workforce. Furthermore, it has shed light on the unique characteristics of clinical supervision in this population. This information can be used by organisations and health professionals to ensure clinical supervision partnerships are effective thereby enhancing rural and remote workforce recruitment and retention