BioBot: Innovative Offloading of Astronauts for More Effective Exploration

The BioBot concept consists of a robotic rover which is capable of traversing the same terrain as a spacesuited human. It carries the primary life support system for the astronaut, including consumables, atmosphere revitalization systems (e.g., CO2 scrubbing, humidity and temperature management, ventilation fan), power system (e.g., battery, power management and distribution),and thermal control system (e.g., water sublimator, cooling water pump), along with umbilical lines to connect to the supported astronaut. Although not technically part of life support, it would be logical for the BioBot to also provide long-range communications, video monitoring, tool and sample transport, and other functions to enable and enhance EVA productivity in planetary surface exploration.The design reference scenario for this concept is that astronauts involved in future lunar or Mars exploration will be on the surface for weeks or months rather than days, and will be involved in regular EVA operations. It is not unreasonable to think of geologists spending several days inEVA exploration each week over a prolonged mission duration, with far more ambitious operational objectives than were typical of Apollo. In this scenario, each astronaut will be accompanied by a "BioBot", which will transport their life support system and consumables, an extended umbilical and umbilical reel, and robotic systems capable of controlling the position and motion of the umbilical. The astronaut will be connected to the robot via the umbilical, carrying only a small emergency open-loop life support system similar to those contained in every PLSS. The robotic mobility base will be designed to be capable of traveling anywhere the astronaut can walk, and will also be useful as a transport for the EVA tools, science instrumentation, and collected samples. In addition, the BioBot can potentially carry the astronaut on traverses as well. Such a system will also be a significant enhancement to public engagement in these future exploration missions, as the robotic vehicles can also support high-resolution cameras and high bandwidth communications gear to providehigh-definition video coverage of each crew throughout each EVA sortie

A realistic evaluation : the case of protocol-based care

Background 'Protocol based care' was envisioned by policy makers as a mechanism for delivering on the service improvement agenda in England. Realistic evaluation is an increasingly popular approach, but few published examples exist, particularly in implementation research. To fill this gap, within this paper we describe the application of a realistic evaluation approach to the study of protocol-based care, whilst sharing findings of relevance about standardising care through the use of protocols, guidelines, and pathways. Methods Situated between positivism and relativism, realistic evaluation is concerned with the identification of underlying causal mechanisms, how they work, and under what conditions. Fundamentally it focuses attention on finding out what works, for whom, how, and in what circumstances. Results In this research, we were interested in understanding the relationships between the type and nature of particular approaches to protocol-based care (mechanisms), within different clinical settings (context), and what impacts this resulted in (outcomes). An evidence review using the principles of realist synthesis resulted in a number of propositions, i.e., context, mechanism, and outcome threads (CMOs). These propositions were then 'tested' through multiple case studies, using multiple methods including non-participant observation, interviews, and document analysis through an iterative analysis process. The initial propositions (conjectured CMOs) only partially corresponded to the findings that emerged during analysis. From the iterative analysis process of scrutinising mechanisms, context, and outcomes we were able to draw out some theoretically generalisable features about what works, for whom, how, and what circumstances in relation to the use of standardised care approaches (refined CMOs). Conclusions As one of the first studies to apply realistic evaluation in implementation research, it was a good fit, particularly given the growing emphasis on understanding how context influences evidence-based practice. The strengths and limitations of the approach are considered, including how to operationalise it and some of the challenges. This approach provided a useful interpretive framework with which to make sense of the multiple factors that were simultaneously at play and being observed through various data sources, and for developing explanatory theory about using standardised care approaches in practice

LMDA New and Noteworthy, December 2020

Contents include: Cutting and Adapting Text for the Virtual Performing Landscape; Freelancing the Pandemic; Shakespeare Webcomic Dramaturgy; Without Borders: Dramaturgy in the New Decade; Region Facebook Groups.https://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/lmdanewsletter/1060/thumbnail.jp

A production process for library help videos

Ope

A pragmatic cluster randomised trial evaluating three implementation interventions

Background Implementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting. Methods A pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions. Results Nineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility. Conclusions This was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance. Trial registration ISRCTN18046709 - Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE

Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework : theoretical and practical challenges

Background The PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) has proved to be a useful practical and conceptual heuristic for many researchers and practitioners in framing their research or knowledge translation endeavours. However, as a conceptual framework it still remains untested and therefore its contribution to the overall development and testing of theory in the field of implementation science is largely unquantified. Discussion This being the case, the paper provides an integrated summary of our conceptual and theoretical thinking so far and introduces a typology (derived from social policy analysis) used to distinguish between the terms conceptual framework, theory and model – important definitional and conceptual issues in trying to refine theoretical and methodological approaches to knowledge translation. Secondly, the paper describes the next phase of our work, in particular concentrating on the conceptual thinking and mapping that has led to the generation of the hypothesis that the PARiHS framework is best utilised as a two-stage process: as a preliminary (diagnostic and evaluative) measure of the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then using the aggregated data from these measures to determine the most appropriate facilitation method. The exact nature of the intervention is thus determined by the specific actors in the specific context at a specific time and place. In the process of refining this next phase of our work, we have had to consider the wider issues around the use of theories to inform and shape our research activity; the ongoing challenges of developing robust and sensitive measures; facilitation as an intervention for getting research into practice; and finally to note how the current debates around evidence into practice are adopting wider notions that fit innovations more generally. Summary The paper concludes by suggesting that the future direction of the work on the PARiHS framework is to develop a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach, where the intervention is shaped and moulded by the information gathered about the specific situation and from participating stakeholders. In order to expedite the generation of new evidence and testing of emerging theories, we suggest the formation of an international research implementation science collaborative that can systematically collect and analyse experiences of using and testing the PARiHS framework and similar conceptual and theoretical approaches. We also recommend further refinement of the definitions around conceptual framework, theory, and model, suggesting a wider discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives

FIRE (facilitating implementation of research evidence) : a study protocol

Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence, the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the use of evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, and is a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential to improve the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids

Process evaluation of appreciative inquiry to translate pain management evidence into pediatric nursing practice

Background Appreciative inquiry (AI) is an innovative knowledge translation (KT) intervention that is compatible with the Promoting Action on Research in Health Services (PARiHS) framework. This study explored the innovative use of AI as a theoretically based KT intervention applied to a clinical issue in an inpatient pediatric care setting. The implementation of AI was explored in terms of its acceptability, fidelity, and feasibility as a KT intervention in pain management. Methods A mixed-methods case study design was used. The case was a surgical unit in a pediatric academic-affiliated hospital. The sample consisted of nurses in leadership positions and staff nurses interested in the study. Data on the AI intervention implementation were collected by digitally recording the AI sessions, maintaining logs, and conducting individual semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using qualitative and quantitative content analyses and descriptive statistics. Findings were triangulated in the discussion. Results Three nurse leaders and nine staff members participated in the study. Participants were generally satisfied with the intervention, which consisted of four 3-hour, interactive AI sessions delivered over two weeks to promote change based on positive examples of pain management in the unit and staff implementation of an action plan. The AI sessions were delivered with high fidelity and 11 of 12 participants attended all four sessions, where they developed an action plan to enhance evidence-based pain assessment documentation. Participants labeled AI a 'refreshing approach to change' because it was positive, democratic, and built on existing practices. Several barriers affected their implementation of the action plan, including a context of change overload, logistics, busyness, and a lack of organised follow-up. Conclusions Results of this case study supported the acceptability, fidelity, and feasibility of AI as a KT intervention in pain management. The AI intervention requires minor refinements (e.g., incorporating continued follow-up meetings) to enhance its clinical utility and sustainability. The implementation process and effectiveness of the modified AI intervention require evaluation in a larger multisite study

Facilitating implementation of research evidence (FIRE): A randomised controlled trial and process evaluation of two models of facilitation informed by the promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS) framework

Background: The PARIHS framework proposes that successful implementation of research evidence results from the complex interplay between the evidence to be implemented, the context of implementation and the facilitation processes employed. Facilitation is defined as a role (the facilitator) and a process (facilitation strategies/methods). Empirical evidence comparing different facilitation approaches is limited; this paper reports a trial of two different types of facilitation represented in the PARIHS framework. Methods: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation was undertaken in 24 long-term nursing care settings in four European countries. In each country, sites were randomly allocated to standard dissemination of urinary incontinence guideline recommendations and one of two types of external-internal facilitation, labelled Type A and B. Type A facilitation was a less resource intensive approach, underpinned by improvement methodology; Type B was a more intensive, emancipatory model of facilitation, informed by critical social science. The primary outcome was percentage documented compliance with guideline recommendations. Process evaluation was framed by realist methodology and involved quantitative and qualitative data collection from multiple sources. Findings: Quantitative data were obtained from reviews of 2313 records. Qualitative data included over 332 hours of observations of care; 39 hours observation of facilitation activity; 471 staff interviews; 174 resident interviews; 120 next of kin/carer interviews; and 125 stakeholder interviews. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome between study arms and all study arms improved over time. Process data revealed three core mechanisms that influenced the trajectory of the facilitation intervention: alignment of the facilitation approach to the needs and expectations of the internal facilitator and colleagues; engagement of internal facilitators and staff in attitude and action; and learning over time. Data from external facilitators demonstrated that the facilitation interventions did not work as planned, issues were cumulative and maintenance of fidelity was problematic. Implications for D&I Research: Evaluating an intervention - in this case facilitation - that is fluid and dynamic within the methodology of a randomised controlled trial is complex and challenging. For future studies, we suggest a theoretical approach to fidelity, with a focus on mechanisms, as opposed to dose and intensity of the intervention