Handheld computers for data entry: high tech has its problems too

Background The use of handheld computers in medicine has increased in the last decade, they are now used in a variety of clinical settings. There is an underlying assumption that electronic data capture is more accurate that paper-based data methods have been rarely tested. This report documents a study to compare the accuracy of hand held computer data capture versus more traditional paper-based methods. Methods Clinical nurses involved in a randomised controlled trial collected patient information on a hand held computer in parallel with a paper-based data form. Both sets of data were entered into an access database and the hand held computer data compared to the paper-based data for discrepancies. Results Error rates from the handheld computers were 67.5 error per 1000 fields, compared to the accepted error rate of 10 per 10,000 field for paper-based double data entry. Error rates were highest in field containing a default value. Conclusion While popular with staff, unacceptable high error rates occurred with hand held computers. Training and ongoing monitoring are needed if hand held computers are to be used for clinical data collection

Promoting patient centred palliative care through case conferencing

BACKGROUND What are the characteristics of case conferences between general practitioners and specialised palliative care services (SPCS)? METHODS Study participants were adults (N=461) with pain in the preceding 3 months who were referred to a SPCS and their GPs (N=230). Patients were randomised to case conferences or routine care by SPCS. RESULTS One hundred and sixty-seven conferences were held; 46 patients withdrew and 142 died before the conference could be conducted. Medicare payment was requested for 72 (43%) conferences. Median time from randomisation to case conference was 52 days (SD: 55), and from case conference to death/end of study was 79 days (SD: 166). Twenty-five percent of conferences had over three health professionals participant; patients and/or their caregivers participated in 91%. Average conference duration was 39 minutes (SD: 13). Mean conference length did not increase when more health professionals were present (3 vs. >3, 39 [SD: 14] vs. 42 [SD 11] minutes, p=0.274), nor when patients/caregivers were present (present vs. absent, 39 [SD: 13] vs. 44 [SD: 14] minutes, p=0.159). DISCUSSION Case conferencing involving SPCS, the GP, other health professionals and the patient can be an efficient part of routine care

The role of ondansetron in the management of cholestatic or uremic pruritis - a systematic review

Pruritus associated with hepatic or renal failure can be a troublesome symptom, refractory to treatment, associated with significant physical and emotional distress, and reduction in quality of life for patients already burdened with chronic disease. Serotonin has been implicated as a possible pathological mediator, and therefore 5HT3 antagonists have been suggested as a possible therapeutic intervention. Objectives This review of the literature systematically explores the role of ondansetron in the management of cholestatic or uraemic pruritus. Methods Electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the role of ondansetron in cholestatic or uraemic pruritus between 1966 and 2008. Results Five RCTs were included in this systematic review: three for cholestatic pruritus, and two for uraemic pruritus. All trials examined ondansetron versus placebo, however with differing treatment protocols. Overall, three studies showed no benefit to ondansetron over placebo, however two studies in cholestatic pruritus showed small reductions in pruritus with questionable clinical significance. Conclusion Ondansetron was demonstrated to have negligible effect on cholestatic or uraemic pruritus on the basis of a limited number of studies

The Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) scale: a revised scale for contemporary palliative care clinical practice [ISRCTN81117481]

© 2005 Abernethy et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background : The Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) is a gold standard scale. The Thorne-modified KPS (TKPS) focuses on community-based care and has been shown to be more relevant to palliative care settings than the original KPS. The Australia-modified KPS (AKPS) blends KPS and TKPS to accommodate any setting of care. Methods : Performance status was measured using all three scales for palliative care patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial in South Australia. Care occurred in a range of settings. Survival was defined from enrollment to death. Results : Ratings were collected at 1600 timepoints for 306 participants. The median score on all scales was 60. KPS and AKPS agreed in 87% of ratings; 79% of disagreements occurred within 1 level on the 11-level scales. KPS and TKPS agreed in 76% of ratings; 85% of disagreements occurred within one level. AKPS and TKPS agreed in 85% of ratings; 87% of disagreements were within one level. Strongest agreement occurred at the highest levels (70–90), with greatest disagreement at lower levels (≤40). Kappa coefficients for agreement were KPS-TKPS 0.71, KPS-AKPS 0.84, and AKPS-TKPS 0.82 (all p < 0.001). Spearman correlations with survival were KPS 0.26, TKPS 0.27 and AKPS 0.26 (all p < 0.001). AKPS was most predictive of survival at the lower range of the scale. All had longitudinal test-retest validity. Face validity was greatest for the AKPS. Conclusion : The AKPS is a useful modification of the KPS that is more appropriate for clinical settings that include multiple venues of care such as palliative care

Promoting Clinical Engagement and Cross-sector Collaboration Through Changes in Workforce, Use of Technology, and Improved Business Systems

Published version made available here with permission from publisher.Background: Cross-sectoral collaboration across health care settings has the potential to deliver efficiencies as well as improve health care outcomes. There is a need for better understanding and awareness of models, mechanisms and strategies that enhance crosssectoral collaboration in Australia. Improved cross-sectoral collaboration is supported by a number of changes in workforce, use of technology and improved business systems. This review seeks to summarise these programs for those who may be seeking to engage in this area as a means of determining the range of options and possible proven benefits. Methodology: This study employs a mixed methods approach. A pragmatic literature review was undertaken to determine the relevant collaborative care models and review current programs Australia-wide that implement these models. Programs were selected from searching the grey and indexed medical literature as well as suggestions obtained from relevant stakeholders. Criteria for inclusion included having description in the peer reviewed and grey literature, ability to represent a unique model, extent of current use and description of outcomes of the intervention. Additional qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted to elucidate more detailed information about technology, workforce and business systems. This information is summarised in the report and details about the individual programs are included as an appendix to this report. Results: Fifteen models were reviewed for this report. Qualitative semi-structured interview data were employed to supplement findings from the literature review. Key mechanisms of these models are described specifically focusing on the use of technology, workforce and business systems. Facilitators and barriers were identified and explored

Palliative care clinical trials: how nurses are contributing to ethical, integrated and evidence based care of palliative care patients participating in clinical trials

The aim of this paper is to describe the emerging role of the palliative care clinical trials nurse in an era of evidence based practice and increasing clinical trial activity in palliative care settings across Australia. An overview of the current clinical trials work is provided with a focus on three aspects of clinical trials nursing practice which have significant implications for patients: (1) the consent process; (2) integration of clinical trials into multidisciplinary care, and (3) promotion of evidence based practice in palliative care settings. Clinical trials roles provide palliative care nurses with an opportunity to contribute to clinical research, help expand palliative care’s evidence base as well as develop their own research capabilities

Handheld computers for data entry: high tech has its problems too

BACKGROUND: The use of handheld computers in medicine has increased in the last decade, they are now used in a variety of clinical settings. There is an underlying assumption that electronic data capture is more accurate that paper-based data methods have been rarely tested. This report documents a study to compare the accuracy of hand held computer data capture versus more traditional paper-based methods. METHODS: Clinical nurses involved in a randomised controlled trial collected patient information on a hand held computer in parallel with a paper-based data form. Both sets of data were entered into an access database and the hand held computer data compared to the paper-based data for discrepancies. RESULTS: Error rates from the handheld computers were 67.5 error per 1000 fields, compared to the accepted error rate of 10 per 10,000 field for paper-based double data entry. Error rates were highest in field containing a default value. CONCLUSION: While popular with staff, unacceptable high error rates occurred with hand held computers. Training and ongoing monitoring are needed if hand held computers are to be used for clinical data collection

Off-label prescribing in palliative care – a cross-sectional national survey of Palliative Medicine doctors

Background: Regulatory bodies including the European Medicines Agency register medications (formulation, route of administration) for specific clinical indications. Once registered, prescription is at clinicians’ discretion. Off-label use is beyond the registered use. While off-label prescribing may, at times, be appropriate, efficacy and toxicity data are often lacking. Aim: The aim of this study was to document off-label use policies (including disclosure and consent) in Australian palliative care units and current practices by palliative care clinicians. Design: A national, cross-sectional survey was conducted online following an invitation letter. The survey asked clinicians their most frequent off-label medication/indication dyads and unit policies. Dyads were classified into unregistered, off-label and on-label, and for the latter, whether medications were nationally subsidised. Setting/participants: All Australian palliative medicine Fellows and advanced trainees. Results: Overall, 105 clinicians responded (53% response rate). The majority did not have policies on off-label medications, and documented consent rarely. In all, 236 medication/indication dyads for 36 medications were noted: 45 dyads (19%) were for two unregistered medications, 118 dyads (50%) were for 26 off-label medications and 73 dyads (31%) were for 12 on-label medications. Conclusions: Off-label prescribing with its clinical, legal and ethical implications is common yet poorly recognised by clinicians. A distinction needs to be made between where quality evidence exists but registration has not been updated by the pharmaceutical sponsor and the evidence has not been generated. Further research is required to quantify any iatrogenic harm from off-label prescribing in palliative care

Creating a research culture in a palliative care service environment: A qualitative study of the evolution of staff attitudes to research during a large longitudinal controlled trial (ISRCTN81117481)

Abstract in French availablePublisher versionThis study investigated the impact of a three-year randomized control trial of different models of service provision on palliative care staff associated with the hospice where the trial was being conducted. Eleven open access de-identified qualitative focus groups were held over a period of three years: three months into the trial, one year after its inception, and at the end of the trial. Four staff groups were involved: inpatient hospice nurses, palliative care outreach nurses, medical palliative specialists, and administrative staff and social workers. Initially the impact of the trial produced high levels of staff stress which largely diminished over time, to be replaced by enthusiasm for the changes achieved and sadness that post trial the perceived benefits gained would be lost. When attempting to change a clinical culture to incorporate research, and in particular where increased staff workload is involved, highly interactive levels of communication and valuing of staff input are required to minimize the stress and burden of this imposition

Integration, Coordination and Multidisciplinary Care: What can These Approaches Offer to Australian Primary Health Care?

Australia's population is ageing and the consequential burden of chronic disease increasingly challenges the health system. This has raised interest in, and awareness of, approaches built on multidisciplinary teams and integrated and coordinated care in managing the complex care needs of patient groups such as the chronically ill or frail aged. A systematic investigation of the literature relating to these approaches provided the opportunity to explore the meaning of these terms and their potential application and relevance to the Australian primary health care setting. Five systematic reviews of a sentinel condition and an exemplar approach to coordinated and multidisciplinary care were completed. Common learnings from the individual reviews were identified. The literature suggests that approaches encouraging a coordinated and multidisciplinary plan of care for individual patients and/or particular populations may improve a variety of outcomes. There are many methodological considerations in conducting reviews of complex interventions and in assessing their applicability to the Australian health system