Domiciliary nasal respiratory support : first experiences in Malta

Nasal respiratory support is a non-invasive alternative to conventional assisted ventilation with endotracheal intubation, or the more cumbersome negative pressure ventilators. The two main types of this relatively new therapy are nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) respiratory support, which are mostly used in chronic hypoventilatory states and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) respectively. We have introduced these two types of respiratory support to five patients suffering from neuromuscular disorders and twenty-four patients with OSA with marked improvement in the quality of life of all patients concerned. Our experiences with these patients should hopefully lead to further development in the diagnostic and therapeutic facilities in this field in Malta.peer-reviewe

Relationship between patient safety culture and patient experience in hospital settings: a scoping review protocol

IntroductionHospitals commonly examine patient safety culture and other quality indicators to evaluate and improve performance in relation to quality and safety. A growing body of research has separately examined relationships between patient safety culture and patient experience on clinical outcomes and other quality indicators. However, there is a knowledge gap regarding the relationship between these two important domains. This article describes the protocol for a scoping review of published literature examining the relationship between patient safety culture and patient experience in hospital settings. The scoping review will provide an overview of research into the relationship between patient safety culture and patient experience in hospital contexts, map key concepts underpinning these domains and identify research gaps for further study.Methods and analysisThe scoping review will be conducted using the five stages of Arksey and O'Malley's framework: identify the research question; identify relevant studies; study selection; chart data; and collate, summarise and report the results. The inclusion criteria will be applied using the Population, Concept and Context Framework. Searches will be conducted in the CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and SciELO databases, without applying date range limits. Hand-searching of grey literature will also be performed to find relevant, non-indexed literature. Data will be extracted using a standardised data extraction form developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Both descriptive and thematic analyses will be undertaken to scope key concepts within the body of reviewed literature.Ethics and disseminationThis type of study does not require an ethics review. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences

Scoping Meta-Review: Introducing a New Methodology

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. For researchers, policymakers, and practitioners facing a new field, undertaking a systematic review can typically present a challenge due to the enormous number of relevant papers. A scoping review is a method suggested for addressing this dilemma; however, scoping reviews present their own challenges. This paper introduces the "scoping meta-review" (SMR) for expanding current methodologies and is based on our experiences in mapping the field of consumer engagement in healthcare. During this process, we developed the novel SMR method. An SMR combines aspects of a scoping review and a meta-review to establish an evidence-based map of a field. Similar to a scoping review, an SMR offers a practical and flexible methodology. However, unlike in a traditional scoping review, only systematic reviews are included. Stages of the SMR include: undertaking a preliminary nonsystematic review; building a search strategy; interrogating academic literature databases; classifying and excluding studies based on titles and abstracts; saving the refined database of references; revising the search strategy; selecting and reviewing the full text papers; and thematically analyzing the selected texts and writing the report. The main benefit of an SMR is to map a new field based on high-level evidence provided by systematic reviews

A Web-Based Service Delivery Model for Communication Training After Brain Injury: Protocol for a Mixed Methods, Prospective, Hybrid Type 2 Implementation-Effectiveness Study.

BackgroundAcquired brain injuries (ABIs) commonly cause cognitive-communication disorders, which can have a pervasive psychosocial impact on a person's life. More than 135 million people worldwide currently live with ABI, and this large and growing burden is increasingly surpassing global rehabilitation service capacity. A web-based service delivery model may offer a scalable solution. The Social Brain Toolkit is an evidence-based suite of 3 web-based communication training interventions for people with ABI and their communication partners. Successful real-world delivery of web-based interventions such as the Social Brain Toolkit requires investigation of intervention implementation in addition to efficacy and effectiveness.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of the Social Brain Toolkit as a web-based service delivery model.MethodsThis is a mixed methods, prospective, hybrid type 2 implementation-effectiveness study, theoretically underpinned by the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework of digital health implementation. We will document implementation strategies preemptively deployed to support the launch of the Social Brain Toolkit interventions, as well as implementation strategies identified by end users through formative evaluation of the Social Brain Toolkit. We will prospectively observe implementation outcomes, selected on the basis of the NASSS framework, through quantitative web analytics of intervention use, qualitative and quantitative pre- and postintervention survey data from all users within a specified sample frame, and qualitative interviews with a subset of users of each intervention. Qualitative implementation data will be deductively analyzed against the NASSS framework. Quantitative implementation data will be analyzed descriptively. We will obtain effectiveness outcomes through web-based knowledge tests, custom user questionnaires, and formal clinical tools. Quantitative effectiveness outcomes will be analyzed through descriptive statistics and the Reliable Change Index, with repeated analysis of variance (pretraining, posttraining, and follow-up), to determine whether there is any significant improvement within this participant sample.ResultsData collection commenced on July 2, 2021, and is expected to conclude on June 1, 2022, after a 6-month sample frame of analytics for each Social Brain Toolkit intervention. Data analysis will occur concurrently with data collection until mid-2022, with results expected for publication late 2022 and early 2023.ConclusionsEnd-user evaluation of the Social Brain Toolkit's implementation can guide intervention development and implementation to reach and meet community needs in a feasible, scalable, sustainable, and acceptable manner. End user feedback will be directly incorporated and addressed wherever possible in the next version of the Social Brain Toolkit. Learnings from these findings will benefit the implementation of this and future web-based psychosocial interventions for people with ABI and other populations.Trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001170819; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12621001170819, Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001177842; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12621001177842, Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001180808; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12621001180808.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/31995

Implementation of Web-Based Psychosocial Interventions for Adults With Acquired Brain Injury and Their Caregivers: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: More than 135 million people worldwide live with acquired brain injury (ABI) and its many psychosocial sequelae. This growing global burden necessitates scalable rehabilitation services. Despite demonstrated potential to increase the accessibility and scalability of psychosocial supports, digital health interventions are challenging to implement and sustain. The Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework can offer developers and researchers a comprehensive overview of considerations to implement, scale, and sustain digital health interventions. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review identified published, peer-reviewed primary evidence of implementation outcomes, strategies, and factors for web-based psychosocial interventions targeting either adults with ABI or their formal or informal caregivers; evaluated and summarized this evidence; synthesized qualitative and quantitative implementation data according to the NASSS framework; and provided recommendations for future implementation. Results were compared with 3 hypotheses which state that complexity (dynamic, unpredictable, and poorly characterized factors) in most or all NASSS domains increases likelihood of implementation failure; success is achievable, but difficult with many complicated domains (containing multiple interacting factors); and simplicity (straightforward, predictable, and few factors) in most or all domains increases the likelihood of success. METHODS: From a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, speechBITE, and neuroBITE, we reviewed primary implementation evidence from January 2008 to June 2020. For web-based psychosocial interventions delivered via standard desktop computer, mobile phone, tablet, television, and virtual reality devices to adults with ABI or their formal or informal caregivers, we extracted intervention characteristics, stakeholder involvement, implementation scope and outcomes, study design and quality, and implementation data. Implementation data were both narratively synthesized and descriptively quantified across all 7 domains (condition, technology, value proposition, adopters, organization, wider system, and their interaction over time) and all subdomains of the NASSS framework. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the 2018 Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: We identified 60 peer-reviewed studies from 12 countries, including 5723 adults with ABI, 1920 carers, and 50 health care staff. The findings aligned with all 3 hypotheses. CONCLUSIONS: Although studies were of low methodological quality and insufficient number to statistically test relationships, the results appeared consistent with recommendations to reduce complexity as much as possible to facilitate implementation. Although studies excluded individuals with a range of comorbidities and sociocultural challenges, such simplification of NASSS domain 1 may have been necessary to advance intervention value propositions (domain 3). However, to create equitable digital health solutions that can be successfully implemented in real-world settings, it is recommended that developers involve people with ABI, their close others, and health care staff in addressing complexities in domains 2 to 7 from the earliest intervention design stages. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020186387; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020186387. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1177/20552076211035988

Patient Journey and Tracer Methodologies: Literature review

Preface This preface was written by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (the Commission) to provide context and background to the report which follows, Patient Journey and Tracer Methodologies: Literature review. The Commission contracted the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) to prepare the literature review, as part of the review of the Australian Health Service Safety and Quality Accreditation (AHSSQA) Scheme. Background The Commission’s role is to lead and coordinate national improvements in the safety and quality of health care. The Commission works in partnership with the Australian Government, state and territory governments and the private sector to achieve a safe and high-quality, sustainable health system. In doing so, the Commission also works closely with patients, carers, clinicians, managers, policymakers and healthcare organisations. The Commission developed the National Safety and Quality Health Service (NSQHS) Standards in consultation with the Australian Government, state and territory governments, technical experts and stakeholders. They aim to protect the public from harm and to improve the quality of health service provision. To become accredited, health service organisations must pass assessments to show they have implemented the NSQHS Standards. The assessments are conducted by independent accrediting agencies, approved by the Commission, as part of the AHSSQA Scheme. However, state and territory regulators and chief executives of health service organisations have raised concerns about several aspects of the accreditation process. The Commission is undertaking a review to update and improve the accreditation process. In May 2017, the Commission contracted four literature reviews to provide an evidence base to inform the Commission’s review of the AHSSQA Scheme. The reviews explored the potential use of the following methods to improve the veracity of health service organisations: • Attestation by a governing body • Short-notice and unannounced surveys • Patient journey and tracer methodologies • Safety culture assessment. The report that follows this preface presents the findings of a literature review that explored the potential use of patient journey and tracer methodologies as part of health service organisation accreditation. Key findings The key findings of the report on patient journey and tracer methodologies (hereafter referred to as ‘patient journey methodologies’) are discussed according to the evidence of its effectiveness and considerations for its use in the AHSSQA Scheme

ShortNotice and Unannounced Survey Methods: Literature review

The Commission’s role is to lead and coordinate national improvements in the safety and quality of health care. The Commission works in partnership with the Australian Government, state and territory governments and the private sector to achieve a safe and high -qu ality, sustainable health system. In doing so, the Commission also works closely with patients, carers, clinicians, managers, policymakers and healthcare organisations. The Commission is responsible under the National Health Reform Act 2011 for the formul ation of standards relating to health care safety and quality matters and for formulating and coordinating national models of accreditation for health service organisations. The Commission developed the National Safety and Quality Health Service (NSQHS) Standards in consultation with the Australian Government , state and territory governments, technical experts and other stakeholders. They aim to protect the public from harm and to improve the quality of health service provision. To become accredited, health service organisations must pass assessments to show they have implemented the NSQHS Standards. The assessments are conducted by independent accrediting agencies, approved by the Commission, as part of the AHSSQA Scheme. However, state and territory regulators and chief executives of health service organisations have raised concerns about several aspects of the accreditation process

Attestation by Governing Bodies: Literature review

Preface This preface was written by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (the Commission) to provide context and background to the report which follows, Attestation by Governing Bodies: Literature review. The Commission contracted the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) to prepare the literature review, as part of the review of the Australian Health Service Safety and Quality Accreditation (AHSSQA) Scheme. Background The Commission’s role is to lead and coordinate national improvements in the safety and quality of health care. The Commission works in partnership with the Australian Government, state and territory governments and the private sector to achieve a safe and high-quality, sustainable health system. In doing so, the Commission also works closely with patients, carers, clinicians, managers, policymakers and healthcare organisations. The Commission is responsible under the National Health Reform Act 2011 for the formulation of standards relating to healthcare safety and quality matters and for formulating and coordinating national models of accreditation for health service organisations. The Commission developed the National Safety and Quality Health Service (NSQHS) Standards in consultation with the Australian Government, state and territory governments, technical experts and stakeholders. They aim to protect the public from harm and to improve the quality of health service provision. To become accredited, health service organisations must pass assessments to show they have implemented the NSQHS Standards. The assessments are conducted by independent accrediting agencies approved by the Commission as part of the AHSSQA Scheme. However, state and territory regulators and chief executives of health service organisations have raised concerns about several aspects of the accreditation process. The Commission is undertaking a review to update and improve the accreditation process. In May 2017, the Commission contracted four literature reviews to provide an evidence base to inform the Commission’s review of the AHSSQA Scheme. The reviews explored the potential use of the following methods to improve the veracity of health service organisations: • Attestation by a governing body • Short-notice and unannounced surveys • Patient journey and tracer methodologies • Safety culture assessment. The report that follows this preface presents the findings of a literature review that explored the potential use of attestation by governing bodies during accreditation of health service organisations. Key findings The report on attestation by governing bodies includes a definition of attestation, a review of the evidence of the effectiveness of attestation by governing bodies as part of accreditation in healthcare, and examples of the use of attestation in practice

Surgically treated acromegaly patients have a similar quality of life whether controlled by surgery or requiring additional medical therapy (QuaLAT Study).

Purpose There is no consensus on quality of life (QOL) in patients with acromegaly requiring medical treatment after surgery compared with those achieving remission by surgery alone. Methods QuaLAT is a cross-sectional study comparing QOL in surgery-only treated acromegaly patients versus those requiring medical treatment post-surgery. Patients attending clinics were identified and divided into—Group 1: patients who had surgery only and were in biochemical remission, Group 2: all patients on medical treatment post-surgery, Group 3: patients from Group 2 with biochemical control. Participants were asked to fill three questionnaires; Acromegaly Quality of Life Questionnaire (ACROQOL), 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF36), and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). Results There were 32 patients in Group 1 and 25 in Group 2. There was no difference in QOL scores between groups 1 and 2, as measured by ACROQOL (mean difference [MD] = − 2.5, 95% CI − 16.6 to 11.6; p = 0.72), SF36v2 [Physical component score (PCS) MD = − 4.9, 95% CI − 10.9 to 1.2; p = 0.12; mental component score MD = − 3.0, 95% CI − 10.5 to 4.4; p = 0.44], or FSS (MD = − 0.004, 95% CI − 1.14 to 1.33; p = 0.1). Comparison between groups 1 and 3 however showed that PCS (and 3 subdomains) was significantly better in group 3 (MD = − 8.3, 95% CI − 14.8 to -1.8; p = 0.01). All three QOL scores were lower when compared with healthy controls. Conclusions Medical treatment not only achieves a QOL comparable to surgery, it may also be associated with better QOL in physical subdomains. When compared with healthy controls, QOL remains worse in treated acromegaly patients compared to controls