Professional care workforce: a rapid review of evidence supporting methods of recruitment, retention, safety, and education

Background: Across the care economy there are major shortages in the health and care workforce, as well as high rates of attrition and ill-defined career pathways. The aim of this study was to evaluate current evidence regarding methods to improve care worker recruitment, retention, safety, and education, for the professional care workforce. Methods: A rapid review of comparative interventions designed to recruit, retain, educate and care for the professional workforce in the following sectors: disability, aged care, health, mental health, family and youth services, and early childhood education and care was conducted. Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched, and studies published between January 2015 and November 2022 were included. We used the Quality Assessment tool for Quantitative Studies and the PEDro tools to evaluate study quality. Results: 5594 articles were initially screened and after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 30 studies were included in the rapid review. Studies most frequently reported on the professional nursing, medical and allied health workforces. Some studies focused on the single domain of care worker education (n = 11) while most focused on multiple domains that combined education with recruitment strategies, retention strategies or a focus on worker safety. Study quality was comparatively low with a median PEDro score of 5/10, and 77% received a weak rating on the Quality Assessment tool for Quantitative Studies. Four new workforce strategies emerged; early career rural recruitment supports rural retention; workload management is essential for workforce well-being; learning must be contextually relevant; and there is a need to differentiate recruitment, retention, and education strategies for different professional health and care workforce categories as needs vary. Conclusions: Given the critical importance of recruiting and retaining a strong health and care workforce, there is an immediate need to develop a cohesive strategy to address workforce shortfalls. This paper presents initial evidence on different interventions to address this need, and to inform care workforce recruitment and retention. Rapid Review registration PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022371721 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD4202237172

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Dame Maud McCarthy: Australia's most distinguished nursing export?

Dame Maud McCarthy was born in Sydney and became one of the most influential and important nurses of the early 20th Century, yet she is largely unknown in Australia. Made a Lady [Dame] of Grace of St John in 1919, and Dame Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire in 1918, she is important enough to have her portrait hung in the National Portrait Gallery in London. In this paper we describe Dame Maud’s early life and her work during the First World War. Further work on her life will follow, as we discover more about this rather historically elusive woman whose contribution to the profession of nursing, in Australia and the UK, has been profound

Dame Maud McCarthy (1859–1949): Matron-in-Chief, British expeditionary forces France and Flanders, First World War

Emma Maud McCarthy was one of the most decorated nurses of the First World War. Born in Sydney in 1859, she trained as a nurse at The London Hospital in England. She was one of the first nurses to go to the South African War and in 1914 was one of the first members of Queen Alexandra's Imperial Nursing Service. Maud McCarthy went to France as Matron-in-Chief of British, Colonial and US nursing services until the end of hostilities in 1918. After the First World War she became Matron-in-Chief of the Territorial Army Nursing Service and retired five years later. She was appointed Dame Grand Cross in 1918 and earned awards from Britain, France, Belgium and America. Her influence on nursing was profound. One of the first senior nurses to recognise the impact of war on minds, she set up separate units for men who had self-harmed and she pioneered nurse anaesthetists in the British Armed Forces. Dame Maud McCarthy was an administrator par excellence whose determination to provide the best conditions possible for both her nurses and the men for whom they cared made possible the highest standards of nursing care in the First World War