Utilisation ofpublic health services by caregivers of children from Khayelitsha presenting with acute diarrhoea

Patterns of public sector health service utilisation in relation to severity and weekday or weekend occurrence were identified for children from Khayelitsha with diarrhoeal disease. The current organisation of local services is inappropriate for the provision ofbasic primary care for these children. Given the inadequate access to appropriate care, caregivers select their health service options rationally. This paper recommends that a 24-hour rehydration unit be established in Khayelitsha to improve the effectiveness and appropriateness of the management ofthese children

Randomised controlled trials of complex interventions and large-scale transformation of services

Complex interventions and large-scale transformations of services are necessary to meet the health-care challenges of the 21st century. However, the evaluation of these types of interventions is challenging and requires methodological development. Innovations such as cluster randomised controlled trials, stepped-wedge designs, and non-randomised evaluations provide options to meet the needs of decision-makers. Adoption of theory and logic models can help clarify causal assumptions, and process evaluation can assist in understanding delivery in context. Issues of implementation must also be considered throughout intervention design and evaluation to ensure that results can be scaled for population benefit. Relevance requires evaluations conducted under real-world conditions, which in turn requires a pragmatic attitude to design. The increasing complexity of interventions and evaluations threatens the ability of researchers to meet the needs of decision-makers for rapid results. Improvements in efficiency are thus crucial, with electronic health records offering significant potential

A Practical Guide to Implementation Research on Health Systems

This is an open access resource targeted primarily at post-graduate students intending to undertake field research on health systems interventions in resource-poor environments. The book consists of twelve chapters addressing theory, methodology, analysis, and influencing policy. Each consists of both original text and links to relevant, open access, web-based journal and multi-media materials, including selected case studies.Please note: an eBook version compatible with the Kobo reader is also available to download

PRECIS-2 for retrospective assessment of RCTs in systematic reviews : some thoughts on intention, dichotomization and applicability of RCTs

Peer reviewedPostprin

Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes

BackgroundPoor interprofessional collaboration (IPC) can adversely affect the delivery of health services and patient care. Interventions that address IPC problems have the potential to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes.ObjectivesTo assess the impact of practice-based interventions designed to improve interprofessional collaboration (IPC) amongst health and social care professionals, compared to usual care or to an alternative intervention, on at least one of the following primary outcomes: patient health outcomes, clinical process or efficiency outcomes or secondary outcomes (collaborative behaviour).Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL (2015, issue 11), MEDLINE, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to November 2015. We handsearched relevant interprofessional journals to November 2015, and reviewed the reference lists of the included studies.Selection criteriaWe included randomised trials of practice-based IPC interventions involving health and social care professionals compared to usual care or to an alternative intervention.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of each potentially relevant study. We extracted data from the included studies and assessed the risk of bias of each study. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis of study outcomes, given the small number of included studies and their heterogeneity in clinical settings, interventions and outcomes. Consequently, we summarised the study data and presented the results in a narrative format to report study methods, outcomes, impact and certainty of the evidence.Main resultsWe included nine studies in total (6540 participants); six cluster-randomised trials and three individual randomised trials (1 study randomised clinicians, 1 randomised patients, and 1 randomised clinicians and patients). All studies were conducted in high-income countries (Australia, Belgium, Sweden, UK and USA) across primary, secondary, tertiary and community care settings and had a follow-up of up to 12 months. Eight studies compared an IPC intervention with usual care and evaluated the effects of different practice-based IPC interventions: externally facilitated interprofessional activities (e.g. team action planning; 4 studies), interprofessional rounds (2 studies), interprofessional meetings (1 study), and interprofessional checklists (1 study). One study compared one type of interprofessional meeting with another type of interprofessional meeting. We assessed four studies to be at high risk of attrition bias and an equal number of studies to be at high risk of detection bias.For studies comparing an IPC intervention with usual care, functional status in stroke patients may be slightly improved by externally facilitated interprofessional activities (1 study, 464 participants, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether patient-assessed quality of care (1 study, 1185 participants), continuity of care (1 study, 464 participants) or collaborative working (4 studies, 1936 participants) are improved by externally facilitated interprofessional activities, as we graded the evidence as very low-certainty for these outcomes. Healthcare professionals’ adherence to recommended practices may be slightly improved with externally facilitated interprofessional activities or interprofessional meetings (3 studies, 2576 participants, low certainty evidence). The use of healthcare resources may be slightly improved by externally facilitated interprofessional activities, interprofessional checklists and rounds (4 studies, 1679 participants, low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on patient mortality, morbidity or complication rates.Compared to multidisciplinary audio conferencing, multidisciplinary video conferencing may reduce the average length of treatment and may reduce the number of multidisciplinary conferences needed per patient and the patient length of stay. There was little or no difference between these interventions in the number of communications between health professionals (1 study, 100 participants; low- certainty evidence).Authors’ conclusionsGiven that the certainty of evidence from the included studies was judged to be low to very low, there is not sufficient evidence to draw clear conclusions on the effects of IPC interventions. Neverthess, due to the difficulties health professionals encounter when collaborating in clinical practice, it is encouraging that research on the number of interventions to improve IPC has increased since this review was last updated. While this field is developing, further rigorous, mixed-method studies are required. Future studies should focus on longer acclimatisation periods before evaluating newly implemented IPC interventions, and use longer follow-up to generate a more informed understanding of the effects of IPC on clinical practice

Effectiveness of a group diabetes education programme in underserved communities in South Africa: pragmatic cluster randomized control trial

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is an important contributor to the burden of disease in South Africa and prevalence rates as high as 33% have been recorded in Cape Town. Previous studies show that quality of care and health outcomes are poor. The development of an effective education programme should impact on self-care, lifestyle change and adherence to medication; and lead to better control of diabetes, fewer complications and better quality of life. METHODS: Trial design: Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trialParticipants: Type 2 diabetic patients attending 45 public sector community health centres in Cape TownInterventions: The intervention group will receive 4 sessions of group diabetes education delivered by a health promotion officer in a guiding style. The control group will receive usual care which consists of ad hoc advice during consultations and occasional educational talks in the waiting room.Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the group diabetes education programmeOutcomes: Primary outcomes: diabetes self-care activities, 5% weight loss, 1% reduction in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes: self-efficacy, locus of control, mean blood pressure, mean weight loss, mean waist circumference, mean HbA1c, mean total cholesterol, quality of lifeRandomisation: Computer generated random numbersBlinding: Patients, health promoters and research assistants could not be blinded to the health centre's allocationNumbers randomized: Seventeen health centres (34 in total) will be randomly assigned to either control or intervention groups. A sample size of 1360 patients in 34 clusters of 40 patients will give a power of 80% to detect the primary outcomes with 5% precision. Altogether 720 patients were recruited in the intervention arm and 850 in the control arm giving a total of 1570.DISCUSSION:The study will inform policy makers and managers of the district health system, particularly in low to middle income countries, if this programme can be implemented more widely.TRIAL REGISTER:Pan African Clinical Trial Registry PACTR20120500038038

Nurse–physician collaboration in general internal medicine : a synthesis of survey and ethnographic techniques

BACKGROUND Effective collaboration between hospital nurses and physicians is associated with patient safety, quality of care, and provider satisfaction. Mutual nurse–physician perceptions of one another’s collaboration are typically discrepant. Quantitative and qualitative studies frequently conclude that nurses experience lower satisfaction with nurse–physician collaboration than physicians. Mixed methods studies of nurse–physician collaboration are uncommon; results from one of the two approaches are seldom related to or reported in terms of the others. This paper aims to demonstrate the complementarity of quantitative and qualitative methods for understanding nurse–physician collaboration. METHODS In medicine wards of 5 hospitals, we surveyed nurses and physicians measuring three facets of collaboration— communication, accommodation, and isolation. In parallel we used shadowing and interviews to explore the quality of nurse–physician collaboration. Data were collected between June 2008 and June 2009. RESULTS The results indicated difference of nurse–physician ratings of one another’s communication was small and not statistically significant; communication timing and skill were reportedly challenging. Nurses perceived physicians as less accommodating than physicians perceived nurses (P\u3c.01) and the effect size was medium. Physicians’ independent schedules were problematic for nurses. Nurses felt more isolated from physicians than physicians from nurses (P\u3c.0001) and the difference was large in standardized units. Hierarchical relationships were related to nurses’ isolation; however this could be moderated by leadership support. CONCLUSION Our mixed-method approach indicates that longstanding maladaptive nurse–physician relationships persist in the inpatient setting, but not uniformly. Communication quality seems mutually acceptable, while accommodation and isolation are more problematic among nurses

Feedback GAP : study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of goal setting and action plans to increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback interventions in primary care

Peer reviewedPublisher PD