A descriptive survey study of violence management and priorities among psychiatric staff in mental health services, across seventeen european countries.

BACKGROUND: In mental health services what is commonplace across international frontiers is that to prevent aggressive patients from harming themselves, other patients or staff, coercive measures and foremost, violence management strategies are required. There is no agreement, recommendations or direction from the EU on which measures of coercion should be practiced across EU countries, and there is no overall one best practice approach. METHODS: The project was conceived through an expert group, the European Violence in Psychiatry Research Group (EViPRG). The study aimed to incorporate an EU and multidisciplinary response in the determination of violence management practices and related research and education priorities across 17 European countries. From the EVIPRG members, one member from each country agreed to act as the national project coordinator for their country. Given the international spread of respondents, an eDelphi survey approach was selected for the study design and data collection. A survey instrument was developed, agreed and validated through members of EVIPRG. RESULTS: The results included a total of 2809 respondents from 17 countries with 999 respondents who self-selected for round 2 eDelphi. The majority of respondents worked in acute psychiatry, 54% (n = 1511); outpatient departments, 10.5% (n = 295); and Forensic, 9.3% (n = 262). Other work areas of respondents include Rehabilitation, Primary Care and Emergency. It is of concern that 19.5% of respondents had not received training on violence management. The most commonly used interventions in the management of violent patients were physical restraint, seclusion and medications. The top priorities for education and research included: preventing violence; the influence of environment and staff on levels of violence; best practice in managing violence; risk assessment and the aetiology and triggers for violence and aggression. CONCLUSION: In many European countries there is an alarming lack of clarity on matters of procedure and policy pertaining to violence management in mental health services. Violence management practices in Europe appear to be fragmented with no identified ideological position or collaborative education and research. In Europe, language differences are a reality and may have contributed to insular thinking, however, it must not be seen as a barrier to sharing best practice

Estudos Delphi com Q-Sort sobre a web: a sua utilização em sistemas de informação

A utilização de ferramentas web como suporte à recolha de dados de investigação, nomeadamente no que se refere a questionários é cada vez mais frequente pelas vantagens que apresenta. Sendo especialmente relevante no que se refere aos prazos das respostas e aos custos do processo. No entanto, existem estratégias que devem ser aplicadas para que as taxas de resposta possam também beneficiar com estas tecnologias. Neste trabalho vamos descrever uma experiência bem sucedida com a utilização de uma ferramenta para suportar um Delphi com Q-Sort para recolha de opiniões de um painel de especialistas em serviços de informação online. Para o efeito foi desenvolvida uma ferramenta eDelphi de modo a suportar a recolha de dados baseada na utilização conjunta do Delphi e da Q-Sort. Além da ferramenta um dos aspectos importantes deste artigo é a utilização destas técnicas conjuntamente para recolha de dados organizados em rankings

Developing and Testing the Standard of Practice and Evaluation of Critical-Care-Nursing Tool (SPECT) for Critical Care Nursing Practice.

BACKGROUND: Nurses working in critical care often undertake specialty education. There are no uniform practice outcomes for critical care programs, and consumer input to practice standards has been lacking. METHODS: A structured multiphase project was undertaken to develop practice standards and an assessment tool informed by critical care nursing stakeholders as well as patients and families-the Standards of Practice and Evaluation of Critical-Care-Nursing Tool (SPECT). RESULTS: Testing of the SPECT revealed adequate content validity index (CVI), domain CVI (range, 0.772 to 0.887), and statement CVI (range, 0.66 to 1.00). Reliability was adequate in terms of internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.864) and test-retest Spearman rank correlation (range, 0.772 to 0.887); intra-rater kappa agreement was significant for 102 of 104 statements with moderate agreement for 94.2% of statements. CONCLUSION: The SPECT appears to have clinical feasibility, preliminary validity and reliability, and provides a clear definition for the expected practice level for graduates of a critical care education program

Quality improvement of community pharmacy services:a prioritisation exercise

Funded by NHS Education for ScotlandPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Development of <scp>A</scp>ustralian clinical practice outcome standards for graduates of critical care nurse education

Aims and objectivesTo develop critical care nurse education practice standards.BackgroundCritical care specialist education for registered nurses in Australia is provided at graduate level. Considerable variation exists across courses with no framework to guide practice outcomes or evidence supporting the level of qualification.DesignAn eDelphi technique involved the iterative process of a national expert panel responding to three survey rounds.MethodsFor the first round, 84 statements, organised within six domains, were developed from earlier phases of the study that included a literature review, analysis of critical care courses and input from health consumers. The panel, which represented the perspectives of four stakeholder groups, responded to two rating scales: level of importance and level of practice.ResultsOf 105 experts who agreed to participate, 92 (88%) completed survey round I; 85 (92%) round II; and 73 (86%) round III. Of the 98 statements, 75 were rated as having a high level of importance – median 7 (IQR 6–7); 14 were rated as having a moderate level of importance – median 6 (IQR 5–7); and nine were rated as having a low level of importance – median 4 (IQR 4–6)–6 (IQR 4–6). The majority of the panel rated graduate level of practice as ‘demonstrates independently’ or ‘teaches or supervises others’ for 80 statements. For 18 statements, there was no category selected by 50% or more of the panel. The process resulted in the development of 98 practice standards, categorised into three levels, indicating a practice outcome level by the practitioner who can independently provide nursing care for a variety of critically ill patients in most contexts, using a patient‐ and family‐focused approach.Conclusion/relevance to clinical practiceThe graduate practice outcomes provide a critical care qualification definition for nursing workforce standards and can be used by course providers to achieve consistent practice outcomes.</jats:sec

Development of Australian clinical practice outcome standards for graduates of critical care nurse education.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To develop critical care nurse education practice standards. BACKGROUND: Critical care specialist education for registered nurses in Australia is provided at graduate level. Considerable variation exists across courses with no framework to guide practice outcomes or evidence supporting the level of qualification. DESIGN: An eDelphi technique involved the iterative process of a national expert panel responding to three survey rounds. METHODS: For the first round, 84 statements, organised within six domains, were developed from earlier phases of the study that included a literature review, analysis of critical care courses and input from health consumers. The panel, which represented the perspectives of four stakeholder groups, responded to two rating scales: level of importance and level of practice. RESULTS: Of 105 experts who agreed to participate, 92 (88%) completed survey round I; 85 (92%) round II; and 73 (86%) round III. Of the 98 statements, 75 were rated as having a high level of importance - median 7 (IQR 6-7); 14 were rated as having a moderate level of importance - median 6 (IQR 5-7); and nine were rated as having a low level of importance - median 4 (IQR 4-6)-6 (IQR 4-6). The majority of the panel rated graduate level of practice as 'demonstrates independently' or 'teaches or supervises others' for 80 statements. For 18 statements, there was no category selected by 50% or more of the panel. The process resulted in the development of 98 practice standards, categorised into three levels, indicating a practice outcome level by the practitioner who can independently provide nursing care for a variety of critically ill patients in most contexts, using a patient- and family-focused approach. CONCLUSION/RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The graduate practice outcomes provide a critical care qualification definition for nursing workforce standards and can be used by course providers to achieve consistent practice outcomes

Standardisation of labial salivary gland histopathology in clinical trials in primary Sjögren's syndrome

Labial salivary gland (LSG) biopsy is used in the classification of primary Sjögren's syndrome (PSS) and in patient stratification in clinical trials. It may also function as a biomarker. The acquisition of tissue and histological interpretation is variable and needs to be standardised for use in clinical trials. A modified European League Against Rheumatism consensus guideline development strategy was used. The steering committee of the ad hoc working group identified key outstanding points of variability in LSG acquisition and analysis. A 2-day workshop was held to develop consensus where possible and identify points where further discussion/data was needed. These points were reviewed by a subgroup of experts on PSS histopathology and then circulated via an online survey to 50 stakeholder experts consisting of rheumatologists, histopathologists and oral medicine specialists, to assess level of agreement (0–10 scale) and comments. Criteria for agreement were a mean score ≥6/10 and 75% of respondents scoring ≥6/10. Thirty-nine (78%) experts responded and 16 points met criteria for agreement. These points are focused on tissue requirements, identification of the characteristic focal lymphocytic sialadenitis, calculation of the focus score, identification of germinal centres, assessment of the area of leucocyte infiltration, reporting standards and use of prestudy samples for clinical trials. We provide standardised consensus guidance for the use of labial salivary gland histopathology in the classification of PSS and in clinical trials and identify areas where further research is required to achieve evidence-based consensus

CHronic Rhinosinusitis Outcome MEasures (CHROME), developing a core outcome set for trials of interventions in chronic rhinosinusitis

Statement of Problem: Evaluating the effectiveness of treatments in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) have been limited by both a paucity of high quality randomised trials, and the heterogeneity of outcomes in those that have been reported. Core outcome sets (COS) are an agreed, standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported by future trials as a minimum and will facilitate future meta-analysis of trial results in systematic reviews (SRs). We set out to develop a core outcome set for interventions for adults with CRS. Method(s) of study: A long-list of potential outcomes was identified by a steering group utilising a literature review, thematic analysis of a wide range of stakeholders’ views and systematic analysis of currently available Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). A subsequent e-Delphi process allowed 110 patients and healthcare practitioners to individually rate the outcomes in terms of importance, on a Likert scale. Main Results: After 2 rounds of the iterative Delphi process, the 54 initial outcomes were distilled down to a final core-outcome set of 15 items, over 4 domains. Principal Conclusions: The authors hope inclusion of these core outcomes in future trials will increase the value of research on interventions for CRS in adults. It was felt important to make recommendations regarding how these outcomes should be measured, although additional work is now required to further develop and revalidate existing outcome measures