Search

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of the Rural Research Capacity Building Program on self‐reported research experience of rural health workers. Design: A repeat cross‐sectional study design was used to assess self‐reported research experience at the commencement and completion of a novice researcher development program. Setting: Candidates in the Rural Research Capacity Building Program are health workers employed in the rural NSW public health service who have not completed research higher degrees. Participants: One hundred and thirty candidates of the Rural Research Capacity Building Program from the 2006 to 2013 cohorts were participated. Interventions: The Rural Research Capacity Building Program is an experiential learning program in which candidates gain research experience by undertaking a new, self‐selected, local health service endorsed research project over a 2‐year period, supported by 10 days face‐to‐face teaching, weekly teleconferencing and mentoring. Main outcome measures: Change in self‐assessed research experience using a validated 10‐item measurement tool known as the Research Spider which measures 10 domains of research experience. Results: Reported research experience demonstrated statistically significant increases across all 10 domains of research experience. The largest change was 'writing and presenting a research report' and 'writing a research protocol'. Conclusions: Significant increases in Research Spider results across all 10 domains demonstrated that completing the Rural Research Capacity Building Program significantly improves self‐assessed research experience. Rural health workers who are experienced and confident to undertake research are more capable of studying health problems and finding solutions unique to the rural setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To determine whether single-leg squats identify ability to negotiate stairs in older adults at a rural hospital. Design Cross-sectional analytical study. Setting Acute wards and emergency department of a rural hospital in Australia. Participants A systematic sample of 143 older adults (72 men, 71 women, 80.0 ± 6.8 years) from the emergency department or acute wards of Shoalhaven Hospital referred for a physiotherapy mobility assessment. Measurements Ability to complete up to three single-leg squats and negotiate up to three steps were measured. Covariates and demographic variables were collected. Results The squat test had 86% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value, and 49% negative predictive value in correctly identifying stair negotiation ability. Participants who could complete single-leg squats were 57 times more likely to be able to independently negotiate stairs than participants who could not complete squats. Multivariate regression analysis indicated that walker use, pain severity and whether participants lived alone were significant and independent predictors of ability to negotiate stairs independently. Conclusion Single-leg squats may be an accurate identifier of stair negotiation ability in older adults admitted to the hospital for an acute illness or injury. A traditional stairs assessment would be required if older adults were unable to complete the squat test or had moderate to severe pain, used a walker to ambulate, or did not live alone. The squat test is a potentially more-efficient assessment tool than traditional stair assessments in determining an individual's ability to negotiate stairs and suitability for discharge where poor mobility is a problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How often, as clinicians, do we see a really clever idea implemented in the workplace? In rural health in particular, creative work-around solutions are relatively commonplace. However, the evaluation and promotion of these ideas is less so, and this leads to lost opportunities for perpetuating these clever ideas. This paper explores one rural clinician's experience of what can happen if, instead of appreciating and complementing a great idea, that step of evaluating the great idea is taken. A reflective narrative was created, beginning with a corridor conversation ('What a great idea! Someone should evaluate that. . .'), continuing through a formal research project and ending with the impact of that project and the way its findings were communicated and implemented. The narrative outlines the effect of evaluating one great idea at the individual, workplace, organisational, state and national levels. Clinicians are well placed to identify great ideas in practice. Making the decision to evaluate these ideas can lead to personal growth, professional discovery and organisational benefits. With motivation and organisational support, who knows where evaluation may lead?. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]