Search

Introduction: Vascular access devices (VADs), such as peripheral or central venous catheters, are vital across all medical and surgical specialties. To allow therapy or haemodynamic monitoring, VADs frequently require administration sets (AS) composed of infusion tubing, fluid containers, pressure-monitoring transducers and/or burettes. While VADs are replaced only when necessary, AS are routinely replaced every 3-4 days in the belief that this reduces infectious complications. Strong evidence supports AS use up to 4 days, but there is less evidence for AS use beyond 4 days. AS replacement twice weekly increases hospital costs and workload. Methods and analysis: This is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of equivalence design comparing AS replacement at 4 (control) versus 7 (experimental) days. Randomisation is stratified by site and device, centrally allocated and concealed until enrolment. 6554 adult/paediatric patients with a central venous catheter, peripherally inserted central catheter or peripheral arterial catheter will be enrolled over 4 years. The primary outcome is VAD-related bloodstream infection (BSI) and secondary outcomes are VAD colonisation, AS colonisation, all-cause BSI, all-cause mortality, number of AS per patient, VAD time in situ and costs. Relative incidence rates of VAD-BSI per 100 devices and hazard rates per 1000 device days (95% CIs) will summarise the impact of 7-day relative to 4-day AS use and test equivalence. Kaplan-Meier survival curves (with log rank Mantel-Cox test) will compare VAD-BSI over time. Appropriate parametric or non-parametric techniques will be used to compare secondary end points. p Values of <0.05 will be considered significant. Ethics and dissemination: Relevant ethical approvals have been received. CONSORT Statement recommendations will be used to guide preparation of any publication. Results will be presented at relevant conferences and sent to the major organisations with clinical practice guidelines for VAD care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the importance of rural internships to observed medical workforce distribution outcomes up to 8 years post-medical school., Design and Setting: Cohort study of medical graduates of The University of Queensland (UQ), Australia., Participants: UQ graduates who were medical interns in Queensland's public health system between 2014 and 2021 and observed working in Australia in 2022. Internship location was defined as being metropolitan or rural, along with other key rural exposures of whether they are of rural origin (childhood) and whether at least 1 year of clinical training at medical school was in a rural location., Primary Outcome Measure: Current work location was collected from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) in 2022, classified as either rural or metropolitan and measured in association with their internship location., Results: From 1930 eligible graduates, 21.5% took up a rural internship, which was associated with rural origin (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.0) and medical school rural immersions of either 1 year (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.1 to 3.7) or 2 years (OR 5.8, 95% CI 4.4 to 7.7). Completing a rural internship was associated with currently working rural (47% vs 14%, OR 4.6, 95% CI 3.5 to 5.9), which weakened the observed (adjusted) effect of rural origin (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.0) or medical school rural immersions (1 year: OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.9; 2 years: OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.3). All combinations of the key rural exposures that included rural internship had the highest proportions currently working rurally (range 32-69%) compared with the combinations with a metropolitan internship (range 12-22%)., Conclusions: Internship location appears to be a critical factor in shaping medical workforce distribution decisions. This evidence supports the need for strengthened and expanded rural training pathways after medical school. In particular, clearer pathways into specialty programmes via rural internships are likely to support increased numbers choosing (with confidence) to preference rural internship first and subsequently more working in rural areas long term., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Digital technology is increasingly being adopted within primary healthcare services to improve service delivery and health outcomes; however, the scope for digital innovation within primary care services in rural areas is currently unknown. This systematic review aims to synthesise existing research on the use and integration of digital health technology within primary care services for rural populations across the world., Methods and Analysis: A systematic approach to the search strategy will be conducted. Relevant medical and healthcare-focused electronic databases will be searched using key search terms between January 2013 and December 2023. Searches will be conducted using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. A systematic study selection and data extraction process will be implemented, using standardised templates. Outcomes will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses- Protocol statement guidelines. Quality assessment and risk of bias appraisal will be conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval will not be required because there is no individual patient data collected or reviewed. The finding of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Outcomes will help to understand existing knowledge and identify gaps in delivering digital healthcare services, while also providing potential future practice and policy recommendations., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42023477233., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: This study aims to determine the associations between specialty type and practice location at postgraduate year 10 (PGY10), matched with PGY5 and PGY8 work locations, and earlier rural exposure/experience., Design and Setting: A cohort study of medicine graduates from nine Australian universities., Participants: 1220 domestic medicine graduates from the class of 2011., Outcome Measures: Practice location recorded by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency in PGY10; matched graduate movement between PGYs 5, 8 and 10 as classified by the Modified Monash Model, stratified by specialty type (predominantly grouped as general practitioner (GP) or non-GP)., Results: At PGY10, two-thirds (820/1220) had achieved fellowship. GPs were 2.8 times more likely to be in non-metropolitan practice (28% vs 12%; 95% CI 2.0 to 4.0, p<0.001) than graduates with non-GP (all other) specialist qualifications. More than 70% (71.4%) of GPs who were in non-metropolitan practice in PGY5 remained there in both PGY8 and PGY10 versus 29.0% of non-GP specialists and 36.4% of non-fellowed graduates (p<0.001). The proportion of fellowed graduates observed in non-metropolitan practice was 14.9% at PGY5, 16.1% at PGY8 and 19.0% at PGY10, with this growth predominantly from non-GP specialists moving into non-metropolitan locations, following completion of metropolitan-based vocational training., Conclusions: There are strong differences in practice location patterns between specialty types, with few non-GP specialists remaining in non-metropolitan practice between PGY5 and PGY10. Our study reinforces the importance of rural training pathways to longer-term work location outcomes and the need to expand specialist vocational training which supports more rural training opportunities for trainees outside general practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)