Search

Action Learning is now a well established strategy for reflective inquiry in healthcare. Whilst a great deal is know about action learning there has been inadequate research on the process of learning that takes place, and the impact that this holds for individuals, groups or organisations. This article reports on the findings of 15-month action learning program based in a special care nursery. A realistic evaluation of the program uncovered individual and group journeys and provide evidence that action learning is an effective strategy in practice development. (Contains 2 tables and 1 figure.)

Background: People who live in aged care homes have high rates of illness and frailty. Providing evidence-based care to this population is vital to ensure the highest possible quality of life.Objective: In this study (CareTrack Aged, CT Aged), we aimed to develop a comprehensive set of clinical indicators for guideline-adherent, appropriate care of commonly managed conditions and processes in aged care.Methods: Indicators were formulated from recommendations found through systematic searches of Australian and international clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Experts reviewed the indicators using a multiround modified Delphi process to develop a consensus on what constitutes appropriate care.Results: From 139 CPGs, 5609 recommendations were used to draft 630 indicators. Clinical experts (n = 41) reviewed the indicators over two rounds. A final set of 236 indicators resulted, mapped to 16 conditions and processes of care. The conditions and processes were admission assessment; bladder and bowel problems; cognitive impairment; depression; dysphagia and aspiration; end of life/palliative care; hearing and vision; infection; medication; mobility and falls; nutrition and hydration; oral and dental care; pain; restraint use; skin integrity and sleep.Conclusions: The suite of CT Aged clinical indicators can be used for research and assessment of the quality of care in individual facilities and across organizations to guide improvement and to supplement regulation or accreditation of the aged care sector. They are a step forward for Australian and international aged care sectors, helping to improve transparency so that the level of care delivered to aged care consumers can be rigorously monitored and continuously improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of the study was to develop and test an instrument, underpinned by a recognized theoretical framework, that examines how staff perceive person-centred practice, using proven methods of instrument design and psychometric analysis.Design: The study used a mixed method multiphase research design involving: two Delphi studies to agree definitions and items to measure the constructs aligned to the person-centred practice theoretical framework (Phase 1); and a large-scale quantitative cross-sectional survey (Phase 2).Setting: Phase 1 was an international study involving representatives from seven countries across Europe and Australia, with Phase 2 conducted in one country across five organizations.Participants: Two international panels of experts (n = 33) in person-centred practice took part in the Delphi study and a randomly selected sample of registered nurses (n = 703, 23.8%) drawn from across a wide range of clinical settings completed the Person-centred Practice Inventory - Staff (PCPI-S).Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome is to establish a measure of staff perceptions of person-centred Practice.Results: Broad consensus on definitions relating to 17 constructs drawn from a person-centred practice framework was achieved after two rounds; likewise with the generation of 108 items to measure the constructs; a final instrument comprising 59 items with proven psychometric properties was achieved.Conclusions: The PCPI-S is psychometrically acceptable instrument validated by an international expert panel that maps specifically to a theoretical framework for person-centred practice and provides a generic measure of person-centredness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PARLOUR R and MCCORMACK B. Nursing Inquiry 2012; 19: 308-321 Blending critical realist and emancipatory practice development methodologies: making critical realism work in nursing research This paper examines the efficacy of facilitation as a practice development intervention in changing practice within an Older Person setting and in implementing evidence into practice. It outlines the influences exerted by the critical realist paradigm in guiding emancipatory practice development activities and, in particular, how the former may be employed within an emancipatory practice development study to elucidate and increase understanding pertinent to causation and outcomes. The methodology is based upon an emancipatory practice development approach set within a realistic evaluation framework. This allows for systematic analysis of the social and contextual elements that influence the explication of outcomes associated with facilitation. The study is concentrated upon five practice development cycles, within which a sequence of iterative processes is integrated. The authors assert that combining critical realist and emancipatory processes offers a robust and practical method for translating evidence and implementing changes in practice, as the former affirms or falsifies the influence that emancipatory processes exert on attaining culture shift, and enabling transformation towards effective clinical practice. A new framework for practice development is proposed that establishes methodological coherency between emancipatory practice development and realistic evaluation. This augments the existing theoretical bases for both these approaches by contributing new theoretical and methodological understandings of causation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study estimated the prevalence of evidence-based care received by a population-based sample of Australian residents in long-term care (LTC) aged ≥ 65 years in 2021, measured by adherence to clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations., Methods: Sixteen conditions/processes of care amendable to estimating evidence-based care at a population level were identified from prevalence data and CPGs. Candidate recommendations (n = 5609) were extracted from 139 CPGs which were converted to indicators. National experts in each condition rated the indicators via the RAND-UCLA Delphi process. For the 16 conditions, 236 evidence-based care indicators were ratified. A multi-stage sampling of LTC facilities and residents was undertaken. Trained aged-care nurses then undertook manual structured record reviews of care delivered between 1 March and 31 May 2021 (our record review period) to assess adherence with the indicators., Results: Care received by 294 residents with 27,585 care encounters in 25 LTC facilities was evaluated. Residents received care for one to thirteen separate clinical conditions/processes of care (median = 10, mean = 9.7). Adherence to evidence-based care indicators was estimated at 53.2% (95% CI: 48.6, 57.7) ranging from a high of 81.3% (95% CI: 75.6, 86.3) for Bladder and Bowel to a low of 12.2% (95% CI: 1.6, 36.8) for Depression. Six conditions (skin integrity, end-of-life care, infection, sleep, medication, and depression) had less than 50% adherence with indicators., Conclusions: This is the first study of adherence to evidence-based care for people in LTC using multiple conditions and a standardised method. Vulnerable older people are not receiving evidence-based care for many physical problems, nor care to support their mental health nor for end-of-life care. The six conditions in which adherence with indicators was less than 50% could be the focus of improvement efforts., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Palliative and end-of-life care in care homes is often inadequate, despite high morbidity and mortality. Residents can experience uncontrolled symptoms, poor quality deaths and avoidable hospitalisations. Care home staff can feel unsupported to look after residents at the end of life. Approaches for improving end-of-life care are often education-focused, do not triage residents and rarely integrate clinical care. This study will adapt an evidence-based approach from Australia for the UK context called 'Palliative Care Needs Rounds' (Needs Rounds). Needs Rounds combine triaging, anticipatory person-centred planning, case-based education and case-conferencing; the Australian studies found that Needs Rounds reduce length of stay in hospital, and improve dying in preferred place of care, and symptoms at the end of life., Methods and Analysis: This implementation science study will codesign and implement a scalable UK model of Needs Rounds. The Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework will be used to identify contextual barriers and use facilitation to enable successful implementation. Six palliative care teams, working with 4-6 care homes each, will engage in two phases. In phase 1 (February 2021), stakeholder interviews (n=40) will be used to develop a programme theory to meet the primary outcome of identifying what works, for whom in what circumstances for UK Needs Rounds. Subsequently a workshop to codesign UK Needs Rounds will be run. Phase 2 (July 2021) will implement the UK model for a year. Prospective data collection will focus on secondary outcomes regarding hospitalisations, residents' quality of death and care home staff capability of adopting a palliative approach., Ethics and Dissemination: Frenchay Research Ethics Committee (287447) approved the study. Findings will be disseminated to policy-makers, care home/palliative care practitioners, residents/relatives and academic audiences. An implementation package will be developed for practitioners to provide the tools and resources required to adopt UK Needs Rounds., Registration Details: Registration details: ISRCTN15863801., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Not required., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)