The prevention and management of constipation in older adults in a residential aged care facility

The need to implement programs for developing leadership and practice improvement skills using an evidence-based practice approach to practice change is becoming more apparent in the health and aged care services. This is no more apparent than in high care residential health and aged care services, where health professionals are increasingly required to provide care for older people with multifocal and complex healthcare needs. This paper describes one of the projects undertaken as part of the Joanna Briggs Institute Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing Clinical Aged Care Fellowship program from February 2005 to June 2005. This purpose of this particular project was twofold. First it sought to improve the local practice in the prevention and management of constipation and that this practice was performed according to the best available evidence. Second to use the Joanna Briggs Institute Practical Application of Clinical Guidance (PACES) program to implement a process of audit and feedback as a strategy to improve practice. The project was designed to link in with the facility's existing quality improvement program and better practice continence management project. The project was conducted over 6?months and was divided into six stages involving the identification of evidence-based standards of care, an initial audit to determine appropriate sample size, a clinical audit across the facility, planning of the implementation process, implementation of the action plan and re-audit to assess practice change. Overall, the results were extremely positive and demonstrated a real improvement in practice relating to constipation in the project facility. This success, however, needs to be seen in the context of the benefits of having the support of senior management, an existing quality improvement and continence management better practice project, and a culture of clinical review. Although there will always be more work to be done, the success of this project can be viewed in terms of the improvements gained and the long-term benefits for the facility and the organisation using the time-efficient audit and feedback strategy.     

Rating the strength of scientific evidence: relevance for quality improvement programs.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize an extensive review of systems for grading the quality of research articles and rating the strength of bodies of evidence, and to highlight for health professionals and decision-makers concerned with quality measurement and improvement the available "best practices" tools by which these steps can be accomplished. DESIGN: Drawing on an extensive review of checklists, questionnaires, and other tools in the field of evidence-based practice, this paper discusses clinical, management, and policy rationales for rating strength of evidence in a quality improvement context, and documents best practices methods for these tasks. RESULTS: After review of 121 systems for grading the quality of articles, 19 systems, mostly STUDY DESIGN: specific, met a priori scientific standards for grading systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and diagnostic tests; eight systems (of 40 reviewed) met similar standards for rating the overall strength of evidence. All can be used as is or adapted for particular types of evidence reports or systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Formally grading study quality and rating overall strength of evidence, using sound instruments and procedures, can produce reasonable levels of confidence about the science base for parts of quality improvement programs. With such information, health care professionals and administrators concerned with quality improvement can understand better the level of science (versus only clinical consensus or opinion) that supports practice guidelines, review criteria, and assessments that feed into quality assurance and improvement programs. New systems are appearing and research is needed to confirm the conceptual and practical underpinnings of these grading and rating systems, but the need for those developing systematic reviews, practice guidelines, and quality or audit criteria to understand and undertake these steps is becoming increasingly clear.     

Clinical governance: bridging the gap between managerial and clinical approaches to quality of care.

Clinical governance has been introduced as a new approach to quality improvement in the UK national health service. This article maps clinical governance against a discussion of the four main approaches to measuring and improving quality of care: quality assessment, quality assurance, clinical audit, and quality improvement (including continuous quality improvement). Quality assessment underpins each approach. Whereas clinical audit has, in general, been professionally led, managers have driven quality improvement initiatives. Quality assurance approaches have been perceived to be externally driven by managers or to involve professional inspection. It is discussed how clinical governance seeks to bridge these approaches. Clinical governance allows clinicians in the UK to lead a comprehensive strategy to improve quality within provider organisations, although with an expectation of greatly increased external accountability. Clinical governance aims to bring together managerial, organisational, and clinical approaches to improving quality of care. If successful, it will define a new type of professionalism for the next century. Failure by the professions to seize the opportunity is likely to result in increasingly detailed external control of clinical activity in the UK, as has occurred in some other countries.     

Advance care planning for residents in aged care facilities: what is best practice and how can evidence-based guidelines be implemented?

Background Advance care planning in a residential care setting aims to assist residents to make decisions about future healthcare and to improve end-of-life care through medical and care staff knowing and respecting the wishes of the resident. The process enables individuals and others who are important to them, to reflect on what is important to the resident including their beliefs/values and preferences about care when they are dying. This paper describes a project conducted as part of the Joanna Briggs Institute Clinical Aged Care Fellowship Program implemented at the Manningham Centre in metropolitan Melbourne in a unit providing services for 46 low and high care residents. Objectives The objectives of the study were to document implementation of best practice in advance care planning in a residential aged care facility using a cycle of audit, feedback and re-audit cycle audit with a clinical audit software program, the Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System. The evidence-based guidelines found in 'Guidelines for a Palliative Approach in Residential Aged Care' were used to inform the process of clinical practice review and to develop a program to implement advance care planning. Results The pre-implementation audit results showed that advance care planning practice was not based on high level evidence as initial compliance with five audit criteria was 0%. The barriers to implementation that became apparent during the feedback stage included the challenge of creating a culture where advance care planning policy, protocols and guidelines could be implemented, and advance care planning discussions held, by adequately prepared health professionals and carers. Opportunities were made to equip the resident to discuss their wishes with family, friends and healthcare staff. Some residents made the decision to take steps to formally document those wishes and/or appoint a Medical Enduring Power of Attorney to act on behalf of the resident when they are unable to communicate wishes. The post-implementation audit showed a clear improvement as compliance ranged from 15-100% for the five audit criteria. Strong leadership by the project team was effective in engaging staff in this quality improvement program. Conclusion The outcomes of the project were extremely positive and demonstrate a genuine improvement in practice. All audit criteria indicate that the Manningham Centre is now positively working towards improved practice based on the best available evidence. It is hoped that as the expertise developed during this project is shared, other areas of gerontological practice will be similarly improved and more facilities caring for the older person will embrace evidence-based practice.     

Implementation of a glucose management protocol to prevent hypo- and hyperglycaemia in critically ill patients

Background Many healthcare providers acknowledge the importance of encouraging health professionals to base their practice on current evidence. There is a plethora of evidence supporting tight glucose control in critically ill patients to reduce mortality and morbidity and many studies have shown that hyperglycaemia in critically ill patients has been associated with an increased susceptibility to infection and impaired immune response. Methods This project aimed to improve current practice in the prevention and management of hypo- and hyperglycaemia in critically ill patients based on the best available evidence. The setting for the project was a large public hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, with an 11 bed tertiary referral intensive care unit (ICU) for critically ill adult patients. A pre-implementation audit using a set of evidence-based criteria from a systematic review on tight glucose control in critically ill patients was undertaken. The Joanna Briggs Institute on-line audit and feedback software, paces (Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System), was used to analyse the data to determine ICU's current compliance with established best practice in glucose management. These initial audit results were used to develop an action plan to improve glucose management practice within the unit. This included the development and implementation of a glucose management protocol, the identification of barriers and facilitators and education of clinical staff. Following the implementation of this protocol a post-implementation audit was conducted using the same criteria as in the initial audit. Results The post audit findings indicated improvement in most areas of glucose management practice within the ICU. Conclusion The success of this project is not only evident through improved ICU glucose management practice over 12?weeks, but also through clinicians gaining experience in the process of utilising evidence-based recommendations in all areas of practice.     

Quality assurance and quality improvement in medical practice. Part 3: Clinical audit in medical practice

The first two articles in the series were about the definition of quality in healthcare, the quality approach, the importance of quality assurance, the advantages of quality management systems and the basic concepts and necessity of evidence based medicine. In the third article the importance and basic steps of clinical audit are summarised. Clinical audit is an integral part of quality assurance and quality improvement in healthcare, that is the responsibility of any practitioner involved in medical practice. Clinical audit principally measures the clinical practice against clinical guidelines, protocols and other professional standards, and sometimes induces changes to ensure that all patients receive care according to principles of the best practice. The clinical audit can be defined also as a quality improvement process that seeks to identify areas for service improvement, develop and carry out plans and actions to improve medical activity and then by re-audit to ensure that these changes have an effect. Therefore, its aims are both to stimulate quality improvement interventions and to assess their impact in order to develop clinical effectiveness. At the end of the article key points of quality assurance and improvement in medical practice are summarised.     

Using perinatal audit to promote change: a review

Close to half of all infant deaths world-wide now occur in the first week of life, almost all in developing countries, and the perinatal mortality rate (PNMR) is used as an indicator of the quality of health service delivery. Clinical audit aims to improve quality of care through the systematic assessment of practice against a defined standard, with a view to recommending and implementing measures to address specific deficiencies in care. Perinatal outcome audit evaluates crude or cause-specific PNMRs, reviewing secular trends over several years or comparing rates between similar institutions. However, the PNMR may not be a valid, reliable and sensitive indicator of quality of care at the institutional level in developing countries because of variations in the presenting case-mix, various confounding non-health service factors and the small number of deaths which occur. Process audit compares actual practice with standard (best) practice, based on the evidence of research or expert consensus. Databases reviewing the management of reproductive health problems in developing countries are currently being prepared so as to provide clinicians and health service managers with up-to-date information to support the provision of evidence-based care. Standard practice should be adapted and defined in explicit management guidelines, taking into account local resources and circumstances. Forms of process audit include the review of care procedures in cases which have resulted in a pre-defined adverse outcome, know as 'sentinel event audit'; and the review of all cases where a particular care activity was received or indicated, known as 'topic audit'. These are complementary and each depends on the quality of recorded data. The forum for comparing observed practice with the standard may be external, utilising an 'expert committee', or internal, in which care providers audit their own activities. Local internal audit is more likely to result in improvements in care if it is conducted in a structured and culturally sensitive way, and if all levels of staff are involved in reviewing activities and in formulating recommendations. However, further research is needed to identify the factors which determine the effectiveness and sustainability of perinatal audit in different developing country settings.     

Effects of continuing medical education on improving physician clinical care and patient health: a review of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES: The objective of physician continuing medical education (CME) is to help them keep abreast of advances in patient care, to accept new more-beneficial care, and discontinue use of existing lower-benefit diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. The goal of this review was to examine effectiveness of current CME tools and techniques in changing physician clinical practices and improving patient health outcomes. METHODS: Results of published systematic reviews were examined to determine the spectrum from most- to least-effective CME techniques. We searched multiple databases, from 1 January 1984 to 30 October 2004, for English-language, peer-reviewed meta-analyses and other systematic reviews of CME programs that alter physician behavior and/or patient outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-six reviews met inclusion criteria, that is, were either formal meta-analyses or other systematic reviews. Interactive techniques (audit/feedback, academic detailing/outreach, and reminders) are the most effective at simultaneously changing physician care and patient outcomes. Clinical practice guidelines and opinion leaders are less effective. Didactic presentations and distributing printed information only have little or no beneficial effect in changing physician practice. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the most-effective CME techniques have been proven, use of least-effective ones predominates. Such use of ineffective CME likely reduces patient care quality and raises costs for all, the worst of both worlds.     

Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives

A consistent finding in articles on quality improvement in health care is that change is difficult to achieve. According to the research literature, the majority of interventions are targeted at health care professionals. But success in achieving change may be influenced by factors other than those relating to individual professionals, and theories may help explain whether change is possible. This article argues for a more systematic use of theories in planning and evaluating quality-improvement interventions in clinical practice. It demonstrates how different theories can be used to generate testable hypotheses regarding factors that influence the implementation of change, and it shows how different theoretical assumptions lead to different quality-improvement strategies.     

Compliance with best practice: implementing the best available evidence in the use of physical restraint in residential aged care

The Aged Care Clinical Fellowship, funded by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing and conducted through the Joanna Briggs Institute is an initiative designed to improve the care of older Australians through clinical leadership and promotion of best practice. This paper outlines one of the projects undertaken at Carinya of Bicton, a residential aged high care facility, using an audit and feedback process to implement best practice standards in the use of physical restraint. Aims Between 12% and 47% of residents in residential care facilities are restrained; however, initial observation of residents restrained in the project facility showed that restraint devices were utilised in up to 40% of residents. Within the aged care sector there has been a shift in attitude to reducing or eliminating restraint in aged care facilities. Restraint is seen as a negative experience for the resident, being associated with physical discomfort, embarrassment and restriction of freedom and of movement. The purpose of the project was to improve practice in the area of physical restraint through the process of auditing current practice against evidence-based, best practice criteria and ultimately to reduce the level of restraint in the facility. Methods This practice improvement project utilised an audit and implementation cycle. The Joanna Briggs Institute Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System and best practice criteria developed from a systematic review were used to determine compliance with best practice. The Getting Research into Practice module was then employed to develop strategies to improve practice. Results The follow-up audit indicated there has been a reduction in the number of residents restrained, increased use of alternatives to restraint and an awareness on the part of all care staff of the policies and procedures, which govern the use of restraint in the facility. Conclusions It is recognised that the success of this project is in part due to the focus of all staff in the area and the support and assistance given to staff by management and the project team. This support will need to continue because while practice has improved in the short term, there are still barriers to change in this area. Also of benefit has been a shift in emphasis of the continuous quality improvement program at the facility to a more clinical focus. Management and staff, especially members of the project team have agreed that this process be utilised to improve practice in a number of other areas such as falls, constipation and behaviour management.     

The role of oral health care professionals in preventing and managing obesity: A systematic review of current practices and perceived barriers

IntroductionThere is a growing interest to expand the role of oral health care professionals in obesity prevention and management. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence on current practices of, and perceived barriers to, oral health care professionals’ involvement in obesity screening and management.MethodsKey search strings were developed and used in seven databases from inception through February 6, 2019. Data were screened against inclusion criteria, independently extracted, and quality appraised by two reviewers based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.ResultsTen studies were included in this review. The practices of oral health care professionals in relation to obesity assessment, counseling, and specialist referrals were found to be very limited. Oral health care professionals believed in their role to support patients for achieving weight-loss goals, however just over one-third were trained in anthropometry. Perceived barriers included lack of time, limited knowledge or training, patients’ unwillingness to listen to oral health care professionals’ advice, and lack of appropriate specialist referrals.ConclusionOral health care professionals are well-positioned and supportive in undertaking healthy weight interventions in their clinical practice; however, their practices are limited due to barriers such as lack of time, limited training and lack of referrals.     

Clinical governance: a convincing strategy for quality improvement?

Clinical governance is a new policy introduced by the UK government to improve quality of care in the National Health Service; it imposes a "duty of quality" on all NHS organisations, and aims to bring together managerial, organisational and clinical approaches to improving quality of care. Infrastructures have been established to support quality improvement in NHS organisations and priorities for quality improvement have been established. Initial approaches are largely educational. However, information on quality of care is starting to be shared, and experiments are being conducted with a range of financial and contractual incentives for quality improvement. For widespread cultural change to occur, a "no blame" approach to quality improvement will be necessary; this may be incompatible with the need to identify and eliminate bad practice. Other tensions include the rapid pace of change being centrally driven and uneven development of the infrastructure to support clinical governance. What has not yet been shown is that quality of care has improved. It is too early to say this yet. Given the magnitude both of the vision and the work required, it is unlikely that change will be rapid, or seen on a widespread scale.     

What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review

Background  

Improving the quality of health care requires a range of evidence-based activities. Audit and feedback is commonly used as a quality improvement tool in the UK National Health Service [NHS]. We set out to assess whether current guidance and systematic review evidence can sufficiently inform practical decisions about how to use audit and feedback to improve quality of care.     

Transparency about internal audit results to reduce the supervisory burden: A qualitative study on the preconditions of sharing audit results

Many working hours of healthcare professionals are spent on administrative tasks. Administrative burden is caused by political choices, legislation, the requirements of health insurers and supervisors. Coordination between the parties involved, is lacking. Therefore, we studied to what extent sharing internal audit results of hospitals with external supervisors is possible and the necessary preconditions. We interviewed 42 individuals from six hospitals and the Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate.The interviewees expressed that there is no coordination in timing and content between internal audits and external supervision. They were in favour of sharing internal audit results with external supervisors to reduce the supervisory burden. They stated that internal audits give insight into quality problems and improvements, how hospital directors govern quality and safety, and the culture of improvement within healthcare provider teams. With this information, the inspectorate can judge to what extent hospitals are learning organisations. The interviewees mentioned the following preconditions for sharing audit results: reliable and risk-based information about quality and safety, collected by expert, trained auditors, and careful use of this information by the inspectorate in order to maintain openness among audited healthcare professionals.In conclusion, internal audit results can be shared conditionally with external supervisors. When internal audit results show that hospitals are open, learning and self-reflecting organisations, the healthcare inspectorate can reduce their supervisory burden.     

UNDERTAKING RESEARCH FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE RURAL COMMUNITY

ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the importance of disseminating clinical research findings to improve nursing practice and, ultimately, the health of rural Australia. It is argued that nursing in all settings must be practised within the context of changing healthcare trends. Currently, these changes include the restructuring of health services toward a greater emphasis on community-based services, a redirection of the focus of care toward population health rather than hospital-based service provision, multidisciplinary clinical decision-making with the community as partner, and the need for all health professionals to maintain fiscal and clinical accountability. To chart the process and outcomes of care in these changing circumstances requires ongoing, systematic research. The global movement toward evidence-based healthcare practice is thus timely and necessary. In order to provide a foundation for evidence-based practice that will demonstrate quality, efficiency, effectiveness and community acceptability, employers must address both infrastructure and educational needs. Educators must be responsive to changes in the organisation and funding of care. Also both groups must work collaboratively toward ensuring dissemination of research information that will make a difference to patient and community outcomes. The key to success is ongoing communication between employers, educators, practitioners in the field, community members and professional organisations so that research findings can be analysed in simple language that increases utility and that provides a forum for valuing information from all sources.     

MAAGs (Medical Audit Advisory Groups): the Eli Lilly National Clinical Audit Centre

Outlines the framework for promoting audit in general practice, created as one part of the health service reforms. Medical Audit Advisory Groups (MAAGs) were set up in each district with the aim of participation in audit of all general practitioners by April 1992. The activities undertaken have included those recommended by the Department of Health; the most significant of these being the appointment of lay facilitators who are able to assist general practitioners and primary care teams co-operate over efforts to improve the quality of care, and may offer one means of introducing some of the methods of total quality management into general practice. Discusses the problems which remain: audit is not yet sufficiently systematic, interface audit with secondary care is at a very early stage, the ways to involve managers and patients in audit remain to be clarified, and there is little evidence of the consequences of audit in terms of improved care. The Eli Lilly National Clinical Audit Centre has been set up within the Department of General Practice, University of Leicester, in order to address these issues.     

Is audit research? The relationships between clinical audit and social-research

PURPOSE: Quality has an established history in health care. Audit, as a means of quality assessment, is well understood and the existing literature has identified links between audit and research processes. This paper reviews the relationships between audit and research processes, highlighting how audit can be improved through the principles and practice of social research. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The review begins by defining the audit process. It goes on to explore salient relationships between clinical audit and research, grouped into the following broad themes: ethical considerations, highlighting responsibilities towards others and the need for ethical review for audit; asking questions and using appropriate methods, emphasising transparency in audit methods; conceptual issues, including identifying problematic concepts, such as "satisfaction", and the importance of reflexivity within audit; emphasising research in context, highlighting the benefits of vignettes and action research; complementary methods, demonstrating improvements for the quality of findings; and training and multidisciplinary working, suggesting the need for closer relationships between researchers and clinical practitioners. FINDINGS: Audit processes cannot be considered research. Both audit and research processes serve distinct purposes. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Attention to the principles of research when conducting audit are necessary to improve the quality of audit and, in turn, the quality of health care.     

Reviewing audit: barriers and facilitating factors for effective clinical audit.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the benefits and disadvantages of clinical and medical audit, and to assess the main facilitators and barriers to conducting the audit process. DESIGN: A comprehensive literature review was undertaken through a thorough review of Medline and CINAHL databases using the keywords of "audit", "audit of audits", and "evaluation of audits" and a handsearch of the indexes of relevant journals for key papers. RESULTS: Findings from 93 publications were reviewed. These ranged from single case studies of individual audit projects through retrospective reviews of departmental audit programmes to studies of interface projects between primary and secondary care. The studies reviewed incorporated the experiences of a wide variety of clinicians, from medical consultants to professionals allied to medicine and from those involved in unidisciplinary and multidisciplinary ventures. Perceived benefits of audit included improved communication among colleagues and other professional groups, improved patient care, increased professional satisfaction, and better administration. Some disadvantages of audit were perceived as diminished clinical ownership, fear of litigation, hierarchical and territorial suspicions, and professional isolation. The main barriers to clinical audit can be classified under five main headings. These are lack of resources, lack of expertise or advice in project design and analysis, problems between groups and group members, lack of an overall plan for audit, and organisational impediments. Key facilitating factors to audit were also identified: they included modern medical records systems, effective training, dedicated staff, protected time, structured programmes, and a shared dialogue between purchasers and providers. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical audit can be a valuable assistance to any programme which aims to improve the quality of health care and its delivery. Yet without a coherent strategy aimed at nurturing effective audits, valuable opportunities will be lost. Paying careful attention to the professional attitudes highlighted in this review may help audit to deliver on some of its promise.     

The updated clinical guideline development process in Estonia is an efficient method for developing evidence-based guidelines

Clinical practice guidelines are one of the tools available to improve the quality of health care. However, it may be difficult for countries to develop their own national guidelines “from scratch” because of limitations in time, expertise, and financial resources. The Estonian Health Insurance Fund (EHIF), in collaboration with other stakeholders, has launched a national effort to develop and implement evidence-based clinical practice guidelines aimed at improving the quality of care. Although the first EHIF handbook for preparing guidelines was published in 2004, there has been wide variation in the format and quality of guidelines prepared by medical specialty societies, EHIF, and other organizations in Estonia. An additional challenge to guideline development in Estonia is that it is a country with limited human resources. Therefore, revision of the Estonian guideline process was aimed at developing an efficient method for adapting current high-quality guidelines to the Estonian setting without compromising their quality. In 2010, a comprehensive assessment of guideline development in Estonia was made by the World Health Organization, EHIF, the Medical Faculty at the University of Tartu, and selected national and international experts in an effort to streamline and harmonize the principles and processes of guideline development in Estonia. This study summarizes the evaluation of and revisions to the process. Estonia has made substantial changes in its processes of clinical practice guideline development and implementation as part of an overall program aiming for systematic quality improvement in health care. This experience may be relevant to other small or resource-limited countries.