Scientists in Control: a progressive approach to preparing work ready graduates in QC, EQA and method evaluation

Introduction QC, EQA and method evaluation are integral to delivery of quality patient results. To ensure QUT graduates have a solid grounding in these key areas of practice, a theory-to-practice approach is used to progressively develop and consolidate these skills. Methods Using a BCG assay for serum albumin, each student undertakes an eight week project analysing two levels of QC alongside ‘patient’ samples. Results are assessed using both single rules and Multirules. Concomitantly with the QC analyses, an EQA project is undertaken; students analyse two EQA samples, twice in the semester. Results are submitted using cloud software and data for the full ‘peer group’ returned to students in spreadsheets and incomplete Youden plots. Youden plots are completed with target values and calculated ALP values and analysed for ‘lab’ and method performance. The method has a low-level positive bias, which leads to the need to investigate an alternative method. Building directly on the EQA of the first project and using the scenario of a lab that services renal patients, students undertake a method validation comparing BCP and BCG assays in another eight-week project. Precision and patient comparison studies allow students to assess whether the BCP method addresses the proportional bias of the BCG method and overall is a ‘better’ alternative method for analysing serum albumin, accounting for pragmatic factors, such as cost, as well as performance characteristics. Results Students develop understanding of the purpose and importance of QC and EQA in delivering quality results, the need to optimise testing to deliver quality results and importantly, a working knowledge of the analyses that go into ensuring this quality. In parallel to developing these key workplace competencies, students become confident, competent practitioners, able to pipette accurately and precisely and organise themselves in a busy, time pressured work environment.

Dark-energy constraints and correlations with systematics from CFHTLS weak lensing, SNLS supernovae Ia and WMAP5

Aims We combine measurements of weak gravitational lensing from the CFHTLS-Wide survey, supernovae Ia from CFHT SNLS and CMB anisotropies from WMAP5 to obtain joint constraints on cosmological parameters, in particular, the dark-energy equation-of-state parameter w. We assess the influence of systematics in the data on the results and look for possible correlations with cosmological parameters. Methods We implemented an MCMC algorithm to sample the parameter space of a flat CDM model with a dark-energy component of constant w. Systematics in the data are parametrised and included in the analysis. We determine the influence of photometric calibration of SNIa data on cosmological results by calculating the response of the distance modulus to photometric zero-point variations. The weak lensing data set is tested for anomalous field-to-field variations and a systematic shape measurement bias for high-redshift galaxies. Results Ignoring photometric uncertainties for SNLS biases cosmological parameters by at most 20% of the statistical errors, using supernovae alone; the parameter uncertainties are underestimated by 10%. The weak-lensing field-to-field variance between 1 deg2-MegaCam pointings is 5-15% higher than predicted from N-body simulations. We find no bias in the lensing signal at high redshift, within the framework of a simple model, and marginalising over cosmological parameters. Assuming a systematic underestimation of the lensing signal, the normalisation increases by up to 8%. Combining all three probes we obtain -0.10 < 1 + w < 0.06 at 68% confidence ( -0.18 < 1 + w < 0.12 at 95%), including systematic errors. Our results are therefore consistent with the cosmological constant . Systematics in the data increase the error bars by up to 35%; the best-fit values change by less than 0.15.

Frequency of dressing changes for central venous access devices on catheter-related infections

Background People admitted to intensive care units and those with chronic health care problems often require long-term vascular access. Central venous access devices (CVADs) are used for administering intravenous medications and blood sampling. CVADs are covered with a dressing and secured with an adhesive or adhesive tape to protect them from infection and reduce movement. Dressings are changed when they become soiled with blood or start to come away from the skin. Repeated removal and application of dressings can cause damage to the skin. The skin is an important barrier that protects the body against infection. Less frequent dressing changes may reduce skin damage, but it is unclear whether this practice affects the frequency of catheter-related infections. Objectives To assess the effect of the frequency of CVAD dressing changes on the incidence of catheter-related infections and other outcomes including pain and skin damage. Search methods In June 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched clinical trials registries for registered trials. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of the frequency of CVAD dressing changes on the incidence of catheter-related infections on all patients in any healthcare setting. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane review methodology. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, performed risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We undertook meta-analysis where appropriate or otherwise synthesised data descriptively when heterogeneous. Main results We included five RCTs (2277 participants) that compared different frequencies of CVAD dressing changes. The studies were all conducted in Europe and published between 1995 and 2009. Participants were recruited from the intensive care and cancer care departments of one children's and four adult hospitals. The studies used a variety of transparent dressings and compared a longer interval between dressing changes (5 to15 days; intervention) with a shorter interval between changes (2 to 5 days; control). In each study participants were followed up until the CVAD was removed or until discharge from ICU or hospital. - Confirmed catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) One trial randomised 995 people receiving central venous catheters to a longer or shorter interval between dressing changes and measured CRBSI. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of CRBSI between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 4.98) (low quality evidence). - Suspected catheter-related bloodstream infection Two trials randomised a total of 151 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured suspected CRBSI. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of suspected CRBSI between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.10) (low quality evidence). - All cause mortality Three trials randomised a total of 896 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured all cause mortality. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of death from any cause between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25) (low quality evidence). - Catheter-site infection Two trials randomised a total of 371 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured catheter-site infection. It is unclear whether there is a difference in risk of catheter-site infection between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.63) (low quality evidence). - Skin damage One small trial (112 children) and three trials (1475 adults) measured skin damage. There was very low quality evidence for the effect of long intervals between dressing changes on skin damage compared with short intervals (children: RR of scoring ≥ 2 on the skin damage scale 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.68; data for adults not pooled). - Pain Two studies involving 193 participants measured pain. It is unclear if there is a difference between long and short interval dressing changes on pain during dressing removal (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.38) (low quality evidence). Authors' conclusions The best available evidence is currently inconclusive regarding whether longer intervals between CVAD dressing changes are associated with more or less catheter-related infection, mortality or pain than shorter intervals.