Assessment of variation in the alberta context tool : the contribution of unit level contextual factors and practice specialty in Canadian pediatric acute care settings

Background: There are few validated measures of organizational context and none that we located are parsimonious and address modifiable characteristics of context. The Alberta Context Tool (ACT) was developed to meet this need. The instrument assesses 8 dimensions of context, which comprise 10 concepts. The purpose of this paper is to report evidence to further the validity argument for ACT. The specific objectives of this paper are to: (1) examine the extent to which the 10 ACT concepts discriminate between patient care units and (2) identify variables that significantly contribute to between-unit variation for each of the 10 concepts.

Methods: 859 professional nurses (844 valid responses) working in medical, surgical and critical care units of 8 Canadian pediatric hospitals completed the ACT. A random intercept, fixed effects hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) strategy was used to quantify and explain variance in the 10 ACT concepts to establish the ACT’s ability to discriminate between units. We ran 40 models (a series of 4 models for each of the 10 concepts) in which we systematically assessed the unique contribution (i.e., error variance reduction) of different variables to between-unit variation. First, we constructed a null model in which we quantified the variance overall, in each of the concepts. Then we controlled for the contribution of individual level variables (Model 1). In Model 2, we assessed the contribution of practice specialty (medical, surgical, critical care) to variation since it was central to construction of the sampling frame for the study. Finally, we assessed the contribution of additional unit level variables (Model 3).

Results: The null model (unadjusted baseline HLM model) established that there was significant variation between units in each of the 10 ACT concepts (i.e., discrimination between units). When we controlled for individual characteristics, significant variation in the 10 concepts remained. Assessment of the contribution of specialty to between-unit variation enabled us to explain more variance (1.19% to 16.73%) in 6 of the 10 ACT concepts. Finally, when we assessed the unique contribution of the unit level variables available to us, we were able to explain additional variance (15.91% to 73.25%) in 7 of the 10 ACT concepts.

Conclusion: The findings reported here represent the third published argument for validity of the ACT and adds to the evidence supporting its use to discriminate patient care units by all 10 contextual factors. We found evidence of relationships between a variety of individual and unit-level variables that explained much of this between-unit variation for each of the 10 ACT concepts. Future research will include examination of the relationships between the ACT’s contextual factors and research utilization by nurses and ultimately the relationships between context, research utilization, and outcomes for patients.

Multifactorial influences on and deviations from medication administration safety and quality in the acute medical/surgical context

Background and Aims: Although numerous factors influence medication administration, our understanding of the interplay of these factors on medication quality and safety is limited. The aim of this study was to explore the multifactorial influences on medication quality and safety in the context of a single checking policy for medication administration in acute care.

Approach: An exploratory/descriptive study using non-participant observation and follow-up interview was used to identify factors influencing medication quality and safety in medication administration episodes (n = 30). Observations focused on nurses’ interactions with patients during medication administration, and the characteristics of the environment in which these took place. Confirmation of observed data occurred on completion of the observation period during short semi-structured interviews with participant nurses.

Findings: Findings showed nurses developed therapeutic relationships with patients in terms of assessing patients before administering medications and educating patients about drugs during medication administration. Nurses experienced more frequent distractions when medications were stored and prepared in a communal drug room according to ward design. Nurses deviated from best-practice guidelines during medication administration.

Implications: Nurses’ abilities and readiness to develop therapeutic relationships with patients increased medication quality and safety, thereby protecting patients from potential adverse events. Deviations from best-practice medication administration had the potential to decrease medication safety. System factors such as ward design determining medication storage areas can be readily addressed to minimise potential error.

Conclusions: Nurses displayed behaviours that increased medication administration quality and safety; however, violations of practice standards were observed. These findings will inform future intervention studies to improve medication quality and safety.

Early intervention with erythropoietin does not affect the outcome of acute kidney injury (the EARLYARF trial)

We performed a double-blind placebo-controlled trial to study whether early treatment with erythropoietin could prevent the development of acute kidney injury in patients in two general intensive care units. As a guide for choosing the patients for treatment we measured urinary levels of two biomarkers, the proximal tubular brush border enzymes γ-glutamyl transpeptidase and alkaline phosphatase. Randomization to either placebo or two doses of erythropoietin was triggered by an increase in the biomarker concentration product to levels above 46.3, with a primary outcome of relative average plasma creatinine increase from baseline over 4 to 7 days. Of 529 patients, 162 were randomized within an average of 3.5 h of a positive sample. There was no difference in the incidence of erythropoietin-specific adverse events or in the primary outcome between the placebo and treatment groups. The triggering biomarker concentration product selected patients with more severe illness and at greater risk of acute kidney injury, dialysis, or death; however, the marker elevations were transient. Early intervention with high-dose erythropoietin was safe but did not alter the outcome. Although these two urine biomarkers facilitated our early intervention, their transient increase compromised effective triaging. Further, our study showed that a composite of these two biomarkers was insufficient for risk stratification in a patient population with a heterogeneous onset of injury.

Coping with defeat : acute glucocorticoid and forebrain responses to social defeat vary with defeat episode behaviour

Individuals vary in the way in which they cope with stressful situations. It has been suggested that ‘active’ coping behaviour, characterised by aggression and territorial control, is more effective in moderating the stress associated with social defeat than ‘passive’ coping behaviour, as characterised by immobility, decreased reactivity, and low aggression. We used the rodent ‘resident/intruder’ paradigm to determine whether individual differences in coping behaviour modulate the acute adrenocortical response to social defeat. During the 10 min conflict episode, behaviours displayed by the intruder were recorded and subsequently scored. Intruders that engaged in large numbers of fights and/or frequently used physical structures to block the resident's approach (a behaviour referred to as ‘guarding’), displayed smaller corticosterone responses to defeat than other intruders. Corticosterone responses to defeat were unrelated to a measure of coping style preferences (defensive burying test) obtained prior to the defeat encounter. We further chose to investigate the neurobiological basis of this observation by comparing the patterns of defeat-induced neuronal activation in the forebrains of intruders that displayed high versus low numbers of defensive behaviours during the defeat episode. The results of this analysis indicated that ‘low fight’ and ‘low guard’ intruders, i.e. those that achieved a fight or a guard score below the 20th percentile, had significantly higher numbers of Fos-positive neurons in forebrain regions such as the medial prefrontal cortex and the amygdala than did control animals exposed to an empty resident's cage. In summary, the present data suggest that ‘active’ coping behaviour is associated with both a smaller adrenocortical response and a lower level of ‘neural activation’ following social defeat. This outcome differs from that of earlier studies, a difference that we suggest is due to the fact that the present study is the first to assess coping on the basis of behaviour actually displayed during the conflict interaction.