A six-year descriptive analysis of hospitalisations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions among people born in refugee-source countries

Background: Hospitalisation for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSHs) has become a recognised tool to measure access to primary care. Timely and effective outpatient care is highly relevant to refugee populations given the past exposure to torture and trauma, and poor access to adequate health care in their countries of origin and during flight. Little is known about ACSHs among resettled refugee populations. With the aim of examining the hypothesis that people from refugee backgrounds have higher ACSHs than people born in the country of hospitalisation, this study analysed a six-year state-wide hospital discharge dataset to estimate ACSH rates for residents born in refugee-source countries and compared them with the Australia-born population. Methods: Hospital discharge data between 1 July 1998 and 30 June 2004 from the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset were used to assess ACSH rates among residents born in eight refugee-source countries, and compare them with the Australia-born average. Rate ratios and 95% confidence levels were used to illustrate these comparisons. Four categories of ambulatory care sensitive conditions were measured: total, acute, chronic and vaccine-preventable. Country of birth was used as a proxy indicator of refugee status. Results: When compared with the Australia-born population, hospitalisations for total and acute ambulatory care sensitive conditions were lower among refugee-born persons over the six-year period. Chronic and vaccine-preventable ACSHs were largely similar between the two population groups. Conclusion: Contrary to our hypothesis, preventable hospitalisation rates among people born in refugee-source countries were no higher than Australia-born population averages. More research is needed to elucidate whether low rates of preventable hospitalisation indicate better health status, appropriate health habits, timely and effective care-seeking behaviour and outpatient care, or overall low levels of health care-seeking due to other more pressing needs during the initial period of resettlement. It is important to unpack dimensions of health status and health care access in refugee populations through ad-hoc surveys as the refugee population is not a homogenous group despite sharing a common experience of forced displacement and violence-related trauma.

How do allied health professionals evaluate new models of care? What are we measuring and why?

The aim of this study was to identify what outcome measures or quality indicators are being used to evaluate advanced and new roles in nine allied health professions and whether the measures are evaluating outcomes of interest to the patient, the clinician, or the healthcare provider. A systematic search strategy was used. Medical and allied health databases were searched and relevant articles extracted. Relevant studies with at least 1 outcome measure were evaluated. A total of 106 articles were identified that described advanced roles, however, only 23 of these described an outcome measure in sufficient detail to be included for review. The majority of the reported measures fit into the economic and process categories. The most reported outcome related to patients was satisfaction surveys. Measures of patient health outcomes were infrequently reported. It is unclear from the studies evaluated whether new models of allied healthcare can be shown to be as safe and effective as traditional care for a given procedure. Outcome measures chosen to evaluate these services often reflect organizational need and not patient outcomes. Organizations need to ensure that high-quality performance measures are chosen to evaluate the success of new health service innovations. There needs to be a move away from in-house type surveys that add little or no valid evidence as to the effect of a new innovation. More importance needs to be placed on patient outcomes as a measure of the quality of allied health interventions.

(Mis)Using Pulse Oximetry : A Review of Pulse Oximetry use in Acute Care Medical Wards

Background: Nurses routinely use pulse oximetry (SpO2) monitoring equipment in acute care. Interpretation of the reading involves physical assessment and awareness of parameters including temperature, haemoglobin, and peripheral perfusion. However, there is little information on whether these clinical signs are routinely measured or used in pulse oximetry interpretation by nurses. Aim: The aim of this study was to review current practice of SpO2 measurement and the associated documentation of the physiological data that is required for accurate interpretation of the readings. The study reviewed the documentation practices relevant to SpO2 in five medical wards of a tertiary level metropolitan hospital. Method: A prospective casenote audit was conducted on random days over a three-month period. The audit tool had been validated in a previous study. Results: One hundred and seventy seven episodes of oxygen saturation monitoring were reviewed. Our study revealed a lack of parameters to validate the SpO2 readings. Only 10% of the casenotes reviewed had sufficient physiological data to meaningfully interpret the SpO2 reading and only 38% had an arterial blood gas as a comparator. Nursing notes rarely documented clinical interpretation of the results. Conclusion: The audits suggest that medical and nursing staff are not interpreting the pulse oximetry results in context and that the majority of the results were normal with no clinical indication for performing this observation. This reduces the usefulness of such readings and questions the appropriateness of performing “routine” SpO2 in this context.

The Development of Competency Standards for Specialist Critical Care Nurses

In defining the contemporary role of the specialist nurse it is necessary to challenge the concept of nursing as merely a combination of skills and knowledge. Nursing must be demonstrated and defined in the context of client care and include the broader notions of professional development and competence. This qualitative study sought to identify the competency standards for nurse specialists in critical care and to articulate the differences between entry-to-practice standards and the advanced practice of specialist nurses. Over 800 hours of specialist critical care nursing practice were observed and grouped into 'domains' or major themes of specialist practice using a constant comparison qualitative technique. These domains were further refined to describe attributes of the registered nurses which resulted in effective and/or superior performance (competency standards) and to provide examples of performance (performance criteria) which met the defined standard. Constant comparison of the emerging domains, competency standards and performance criteria to observations of specialist critical care practice, ensured the results provided a true reflection of the specialist nursing role. Data analysis resulted in 20 competency standards grouped into six domains: professional practice, reflective practice, enabling, clinical problem solving, teamwork, and leadership. Each of these domains is comprised of between two and seven competency standards. Each standard is further divided into component parts or 'elements' and the elements are illustrated with performance criteria. The competency standards are currently being used in several Australian critical care educational programmes and are the foundation for an emerging critical care credentialling process. They have been viewed with interest by a variety of non-critical care specialty groups and may form a common precursor from which further specialist nursing practice assessment will evolve.