138 resultados para Community and Home Care
A model for developing, implementing and evaluating a strategy to improve nursing and midwifery care
Resumo:
Background: Health care organizations world wide are faced with the need to develop and implement strategic organizational plans to meet the challenges of modern health care. There is a need for models for developing, implementing and evaluating strategic plans that engage practitioners, and make a measurable difference to the patients that they serve. This article describes the development of such a model to underpin a strategy for nursing and midwifery in an acute hospital trust. An integrated model: The processes for strategy development (values clarification, critical companionship and focus groups) are discussed, together with the development of processes for implementation, based upon a modification of the PARIHS (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) conceptual framework. Finally, the methods for evaluating the strategy (a pre-test/post-test approach measuring the quality of nursing care, the degree to which the organization supports professional nursing care, the leadership styles of ward managers, and patient satisfaction with care) are described. Conclusion: The model is offered as one that may be of use to others who wish to develop an integrated approach to strategic change; an approach in which the development, implementation and evaluation of strategic plans are informed by the core values of nurses and midwives.
Resumo:
The impetus towards basing practice and policy decisions more explicitly on sound research requires tools to facilitate the systematic appraisal of the quality of research encompassing a diverse range of methods and designs. Five exemplar tools were developed and assessed in terms of their usefulness in selecting studies for inclusion in a systematic review. The widely used ‘hierarchy of evidence’ was adapted and used to appraise internal validity. Four tools were then developed to appraise the external validity dimensions of generalizability (two scales) and methods of data collection (two scales). Methods of combining the scores generated by each tool were explored. Qualitative and quantitative studies were appraised, not separated into two spheres but by using complementary tools developed to appraise different aspects of rigour. There was a high level of agreement between researchers in applying the tools to twenty-two studies on decision making by professionals about the longterm care of older people. The scales for internal validity and generalizability discriminated between the qualities of studies appropriately. The two tools to appraise data collection gave diverse results. Excluding studies that scored in the lowest category on any scale appeared to be the scoring system that was most justifiable. This approach is presented to stimulate debate about the practical application of the evidence-based initiative to social work and social care. This study may assist in developing clearer definitions and common language about appraising rigour that should further the process of selecting robust research for synthesis to inform practice and policy decisions.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: To examine the determinants of formal and informal care utilisation amongst persons with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). DESIGN: Cross-sectional hospital-based study. SETTING: Hospital eye clinic in Northern Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: 284 persons aged >or=50 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were questioned about their care, living arrangements, eyesight-related ability to self-care, and eyesight-related need to be more careful whilst undertaking everyday tasks. RESULTS: The percentage of older persons receiving formal and informal care rose with the level of visual impairment. 34.9% and 37.3% of those with no visual impairment received formal and informal care, respectively, compared with 51.6% and 69.9% of those with moderate visual impairment and 55.6% and 88.9% of those with severe visual impairment. Three factors (age, best corrected distance visual acuity in the better eye and living alone) were significant predictors (p
Resumo:
Objective: To test the effectiveness of a complex intervention designed, within a theoretical framework, to improve outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease. Design: Cluster randomised controlled multicentre trial. Setting: General practices in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, regions with different healthcare systems. Participants: 903 patients with established coronary heart disease registered with one of 48 practices. Intervention: Tailored care plans for practices (practice based training in prescribing and behaviour change, administrative support, quarterly newsletter), and tailored care plans for patients (motivational interviewing, goal identification, and target setting for lifestyle change) with reviews every four months at the practices. Control practices provided usual care. Main outcome measures: The proportion of patients at 18 month follow-up above target levels for blood pressure and total cholesterol concentration, and those admitted to hospital, and changes in physical and mental health status (SF-12). Results: At baseline the numbers (proportions) of patients above the recommended limits were: systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg (305/899; 33.9%, 95% confidence interval 30.8% to 33.9%), diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg (111/901; 12.3%, 10.2% to 14.5%), and total cholesterol concentration greater than 5 mmol/l (188/860; 20.8%, 19.1% to 24.6%). At the 18 month follow-up there were no significant differences between intervention and control groups in the numbers (proportions) of patients above the recommended limits: systolic blood pressure, intervention 98/360 (27.2%) v control, 133/405 (32.8%), odds ratio 1.51 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 2.30; P=0.06); diastolic blood pressure, intervention 32/360 (8.9%) v control, 40/405 (9.9%), 1.40 (0.75 to 2.64; P=0.29); and total cholesterol concentration, intervention 52/342 (15.2%) v control, 64/391 (16.4%), 1.13 (0.63 to 2.03; P=0.65). The number of patients admitted to hospital over the 18 month study period significantly decreased in the intervention group compared with the control group: 107/415 (25.8%) v 148/435 (34.0%), 1.56 (1.53 to 2.60; P=0.03). Conclusions: Admissions to hospital were significantly reduced after an intensive 18 month intervention to improve outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease, but no other clinical benefits were shown, possibly because of a ceiling effect related to improved management of the disease. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24081411.