What counts and what is being counted – The social organization of knowledge on the front lines of emergency medical services.

Paramedics are trained to use specialized medical knowledge and a variety of medical procedures and pharmaceutical interventions to “save patients and prevent further damage” in emergency situations, both as members of “health-care teams” in hospital emergency departments (Swanson, 2005: 96) and on the streets – unstandardized contexts “rife with chaotic, dangerous, and often uncontrollable elements” (Campeau, 2008: 3). The paramedic’s unique skill-set and ability to function in diverse situations have resulted in the occupation becoming ever more important to health care systems (Alberta Health and Wellness, 2008: 12).
Today, prehospital emergency services, while varying, exist in every major city and many rural areas throughout North America (Paramedics Association of Canada, 2008) and other countries around the world (Roudsari et al., 2007). Services in North America, for instance, treat and/or transport 2 million Canadians (over 250,000 in Alberta alone ) and between 25 and 30 million Americans annually (Emergency Medical Services Chiefs of Canada, 2006; National EMS Research Agenda, 2001). In Canada, paramedics make up one of the largest groups of health care professionals, with numbers exceeding 20,000 (Pike and Gibbons, 2008; Paramedics Association of Canada, 2008). However, there is little known about the work practices of paramedics, especially in light of recent changes to how their work is organized, making the profession “rich with unexplored opportunities for research on the full range of paramedic work” (Campeau, 2008: 2).

This presentation reports on findings from an institutional ethnography that explored the work of paramedics and different technologies of knowledge and governance that intersect with and organize their work practices. More specifically, my tentative focus of this presentation is on discussing some of the ruling discourses central to many of the technologies used on the front lines of EMS in Alberta and the consequences of such governance practices for both the front line workers and their patients. In doing so, I will demonstrate how IE can be used to answer Rankin and Campbell’s (2006) call for additional research into “the social organization of information in health care and attention to the (often unintended) ways ‘such textual products may accomplish…ruling purposes but otherwise fail people and, moreover, obscure that failure’ (p. 182)” (cited in McCoy, 2008: 709).

Managing patient deterioration: evaluation of what works.

Background: Rapid Response Systems (RRS) have been implemented nationally and internationally to improve patient safety in hospital. However, to date the majority of the RRS research evidence has focused on measuring the effectiveness of the intervention on patient outcomes. To evaluate RRS it has been recommended that a multimodal approach is required to address the broad range of process and outcome measures required to determine the effectiveness of the RRS concept. Aim: The aim of this paper is to evaluate the official RRS programme theoretical assumptions regarding how the programme is meant to work against actual practice in order to determine what works. Methods: The research design was a multiple case study approach of four wards in two hospitals in Northern Ireland. It followed the principles of realist evaluation research which allowed empirical data to be gathered to test and refine RRS programme theory [1]. This approach used a variety of mixed methods to test the programme theories including individual and focus group interviews with a purposive sample of 75 nurses and doctors, observation of ward practices and documentary analysis. The findings from the case studies were analysed and compared within and across cases to identify what works for whom and in what circumstances. Results: The RRS programme theories were critically evaluated and compared with study findings to develop a mid-range theory to explain what works, for whom in what circumstances. The findings of what works suggests that clinical experience, established working relationships, flexible implementation of protocols, ongoing experiential learning, empowerment and pre-emptive management are key to the success of RRS implementation.  Conclusion:These findings highlight the combination of factors that can improve the implementation of RRS and in light of this evidence several recommendations are made to provide policymakers with guidance and direction for their success and sustainability.References: 1.Pawson R and Tilley N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation. Sage Publications; LondonType of submission: Concurrent session Source of funding: Sandra Ryan Fellowship funded by the School of Nursing & Midwifery, Queen’s University of Belfast

Realist synthesis: Critical care rapid response systems.

Background Rapid Response Systems (RRS) consist of four interrelated and interdependent components; an event detection and trigger mechanism, a response strategy, a governance structure and process improvement system. These multiple components of the RRS pose problems in evaluation as the intervention is complex and cannot be evaluated using a traditional systematic review. Complex interventions in healthcare aimed at changing service delivery and related behaviour of health professionals require a different approach to summarising the evidence. Realist synthesis is such an approach to reviewing research evidence on complex interventions to provide an explanatory analysis of how and why an intervention works or doesn’t work in practice. The core principle is to make explicit the underlying assumptions about how an intervention is suppose to work (ie programme theory) and then use this theory to guide evaluation. Methods A realist synthesis process was used to explain those factors that enable or constrain the success of RRS programmes. Results The findings from the review include the articulation of the RRS programme theories, evaluation of whether these theories are supported or refuted by the research evidence and an evaluation of evidence to explain the underlying reasons why RRS works or doesn’t work in practice. Rival conjectured RRS programme theories were identified to explain the constraining factors regarding implementation of RRS in practice. These programme theories are presented using a logic model to highlight all the components which impact or influence the delivery of RRS programmes in the practice setting. The evidence from the realist synthesis provided the foundation for the development of hypothesis to test and refine the theories in the subsequent stages of the Realist Evaluation PhD study [1]. This information will be useful in providing evidence and direction for strategic and service planning of acute care to improve patient safety in hospital. References: McGaughey J, Blackwood B, O’Halloran P, Trinder T. J. & Porter S. (2010) Realistic Evaluation of Early Warning Systems and the Acute Life-threatening Events – Recognition and Treatment training course for early recognition and management of deteriorating ward-based patients: research protocol. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66 (4), 923-932.

A realistic evaluation of track and trigger systems and acute care training for early recognition and treatment of deteriorating ward-based patients: research protocol.

Aim The aim of the study is to evaluate factors that enable or constrain the implementation and service delivery of early warnings systems or acute care training in practice. Background To date there is limited evidence to support the effectiveness of acute care initiatives (early warning systems, acute care training, outreach) in reducing the number of adverse events (cardiac arrest, death, unanticipated Intensive Care admission) through increased recognition and management of deteriorating ward based patients in hospital [1-3]. The reasons posited are that previous research primarily focused on measuring patient outcomes following the implementation of an intervention or programme without considering the social factors (the organisation, the people, external influences) which may have affected the process of implementation and hence measured end-points. Further research which considers the social processes is required in order to understand why a programme works, or does not work, in particular circumstances [4]. Method The design is a multiple case study approach of four general wards in two acute hospitals where Early Warning Systems (EWS) and Acute Life-threatening Events Recognition and Treatment (ALERT) course have been implemented. Various methods are being used to collect data about individual capacities, interpersonal relationships and institutional balance and infrastructures in order to understand the intended and unintended process outcomes of implementing EWS and ALERT in practice. This information will be gathered from individual and focus group interviews with key participants (ALERT facilitators, nursing and medical ALERT instructors, ward managers, doctors, ward nurses and health care assistants from each hospital); non-participant observation of ward organisation and structure; audit of patients' EWS charts and audit of the medical notes of patients who deteriorated during the study period to ascertain whether ALERT principles were followed. Discussion & progress to date This study commenced in January 2007. Ethical approval has been granted and data collection is ongoing with interviews being conducted with key stakeholders. The findings from this study will provide evidence for policy-makers to make informed decisions regarding the direction for strategic and service planning of acute care services to improve the level of care provided to acutely ill patients in hospital. References 1. Esmonde L, McDonnell A, Ball C, Waskett C, Morgan R, Rashidain A et al. Investigating the effectiveness of Critical Care Outreach Services: A systematic review. Intensive Care Medicine 2006; 32: 1713-1721 2. McGaughey J, Alderdice F, Fowler R, Kapila A, Mayhew A, Moutray M. Outreach and Early Warning Systems for the prevention of Intensive Care admission and death of critically ill patients on general hospital wards. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. www.thecochranelibrary.com 3. Winters BD, Pham JC, Hunt EA, Guallar E, Berenholtz S, Pronovost PJ (2007) Rapid Response Systems: A systematic review. Critical Care Medicine 2007; 35 (5): 1238-43 4. Pawson R and Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. London; Sage: 1997

The Effect of Community-Based Specialist Palliative Care Teams on Place of Care

BACKGROUND: Prior research on community-based specialist palliative care teams used outcome measures of place of death and/or dichotomous outcome measures of acute care use in the last two weeks of life. However, existing research seldom measured the diverse places of care used and their timing prior to death.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to examine the place of care in the last 30 days of life.

METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients who received care from a specialist palliative care team (exposed) were matched by propensity score to patients who received usual care in the community (unexposed) in Ontario, Canada. Measured was the percentage of patients in each place of care in the last month of life as a proportion of the total cohort.

RESULTS: After matching, 3109 patients were identified in each group, where 79% had cancer and 77% received end-of-life home care. At 30 days compared to 7 days before death, the exposed group's proportions rose from 33% to 41% receiving home care and 14% to 15% in hospital, whereas the unexposed group's proportions rose from 28% to 32% receiving home care and 16% to 22% in hospital. Linear trend analysis (proportion over time) showed that the exposed group used significantly more home care services and fewer hospital days (p < 0.001) than the unexposed group. On the last day of life (place of death), the exposed group had 18% die in an in-patient hospital bed compared to 29% in usual care.

CONCLUSION: Examining place of care in the last month can effectively illustrate the service use trajectory over time.

Sepsis: the LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE®, SepsiTest™ and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay for rapidly identifying bloodstream bacteria and fungi – a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Sepsis can lead to multiple organ failure and death. Timely and appropriate treatment can reduce in-hospital mortality and morbidity. Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three tests [LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE® (Roche Diagnostics, Risch-Rotkreuz, Switzerland); SepsiTest™ (Molzym Molecular Diagnostics, Bremen, Germany); and the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay (Abbott Diagnostics, Lake Forest, IL, USA)] for the rapid identification of bloodstream bacteria and fungi in patients with suspected sepsis compared with standard practice (blood culture with or without matrix-absorbed laser desorption/ionisation time-offlight mass spectrometry). Data sources: Thirteen electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from January 2006 to May 2015 and supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles. Review methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. A decision tree was used to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with each test; all other parameters were estimated from published sources. The model was populated with evidence from the systematic review or individual studies, if this was considered more appropriate (base case 1). In a secondary analysis, estimates (based on experience and opinion) from seven clinicians regarding the benefits of earlier test results were sought (base case 2). A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. Results: For the review of diagnostic test accuracy, 62 studies of varying methodological quality were included. A meta-analysis of 54 studies comparing SeptiFast with blood culture found that SeptiFast had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.84 to 0.89] and sensitivity of 0.65 (95% CrI 0.60 to 0.71). Four studies comparing SepsiTest with blood culture found that SepsiTest had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74), and four studies comparing IRIDICA with blood culture found that IRIDICA had an estimated summary specificity of 0.84 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90). Owing to the deficiencies in study quality for all interventions, diagnostic accuracy data should be treated with caution. No randomised clinical trial evidence was identified that indicated that any of the tests significantly improved key patient outcomes, such as mortality or duration in an intensive care unit or hospital. Base case 1 estimated that none of the three tests provided a benefit to patients compared with standard practice and thus all tests were dominated. In contrast, in base case 2 it was estimated that all cost per QALY-gained values were below £20,000; the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay had the highest estimated incremental net benefit, but results from base case 2 should be treated with caution as these are not evidence based. Limitations: Robust data to accurately assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions are currently unavailable. Conclusions: The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions cannot be reliably determined with the current evidence base. Appropriate studies, which allow information from the tests to be implemented in clinical practice, are required.

A cross-sectional evaluation of community pharmacists’ perceptions of intermediate care and medicines management across the healthcare interface

Background Despite the importance placed on the concept of the multidisciplinary team in relation to intermediate care (IC), little is known about community pharmacists’ (CPs) involvement. 
Objective To determine CPs’ awareness of and involvement with IC services, perceptions of the transfer of patients’ medication information between healthcare settings and views of the development of a CP–IC service. 
Setting Community pharmacies in Northern Ireland. 
Methods A postal questionnaire, informed by previous qualitative work was developed and piloted. 
Main outcome measure CPs’ awareness of and involvement with IC. Results The response rate was 35.3 % (190/539). Under half (47.4 %) of CPs ‘agreed/strongly agreed’ that they understood the term ‘intermediate care’. Three quarters of respondents were either not involved or unsure if they were involved with providing services to IC. A small minority (1.2 %) of CPs reported that they received communication regarding medication changes made in hospital or IC settings ‘all of the time’. Only 9.5 and 0.5 % of respondents ‘strongly agreed’ that communication from hospital and IC, respectively, was sufficiently detailed. In total, 155 (81.6 %) CPs indicated that they would like to have greater involvement with IC services. ‘Current workload’ was ranked as the most important barrier to service development.
Conclusion It was revealed that CPs had little awareness of, or involvement with, IC. Communication of information relating to patients’ medicines between settings was perceived as insufficient, especially between IC and community pharmacy settings. CPs demonstrated willingness to be involved with IC and services aimed at bridging the communication gap between healthcare settings.