How can we use systematic reviews to inform clinical practice?

Aims/purpose: Systematic reviews provide the highest quality evidence and inform clinical practice. For patient benefit, it is imperative that nurses keep abreast of evidence-based practice. This presentation highlights where to find systematic reviews and how the information presented can be used to inform care.
Presentation description: Clinical research is increasing at an incredible rate. In the clinical trials database alone, more than 2000 new studies are registered/month and this does not include qualitative studies that do not require registration. Keeping abreast of current evidence can not only be a time consuming process, but can be problematic when studies produce conflicting results. Systematic reviews can be useful for summarizing the increasing amount of knowledge that is gained from scientific papers. In addition, combining individual studies in a meta-analysis increases statistical power, resulting in more precise effect estimates. This presentation draws upon a few systematic reviews relevant to ICU nursing practice, highlights their findings and demonstrates how the information can be used to inform translation of evidence into practice. Additionally, although these reviews include steps to minimize bias, nurses should be aware of some of the biases that may reduce confidence in the findings.
Conclusion: Systematic reviews can be useful tools for informing evidence based practice, although careful interpretation is necessary for understanding their relevance to local practice.

Weaning from ventilation

Aims/purpose: Getting off the ventilator is an important patient-centred outcome for patients with acute respiratory failure. It signifies an improvement in patient condition, enables easier communication, reduces fear and anxiety and consequently a reduced requirement for sedatives. Weaning from ventilation therefore is a core ICU nursing task that is addressed in this presentation.
Presentation description: There are different schools of thought on when ventilator weaning begins including: (a) from intubation with titration of support; and (b) only when the patient’s condition improves. There are also different schools of thought on how to wean including gradual reductions in ventilator support to: (a) a low level consistent with extubation; or (b) to a level to attempt a spontaneous breathing trial followed by extubation if successful. Regardless of the approach, what is patient-relevant is the need to determine early when the patient may be ‘ready’ to discontinue ventilation. This time point can be assessed using simple criteria and should involve all ICU staff to the level of their experience. This presentation challenges the notion that only senior nurses or nurses with a ‘weaning course’ should be involved in the weaning process and proposes opportunities for engaging nurses with all levels of experience.
Conclusion: An ICU nursing taskforce that is focused and engaged in determining patient readiness for weaning can make a strong contribution to patient-relevant outcomes.

Using protocols in ICU practice. Engaging the staff.

Aims/Purpose: Protocols are evidenced-based structured guides for directing care to achieve improvements. But translating that evidence into practice is a major challenge. It is not acceptable to simply introduce the protocol and expect it to be adopted and lead to change in practice. Implementation requires effective leadership and management. This presentation describes a strategy for implementation that should promote successful adoption and lead to practice change.
Presentation description: There are many social and behavioural change models to assist and guide practice change. Choosing a model to guide implementation is important for providing a framework for action. The change process requires careful thought, from the protocol itself to the policies and politics within the ICU. In this presentation, I discuss a useful pragmatic guide called the 6SQUID (6 Steps in QUality Intervention Development). This was initially designed for public health interventions, but the model has wider applicability and has similarities with other change process models. Steps requiring consideration include examining the purpose and the need for change; the staff that will be affected and the impact on their workload; and the evidence base supporting the protocol. Subsequent steps in the process that the ICU manager should consider are the change mechanism (widespread multi-disciplinary consultation; adapting the protocol to the local ICU); and identifying how to deliver the change mechanism (educational workshops and preparing staff for the changes are imperative). Recognising the barriers to implementation and change and addressing these locally is also important. Once the protocol has been implemented, there is generally a learning curve before it becomes embedded in practice. Audit and feedback on adherence are useful strategies to monitor and sustain the changes.
Conclusion: Managing change successfully will promote a positive experience for staff. In turn, this will encourage a culture of enthusiasm for translating evidence into practice.

Differences in cancer awareness and beliefs between Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership):Do they contribute to differences in cancer survival?

Background:There are wide international differences in 1-year cancer survival. The UK and Denmark perform poorly compared with other high-income countries with similar health care systems: Australia, Canada and Sweden have good cancer survival rates, Norway intermediate survival rates. The objective of this study was to examine the pattern of differences in cancer awareness and beliefs across these countries to identify where these might contribute to the pattern of survival.Methods:We carried out a population-based telephone interview survey of 19 079 men and women aged =50 years in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK using the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer measure.Results:Awareness that the risk of cancer increased with age was lower in the UK (14%), Canada (13%) and Australia (16%) but was higher in Denmark (25%), Norway (29%) and Sweden (38%). Symptom awareness was no lower in the UK and Denmark than other countries. Perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation were highest in the UK, in particular being worried about wasting the doctor's time (UK 34%; Canada 21%; Australia 14%; Denmark 12%; Norway 11%; Sweden 9%).Conclusion:The UK had low awareness of age-related risk and the highest perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation, but symptom awareness in the UK did not differ from other countries. Denmark had higher awareness of age-related risk and few perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation. This suggests that other factors must be involved in explaining Denmark's poor survival rates. In the UK, interventions that address barriers to prompt presentation in primary care should be developed and evaluated. © 2013 Cancer Research UK. All rights reserved.

The prevalence of refractive errors among adults in the United States, Western Europe, and Australia.

OBJECTIVE:

To estimate the prevalence of refractive errors in persons 40 years and older.

METHODS:

Counts of persons with phakic eyes with and without spherical equivalent refractive error in the worse eye of +3 diopters (D) or greater, -1 D or less, and -5 D or less were obtained from population-based eye surveys in strata of gender, race/ethnicity, and 5-year age intervals. Pooled age-, gender-, and race/ethnicity-specific rates for each refractive error were applied to the corresponding stratum-specific US, Western European, and Australian populations (years 2000 and projected 2020).

RESULTS:

Six studies provided data from 29 281 persons. In the US, Western European, and Australian year 2000 populations 40 years or older, the estimated crude prevalence for hyperopia of +3 D or greater was 9.9%, 11.6%, and 5.8%, respectively (11.8 million, 21.6 million, and 0.47 million persons). For myopia of -1 D or less, the estimated crude prevalence was 25.4%, 26.6%, and 16.4% (30.4 million, 49.6 million, and 1.3 million persons), respectively, of whom 4.5%, 4.6%, and 2.8% (5.3 million, 8.5 million, and 0.23 million persons), respectively, had myopia of -5 D or less. Projected prevalence rates in 2020 were similar.

CONCLUSIONS:

Refractive errors affect approximately one third of persons 40 years or older in the United States and Western Europe, and one fifth of Australians in this age group.