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.

IMPLEMENTING BACK PAIN TREATMENT PATHWAYS IN CLINICAL PRACTICE: QUALITATATIVE ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS

Background
Evidence-based practice advocates utilising best current research evidence, while reflecting patient preference and clinical expertise in decision making. Successfully incorporating this evidence into practice is a complex process. Based on recommendations of existing guidelines and systematic evidence reviews conducted using the GRADE approach, treatment pathways for common spinal pain disorders were developed.

Aims
The aim of this study was to identify important potential facilitators to the integration of these pathways into routine clinical practice.

Methods
A 22 person stakeholder group consisting of patient representatives, clinicians, researchers and members of relevant clinical interest groups took part in a series of moderated focus groups, followed up with individual, semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using content analysis.

Results
Participants identified a number of issues which were categorized into broad themes. Common facilitators to implementation included continual education and synthesis of research evidence which is reflective of everyday practice; as well as the use of clear, unambiguous messages in recommendations. Meeting additional training needs in new or extended areas of practice was also recognized as an important factor. Different stakeholders identified specific areas which could be associated with successful uptake. Patients frequently defined early involvement in a shared decision making process as important. Clinicians identified case based examples and information on important prognostic indicators as useful tools to aiding decisions.

Conclusion
A number of potential implementation strategies were identified. Further work will examine the impact of these and other important factors on the integration of evidence-based treatment recommendations into clinical practice.

Direct observation of a long-lived single-atom catalyst chiseling atomic structures in graphene

Fabricating stable functional devices at the atomic scale is an ultimate goal of nanotechnology. In biological processes, such high-precision operations are accomplished by enzymes. A counterpart molecular catalyst that binds to a solid-state substrate would be highly desirable. Here, we report the direct observation of single Si adatoms catalyzing the dissociation of carbon atoms from graphene in an aberration-corrected high-resolution transmission electron microscope (HRTEM). The single Si atom provides a catalytic wedge for energetic electrons to chisel off the graphene lattice, atom by atom, while the Si atom itself is not consumed. The products of the chiseling process are atomic-scale features including graphene pores and clean edges. Our experimental observations and first-principles calculations demonstrated the dynamics, stability, and selectivity of such a single-atom chisel, which opens up the possibility of fabricating certain stable molecular devices by precise modification of materials at the atomic scale.

GPs’ and community pharmacists’ opinions on medication management at transitions of care in Ireland

Objective. The aim of this study was to survey GPs and community pharmacists (CPs) in Ireland regarding current practices of medication management, specifically medication reconciliation, communication between health care providers and medication errors as patients transition in care.
Methods. A national cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically to 2364 GPs, 311 GP Registrars and 2382 CPs. Multivariable associations comparing GPs to CPs were generated and content analysis of free text responses was undertaken.
Results. There was an overall response rate of 17.7% (897 respondents—554 GPs/Registrars and 343 CPs). More than 90% of GPs and CPs were positive about the effects of medication reconciliation on medication safety and adherence. Sixty per cent of GPs reported having no formal system of medication reconciliation. Communication between GPs and CPs was identified as good/very good by >90% of GPs and CPs. The majority (>80%) of both groups could clearly recall prescribing errors, following a transition of care, they had witnessed in the previous 6 months. Free text content analysis corroborated the positive relationship between GPs and CPs, a frustration with secondary care communication, with many examples given of prescribing errors.
Conclusions. While there is enthusiasm for the benefits of medication reconciliation there are limited formal structures in primary care to support it. Challenges in relation to systems that support inter-professional communication and reduce medication errors are features of the primary/secondary care transition. There is a need for an improved medication management system. Future research should focus on the identified barriers in implementing medication reconciliation and systems that can improve it.