The use of email in a child and adolescent mental health service: are staff ready?

All staff members of a child and adolescent mental health service were invited to participate in a survey about the use of email. Sixty-two of the 105 staff members responded to the survey, a participation rate of 59%. Of the respondents, 32 were allied health staff, 10 were nurses, seven were administrative staff, six were medical staff, three were operational staff and four were acting in a combination of these roles. The respondents reported extensive work-related email usage and considered that they were confident in using email despite low levels of training. However, they did not feel that they understood the legal and ethical issues involved. Furthermore, there was limited incorporation of email into standard record keeping. The majority of respondents thought that increased use of email would lead to a greater workload, a consequence they considered would probably increase over time. Many commented on the quick and practical use of this medium, but were wary about using email with individuals outside the service organization, especially if it were to contain clinical material. There was low use of email directly with clients, and clinicians were ambivalent about incorporating email into therapy. The results suggest that it is timely to consider the utility and appropriateness of email communication with clients and external service providers, and to formulate guidelines and procedures to ensure the confidentiality of client information and the safety of clients and staff.

Introduction of routine outcome measures: staff reactions and issues for consideration

The aim of this study was to explore clinician reactions to (i) the introduction of routine outcome measures and (ii) the utility of outcomes data in clinical practice. Focus group discussions (n = 34) were conducted with mental health staff (n = 324) at approximately 8 months post implementation of routine outcome measures. A semi-structured interview schedule was used to collect data on two key issues; reactions to the introduction of outcome measures and factors influencing the utility of outcomes data in clinical practice. Data from the discussion groups were analysed using content analysis to isolate emerging themes. While the majority of participants endorsed the collection and utilization of outcomes data, many raised questions about the merits of the initiative. Ambivalence, competing work demands, lack of support from senior medical staff, questionable evidence to support the use of outcome measures, and fear of how outcomes data might be used emerged as key issues. At 8 months post implementation a significant number of clinical staff remained ambivalent about the benefits of outcome measurement and had not engaged in the process. The shift to a service model driven by outcomes and case-mix data will take time and resources to achieve. Implications for nursing staff are discussed.

Pilot study to determine the ability of health-care professionals to undertake drug dose calculations

Background: It is essential for health-care professionals to calculate drug doses accurately. Previous studies have demonstrated that many hospital doctors were unable to accurately convert dilutions (e.g. 1:1000) or percentages (e.g. percentage w/v) of drug concentrations into mass concentrations (e.g. mg/mL). Aims: The aims of the present study were to evaluate the ability of health-care professionals to perform drug dose calculations accurately and to determine their preferred concentration convention when calculating drug doses. Methods: A selection of nurses, medical students, house surgeons, registrars and pharmacists undertook a written survey to assess their ability to perform five drug dose calculations. Participants were also asked which concentration convention they preferred when calculating drug doses. The surveys were marked then analysed for health-care professionals as a whole and then by subgroup analysis to assess the performance of each health-care-professional group. Results: Overall, less than 14% of the surveyed health-care professionals could answer all five questions correctly. Subgroup analysis revealed that health-care pro-fessionals' ability to calculate drug doses were ranked in the following order: registrars approximate to pharmacists > house surgeons > medical students >> nurses. Ninety per cent of health-care professionals preferred to calculate drug doses using the mass concentration convention. Conclusions: Overall, drug dose calculations were performed poorly. Mass concentration was clearly indicated as the preferred convention for calculating drug doses.

Fetal echocardiography: are we getting it right?

Objective To determine the diagnostic accuracy of prenatal fetal echocardiography. Methods The study was a retrospective chart review of 190 consecutive patients over a 3-year period from November 1998 to February 2002 of all women referred to the Maternal Fetal Medicine unit, Mater Mothers Hospital, for fetal echocardiography. The prenatal diagnosis was compared with the postnatal diagnosis made by postnatal echocardiography, surgical findings or post-mortem. The accuracy of prenatal diagnosis was described on a predetermined 4-point scale. Results Of the 89 patients, for whom complete diagnostic follow-up was available, there was complete agreement between the prenatal and postnatal diagnosis in 63 cases, minor discrepancies in 25 cases and major disagreement in 1 case. Conclusions In experienced hands, fetal echocardiography is accurate and allows medical staff and patients information in order manage a pregnancy appropriately. Copyright (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

Using a clinical pathway and education to reduce inappropriate prescribing of enoxaparin in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a controlled study

Aims: To evaluate efficacy of a pathway-based quality improvement intervention on appropriate prescribing of the low molecular weight heparin, enoxaparin, in patients with varying risk categories of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: Rates of enoxaparin use retrospectively evaluated before and after pathway implementation at an intervention hospital were compared to concurrent control patients at a control hospital; both were community hospitals in south-east Queensland. The study population was a group of randomly selected patients (n = 439) admitted to study hospitals with a discharge diagnosis of chest pain, angina, or myocardial infarction, and stratified into high, intermediate, low-risk ACS or non-cardiac chest pain: 146 intervention patients (September-November 2003), 147 historical controls (August-December 2001) at the intervention hospital; 146 concurrent controls (September-November 2003) at the control hospital. Interventions were active implementation of a user-modified clinical pathway coupled with an iterative education programme to medical staff versus passive distribution of a similar pathway without user modification or targeted education. Outcome measures were rates of appropriate enoxaparin use in high-risk ACS patients and rates of inappropriate use in intermediate and low-risk patients. Results: Appropriate use of enoxaparin in high-risk ACS patients was above 90% in all patient groups. Inappropriate use of enoxaparin was significantly reduced as a result of pathway use in intermediate risk (9% intervention patients vs 75% historical controls vs 45% concurrent controls) and low-risk patients (9% vs 62% vs 41%; P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Pathway use was associated with a 3.5-fold (95% CI: 1.3-9.1; P = 0.012) increase in appropriate use of enoxaparin across all patient groups. Conclusion: Active implementation of an acute chest pain pathway combined with continuous education reduced inappropriate use of enoxaparin in patients presenting with intermediate or low-risk ACS.

After hours medical ward duties in a teaching hospital

In many Australian hospitals a medical officer is available for urgent review of in-patients outside normal working hours. Current practice in nurse-initiated requests for medical officer involvement out of hours may adversely affect patient outcome as well as medical and nursing resource use at these times. Of 10 523 nurse-initiated requests for out-of-hours review recorded by medical officers at our hospital in 2002-2003, the most frequent reasons for the requests were medication review, IV fluid orders, IV resite, venesection and pathology review, none of which are related to acute changes in clinical condition. Requests for routine review of medication and fluid orders were found to be rarely essential and often inappropriate. Medical officer activity was highest before midnight and least after midnight, suggesting most requests are fulfilled in the evening. Several strategies to reduce inappropriate out-of-hours requests were identified. Routine tasks could be completed by primary treating unit staff before going off-duty. IV cannulation and venesection may be performed by appropriately trained phlebotomists or skilled advanced practice nursing staff. Meticulous ordering of 'as required' analgesia and night sedation would reduce unnecessary requests. Clinical protocols for nurse-initiated adjustment of drugs with variable dosing may also decrease inefficiencies. This would leave the ward cover medical officers more available for their primary function of urgent patient review.

Controlled trial of multidisciplinary care teams for acutely ill medical inpatients: enhanced multidisciplinary care

Background: Acute hospital general medicine services care for ageing complex patients, using the skills of a range of health-care providers. Evidence suggests that comprehensive early assessment and discharge planning may improve efficiency and outcomes of care in older medical patients. Aim: To enhance assessment, communication, care and discharge planning by restructuring consistent, patient-centred multidisciplinary teams in a general medicine service. Methods: Prospective controlled trial enrolling 1538 consecutive medical inpatients. Intervention units with additional allied health staff formed consistent multidisciplinary teams aligned with inpatient admitting units rather than wards; implemented improved communication processes for early information collection and sharing between disciplines; and specified shared explicit discharge goals. Control units continued traditional, referral-based multidisciplinary models with existing staffing levels. Results: Access to allied health services was significantly enhanced. There was a trend to reduced index length of stay in the intervention units (7.3 days vs 7.8 days in control units, P = 0.18), with no change in 6-month readmissions. in-hospital mortality was reduced from 6.4 to 3.9% (P = 0.03); less patients experienced functional decline in hospital (P = 0.04) and patients' ratings of health status improved (P = 0.02). Additional staffing costs were balanced by potential bed-day savings. Conclusion: This model of enhanced multidisciplinary inpatient care has provided sustainable efficiency gains for the hospital and improved patient outcomes.