Testing the effectiveness of a Practice Development intervention on changing the culture of evidence based practice in an acute care environment

In this age of evidence-based practice, nurses are increasingly expected to use research evidence in a systematic and judicious way when making decisions about patient care practices. Clinicians recognise the role of research when it provides valid, realistic answers in practical situations. Nonetheless, research is still perceived by some nurses as external to practice and implementing research findings into practice is often difficult. Since its conceptual platform in the 1960s, the emergence and growth of Nursing Development Units, and later, Practice Development Units has been described in the literature as strategic, organisational vehicles for changing the way nurses think about nursing by promoting and supporting a culture of inquiry and research-based practice. Thus, some scholars argue that practice development is situated in the gap between research and practice. Since the 1990s, the discourse has shifted from the structure and outcomes of developing practice to the process of developing practice, using a Practice Development methodology; underpinned by critical social science theory, as a vehicle for changing the culture and context of care. The nursing and practice development literature is dominated by descriptive reports of local practice development activity, typically focusing on reflection on processes or outcomes of processes, and describing perceived benefits. However, despite the volume of published literature, there is little published empirical research in the Australian or international context on the effectiveness of Practice Development as a methodology for changing the culture and context of care - leaving a gap in the literature. The aim of this study was to develop, implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a Practice Development model for clinical practice review and change on changing the culture and context of care for nurses working in an acute care setting. A longitudinal, pre-test/post-test, non-equivalent control group design was used to answer the following research questions: 1. Is there a relationship between nurses' perceptions of the culture and context of care and nurses' perceptions of research and evidence-based practice? 2. Is there a relationship between engagement in a facilitated process of Practice Development and change in nurses' perceptions of the culture and context of care? 3. Is there a relationship between engagement in a facilitated process of Practice Development and change in nurses' perceptions of research and evidence-based practice? Through a critical analysis of the literature and synthesis of the findings of past evaluations of Nursing and Practice Development structures and processes, this research has identified key attributes consistent throughout the chronological and theoretical development of Nursing and Practice Development that exemplify a culture and context of care that is conducive to creating a culture of inquiry and evidence-based practice. The study findings were then used in the development, validation and testing of an instrument to measure change in the culture and context of care. Furthermore, this research has also provided empirical evidence of the relationship of the key attributes to each other and to barriers to research and evidence-based practice. The research also provides empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of a Practice Development methodology in changing the culture and context of care. This research is noteworthy in its contribution to advancing the discipline of nursing by providing evidence of the degree to which attributes of the culture and context of care, namely autonomy and control, workplace empowerment and constructive team dynamics, can be connected to engagement with research and evidence-based practice.

Setting hospital infection control policy : a decision-making framework incorporating health economics and healthcare epidemiology

Background: Reducing rates of healthcare acquired infection has been identified by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care as a national priority. One of the goals is the prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI). At least 3,500 cases of CR-BSI occur annually in Australian hospitals, resulting in unnecessary deaths and costs to the healthcare system between $25.7 and $95.3 million. Two approaches to preventing these infections have been proposed: use of antimicrobial catheters (A-CVCs); or a catheter care and management ‘bundle’. Given finite healthcare budgets, decisions about the optimal infection control policy require consideration of the effectiveness and value for money of each approach. Objectives: The aim of this research is to use a rational economic framework to inform efficient infection control policy relating to the prevention of CR-BSI in the intensive care unit. It addresses three questions relating to decision-making in this area: 1. Is additional investment in activities aimed at preventing CR-BSI an efficient use of healthcare resources? 2. What is the optimal infection control strategy from amongst the two major approaches that have been proposed to prevent CR-BSI? 3. What uncertainty is there in this decision and can a research agenda to improve decision-making in this area be identified? Methods: A decision analytic model-based economic evaluation was undertaken to identify an efficient approach to preventing CR-BSI in Queensland Health intensive care units. A Markov model was developed in conjunction with a panel of clinical experts which described the epidemiology and prognosis of CR-BSI. The model was parameterised using data systematically identified from the published literature and extracted from routine databases. The quality of data used in the model and its validity to clinical experts and sensitivity to modelling assumptions was assessed. Two separate economic evaluations were conducted. The first evaluation compared all commercially available A-CVCs alongside uncoated catheters to identify which was cost-effective for routine use. The uncertainty in this decision was estimated along with the value of collecting further information to inform the decision. The second evaluation compared the use of A-CVCs to a catheter care bundle. We were unable to estimate the cost of the bundle because it is unclear what the full resource requirements are for its implementation, and what the value of these would be in an Australian context. As such we undertook a threshold analysis to identify the cost and effectiveness thresholds at which a hypothetical bundle would dominate the use of A-CVCs under various clinical scenarios. Results: In the first evaluation of A-CVCs, the findings from the baseline analysis, in which uncertainty is not considered, show that the use of any of the four A-CVCs will result in health gains accompanied by cost-savings. The MR catheters dominate the baseline analysis generating 1.64 QALYs and cost-savings of $130,289 per 1.000 catheters. With uncertainty, and based on current information, the MR catheters remain the optimal decision and return the highest average net monetary benefits ($948 per catheter) relative to all other catheter types. This conclusion was robust to all scenarios tested, however, the probability of error in this conclusion is high, 62% in the baseline scenario. Using a value of $40,000 per QALY, the expected value of perfect information associated with this decision is $7.3 million. An analysis of the expected value of perfect information for individual parameters suggests that it may be worthwhile for future research to focus on providing better estimates of the mortality attributable to CR-BSI and the effectiveness of both SPC and CH/SSD (int/ext) catheters. In the second evaluation of the catheter care bundle relative to A-CVCs, the results which do not consider uncertainty indicate that a bundle must achieve a relative risk of CR-BSI of at least 0.45 to be cost-effective relative to MR catheters. If the bundle can reduce rates of infection from 2.5% to effectively zero, it is cost-effective relative to MR catheters if national implementation costs are less than $2.6 million ($56,610 per ICU). If the bundle can achieve a relative risk of 0.34 (comparable to that reported in the literature) it is cost-effective, relative to MR catheters, if costs over an 18 month period are below $613,795 nationally ($13,343 per ICU). Once uncertainty in the decision is considered, the cost threshold for the bundle increases to $2.2 million. Therefore, if each of the 46 Level III ICUs could implement an 18 month catheter care bundle for less than $47,826 each, this approach would be cost effective relative to A-CVCs. However, the uncertainty is substantial and the probability of error in concluding that the bundle is the cost-effective approach at a cost of $2.2 million is 89%. Conclusions: This work highlights that infection control to prevent CR-BSI is an efficient use of healthcare resources in the Australian context. If there is no further investment in infection control, an opportunity cost is incurred, which is the potential for a more efficient healthcare system. Minocycline/rifampicin catheters are the optimal choice of antimicrobial catheter for routine use in Australian Level III ICUs, however, if a catheter care bundle implemented in Australia was as effective as those used in the large studies in the United States it would be preferred over the catheters if it was able to be implemented for less than $47,826 per Level III ICU. Uncertainty is very high in this decision and arises from multiple sources. There are likely greater costs to this uncertainty for A-CVCs, which may carry hidden costs, than there are for a catheter care bundle, which is more likely to provide indirect benefits to clinical practice and patient safety. Research into the mortality attributable to CR-BSI, the effectiveness of SPC and CH/SSD (int/ext) catheters and the cost and effectiveness of a catheter care bundle in Australia should be prioritised to reduce uncertainty in this decision. This thesis provides the economic evidence to inform one area of infection control, but there are many other infection control decisions for which information about the cost-effectiveness of competing interventions does not exist. This work highlights some of the challenges and benefits to generating and using economic evidence for infection control decision-making and provides support for commissioning more research into the cost-effectiveness of infection control.

Cross voltage control with inner hysteresis current control for multi-output boost converter

Multi-output boost (MOB) converter is a novel DC-DC converter unlike the regular boost converter, has the ability to share its total output voltage and to have different series output voltage from a given duty cycle for low and high power applications. In this paper, discrete voltage control with inner hysteresis current control loop has been proposed to keep the simplicity of the control law for the double-output MOB converter, which can be implemented by a combination of analogue and logical ICs or simple microcontroller to constrain the output voltages of MOB converter at their reference voltages against variation in load or input voltage. The salient features of the proposed control strategy are simplicity of implementation and ease to extend to multiple outputs in the MOB converter. Simulation and experimental results are presented to show the validity of control strategy.

A pilot randomised control trial of general practitioner and exercise physiologist interventions to reduce primary cardiovascular risk in overweight patients [Abstract]

Aims & Rationale/Objectives: With the knowledge that overweight is a major public health concern in Australia, that a multidisciplinary team approach to the management of lifestyle-related conditions is supported, and that the Australian Government recently recognised the role of the exercise physiologist (EP) in reducing the health burden of disease by their inclusion for reimbursement under the Medicare Plus scheme, this study sought to undertake a pilot RCT to compare GP and EP interventions to reduce primary cardiovascular risk in the overweight general practice population. Methods and Measures: Overweight patients recruited by a convenience sample of GPs were randomised into one of three arms: the control group, or the GP or EP intervention group (in which patients received either five GP or five EP consultations over 24 weeks). Patients had baseline, 12- and 24-week measures of body composition and cardio-respiratory fitness, and completed baseline and end-of-study surveys, fasting lipids and glucose. GPs and EPs completed an end-of-study survey. Results:Sixty-seven patients attended the baseline assessment. Overall retention rate was 67%. Patients were generally satisfied with the effectiveness of the interventions and their weight reduction. Favourable trends in BMI, weight, glucose and exercise levels for GP and EP intervention groups and in physical activity levels for all groups Conclusions: This study supports the feasibility of a RCT of GP and EP interventions for decreasing primary cardiovascular risk in the overweight general practice population.