Enablers and barriers for mandatory training including Basic Life Support in an interprofessional environment: An integrative literature review.

OBJECTIVES: It is vital health services have systems in place for staff mandatory training to meet safe quality health outcomes. The aim of this review is to identify enablers supporting staff attendance at mandatory training (including BLS) and barriers that pose challenges for staff participation in mandatory training that will be used to inform the development of a structured mandatory staff training program in an IPE environment. DESIGN: An integrative literature review was sought to answer the question: What are the enablers and barriers that influence health professional attendance and successful completion of mandatory training (including BLS) in an IPE environment? DATA SOURCES: An international literature search was undertaken using advance search of the databases: Medline, CINAHL, Google Scholar and Web of Science (WoS). English language, peer reviewed articles published from 2010 to 2022 were retrieved and screened for relevance. REVIEW METHODS: An integrative review of papers included systematic reviews, a case study, quantitative and qualitative studies, RCT, mixed method studies and expert opinion papers. RESULTS: Only 34 articles were eligible for inclusion in the review based on their relevance to staff attendance at mandatory training (including BLS). Analysis of literature identified four key themes: 'mandatory training' and 'certification'; 'knowledge and skills'; 'enablers' and 'barriers' for 'mandatory training (including BLS) attendance' and 'IPE'. The literature highlighted that IPE is an appropriate means of delivering a redesign education/training process that may increase attendance at mandatory training with recommendations for increased inclusivity and interactivity as well as providing useful logistic information. CONCLUSION: The outcome of the review can inform development of an IPE Implementation Strategy in a health service aiming to improve staff attending and engaging in mandatory training. The findings are valuable to other health services seeking to improve and achieve mandatory and accreditation targets.

Intrauterine insemination-No more Mr. N.I.C.E. guy?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the per cycle chance of a live birth and to identify factors that may support a more individualised application of IUI in view of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated guideline on fertility 2013. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, cohort study of 851 couples (1688 cycles) with unexplained, mild endometriosis, one patent Fallopian tube (with ovulation occurring in the corresponding ovary), mild male factor or ovulatory dysfunction, who initiated their first cycle of IUI/COH during the study period 2009-2013 and completed up to 3 cycles. Exclusion criteria included donor sperm and diminished ovarian reserve. Success factors and probabilities were determined based on live birth rates. RESULTS: Mean age was 33.8±3.3years and mean duration of subfertility was 2.28±1.47years. Independent associates of successful outcome factors were lower age (AOR 0.93; 95%CI 0.89-0.98, p=0.007) and multiparity (AOR 1.72; 95%CI 1.17-2.52). Live-birth rates declined independently of other factors from 15.3% (n=130/851) in cycle 1-7.0% (n=19/273) in cycle 3 (AOR 0.76; 95%CI, 0.62-0.93, p=0.008). Per cycle probabilities of live birth ranged from 21.4% to 5.1% dependent on age, cycle number and previous parity. The unadjusted cumulative pregnancy rate for live birth per cycle started, over three cycles, was 34.9% with a multiple live birth rate per cycle started of 5.4%. The associates of live birth amongst those with unexplained sub-fertility only (n=632, first cycle attempt) were also analysed, yielding similar results. CONCLUSIONS: IUI/COH is a simple treatment that produces good live birth rates, especially in younger patients and/or those with previous parity. More than 90% of total live births with IUI/COH is achieved during the first two cycles. As a retrospective, observational study, there is no comparator group and therefore we cannot comment on the relative efficacy of up to three IUI cycles over expectant management in a similar cohort. Our study suggests that probabilities of success can be used to individualise treatment decisions and that there is merit in continuing to offer IUI before resorting to IVF for certain patients.