A Guided Comparative Analysis of Fatigue Frameworks in Australasian Ambulance Services.

OBJECTIVE: Paramedics work in a complex, unpredictable environment, subject to many external stressors including critically unwell patients, dangerous driving conditions, and prolonged shift work. Paramedic fatigue from these and other occupational demands is well documented. Ambulance services attempt to safeguard paramedics from fatigue using internal policies or procedures - a type of Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMSs). This study reviews ambulance service fatigue frameworks to understand the current situation in fatigue management in paramedicine, and to identify fatigue monitoring tools, strategies, and other components of these frameworks that are designed to protect personnel. METHODS: This study involved a qualitative document thematic content analysis. All eleven statutory ambulance services across Australia, New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea, represented by the Council of Ambulance Authorities, were contacted and invited to participate. Fatigue frameworks were collated and entered into NVivo where data extraction occurred through three a priori areas (fatigue, fatigue mitigation tools & fatigue management). RESULTS: Nine of the eleven ambulance services provided fatigue documentation, with one declining to participate, and one did not respond to invitations. Through thematic analysis and abstraction, seven themes were identified: fatigue definition, consequences of fatigue, sources of fatigue, signs and symptoms of fatigue, fatigue-related incidents, fatigue monitoring tools, and fatigue mitigation. There was also poor alignment between provided frameworks and established FRMSs components. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide an initial insight into existing ambulance service fatigue frameworks across Australia, New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea. The many inconsistencies in frameworks between ambulance services highlight an opportunity to develop a more consistent, collaborative approach that follows evidence-based FRMSs guidelines.

Models for delivery and co-ordination of primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in aged care facilities.

BACKGROUND: The number of older people is increasing worldwide and public expenditure on residential aged care facilities (ACFs) is expected to at least double, and possibly triple, by 2050. Co-ordinated and timely care in residential ACFs that reduces unnecessary hospital transfers may improve residents' health outcomes and increase satisfaction with care among ACF residents, their families and staff. These benefits may outweigh the resources needed to sustain the changes in care delivery and potentially lead to cost savings. Our systematic review comprehensively and systematically presents the available evidence of the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of alternative models of providing health care to ACF residents. OBJECTIVES: Main objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of alternative models of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in ACFs. Secondary objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternative models. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov) on 26 October 2022, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual and cluster-randomised trials, and cost/cost-effectiveness data collected alongside eligible effectiveness studies. Eligible study participants included older people who reside in an ACF as their place of permanent abode and healthcare professionals delivering or co-ordinating the delivery of healthcare at ACFs. Eligible interventions focused on either ways of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) or ways of co-ordinating the delivery of this care. Eligible comparators included usual care or another model of care. Primary outcomes were emergency department visits, unplanned hospital admissions and adverse effects (defined as infections, falls and pressure ulcers). Secondary outcomes included adherence to clinical guideline-recommended care, health-related quality of life of residents, mortality, resource use, access to primary or specialist healthcare services, any hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, satisfaction with the health care by residents and their families, work-related satisfaction and work-related stress of ACF staff. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any alternative model of care versus usual care. MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 randomised trials (21,787 participants; three studies only reported number of beds) in this review. Included trials evaluated alternative models of care aimed at either all residents of the ACF (i.e. no specific health condition; 11 studies), ACF residents with mental health conditions or behavioural problems (12 studies), ACF residents with a specific condition (e.g. residents with pressure ulcers, 13 studies) or residents requiring a specific type of care (e.g. residents after hospital discharge, four studies). Most alternative models of care focused on 'co-ordination of care' (n = 31). Three alternative models of care focused on 'who provides care' and two focused on 'where care is provided' (i.e. care provided within ACF versus outside of ACF). Four models focused on the use of information and communication technology. Usual care, the comparator in all studies, was highly heterogeneous across studies and, in most cases, was poorly reported. Most of the included trials were susceptible to some form of bias; in particular, performance (89%), reporting (66%) and detection (42%) bias. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the proportion of residents with at least one emergency department visit (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.20; 7 trials, 1276 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may reduce the proportion of residents with at least one unplanned hospital admission (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99, I2 = 53%; 8 trials, 1263 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of alternative models of care on adverse events (proportion of residents with a fall: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.60, I² = 74%; 3 trials, 1061 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and adherence to guideline-recommended care (proportion of residents receiving adequate antidepressant medication: RR 5.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 26.00; 1 study, 65 participants) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may have little or no effect on the health-related quality of life of ACF residents (MD -0.016, 95% CI -0.036 to 0.004; I² = 23%; 12 studies, 4016 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably make little or no difference to the number of deaths in residents of ACFs (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 24 trials, 3881 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). We did not pool the cost-effectiveness or cost data as the specific costs associated with the various alternative models of care were incomparable, both across models of care as well as across settings. Based on the findings of five economic evaluations (all interventions focused on co-ordination of care), we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the number of emergency department visits but may reduce unplanned hospital admissions. We are uncertain of the effect of alternative care models on adverse events (i.e. falls, pressure ulcers, infections) and adherence to guidelines compared to usual care, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Alternative models of care may have little or no effect on health-related quality of life and probably have no effect on mortality of ACF residents compared to usual care. Importantly, we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care due to the limited, disparate data available.

Experiences of Indonesian people with dementia and carers undertaking an online-delivered exercise program.

Participating in physical activity is beneficial for older people with dementia. Little is known however about the perceptions of people living with dementia undertaking an online-delivered exercise program. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perceptions of older people with dementia and their carers in Indonesia participating in an online-delivered exercise program, and factors that may influence acceptability to the program. An exploratory qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews was used. Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim, translated into English, and analyzed thematically. Twelve participants with dementia (mean age = 63.3 years) and 30 carers (26 family carers and 4 paid carers) (mean age = 37.9 years) were interviewed separately. Seven themes were identified: (i) Motivating factors to participate; (ii) Benefits for people with dementia; (iii) Impacts on carers; (iv) Challenges and enablers to exercising; (v) Carers' strategies for exercise engagement; (vi) Roles, relationships and supports; and (vii) Participants' receptiveness to online delivery of the exercise program. This study illustrated that an online-delivered exercise program was acceptable for people with dementia and their carers in Indonesia and reinforced the importance of carers' support for the exercise program. These findings can help physiotherapists and other exercise practitioners in considering the aspects of delivery that people with dementia and their carers value in participating in online-delivered exercise programs.