Reporting patient experiences within elective perioperative care: a scoping review.

Patient experience is an important descriptor of the human experience of healthcare. Specifically, it is described as the sum of all interactions, shaped by an organization's culture, that influence patient perceptions, across the continuum of care. Currently, patient experience is measured with a focus on the hospital experience. By focussing on elective perioperative care, patient experience across the full continuum of care can be explored. A scoping review was designed to map the important components of patient experience, reported from previous studies of patients' perspectives, across the full continuum of care. The aims of this scoping review were to identify (i) key components of patients' experience and (ii) strategies where clinicians have influenced this experience. A systematic search of four key databases was performed in 2022 and updated in 2023 to identify primary research articles describing the complete perioperative experience for adults who have had elective surgery. Patient reports were extracted and compared to summarize key components of patient experience across preoperative, in-hospital, and postoperative care and to identify components of patient experience that clinicians could influence. From 10 included studies, four important patient experience themes have emerged as realistic expectations, accurate information, consistent communication, and individualized care. Four foci for clinicians to influence patients' experience include careful monitoring around pain management, psychological recovery, coordination of care, and return to function. A matrix of clinicians' points of influence and patient experience is presented to demonstrate how clinicians have influenced important components of patient experience across preoperative, in-hospital, and postoperative care. This review summarizes patients' reports of their experience across the complete perioperative continuum of care. The multidimensional nature of the patient experience is represented in four patient experience themes. Four focus areas in which clinicians can influence patients' experiences across the continuum of care are key to understanding and respecting the human experience in healthcare. This dynamic description of patient experience may focus clinicians' understanding of this complex construct and assist their practical engagement with patients. Further work is needed to ensure these themes are sufficiently relevant and comprehensive for current and future patients. Practical strategies will be important for clinicians to individualize and deliver perioperative care that respects and enhances their patients' experiences.

"Luck of the draw really": a qualitative exploration of Australian trainee doctors' experiences of mandatory research.

BACKGROUND: Many medical trainees, prior to achieving specialist status, are required to complete a mandatory research project, the usefulness of which has been debated. The aim of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of trainees' experiences and satisfaction of conducting such research projects in Australia. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach was used. Semi-structured interviews with trainees were undertaken between May 2021 and June 2022. Australian medical trainees who had completed a research project as part of specialty training within the past five years were invited to participate. The purposive sample was drawn from participants in a survey on the same topic who had indicated interest in participating in an interview. Interviews explored trainees' overall experience of and satisfaction with conducting research projects, as well as their perceptions of research training, support, barriers, enablers, and perceived benefits. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Sixteen medical doctors from seven medical colleges were interviewed. Trainee experience and satisfaction was highly variable between participants and was shaped by four factors: 1) trainees entered their specialty training with their own perspectives on the value and purpose of the research project, informed by their previous experiences with research and perceived importance of research in their planned career path; 2) in conducting the project, enablers including protected time, supervisor support and institutional structures, were vital to shaping their experience; 3) trainees' access to these enablers was variable, mediated by a combination of luck, and the trainees' own drive and research skill; and 4) project outcomes, in terms of research merit, learning, career benefits and impacts on patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Trainee experiences of doing research were mixed, with positive experiences often attributed to chance rather than an intentionally structured learning experience. We believe alternatives to mandatory trainee research projects must be explored, including recognising other forms of research learning activities, and directing scarce resources to supporting the few trainees who plan to pursue clinician researcher careers.

Perceived barriers and facilitators to preventing hospital-acquired pressure injury in paediatrics: A qualitative analysis.

AIM: This qualitative study aimed to identify nurses' and allied health professionals' perceptions and experiences of providing hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) prevention in a paediatric tertiary hospital in Australia, as well as understand the perceived barriers and facilitators to preventing HAPI. DESIGN: A qualitative, exploratory study of hospital professionals was undertaken using semi-structured interviews between February 2022 and January 2023. METHODS: Two frameworks, the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), were used to give both theoretical and pragmatic guidance. Participants included 19 nursing and allied health professionals and data analysis was informed by the framework approach. RESULTS: Analysis revealed nine core themes regarding professionals' beliefs about the barriers and facilitators to HAPI prevention practices across seven TDF domains. Themes included HAPI prevention skills and education, family-centred care, automated feedback and prompts, allocation and access to equipment, everybody's responsibility, prioritizing patients and clinical demands, organizational expectations and support, integrating theory and reality in practice and emotional influence. CONCLUSION: These findings provide valuable insights into the barriers and facilitators that impact paediatric HAPI prevention and can help identify and implement strategies to enhance evidence-based prevention care and prevent HAPI in paediatric settings. IMPACT: Overcoming barriers through evidence-based interventions is essential to reduce HAPI cases, improve patient outcomes, and cut healthcare costs. The findings have practical implications, informing policy and practice for improved preventive measures, education, and staffing in paediatric care, ultimately benefiting patient well-being and reducing HAPIs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution. The focus of the study is on healthcare professionals and their perspectives and experiences in preventing HAPIs in paediatric patients. Therefore, the involvement of patients or the public was not deemed necessary for achieving the specific research objectives.

Implementing best practice occupational therapist-led environmental assessment and modification to prevent falls: A qualitative study of two regional and rural public health services in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Occupational therapist-led environmental assessment and modification (EAM) is effective in reducing falls for populations at high risk. Two regional and rural public health services in Queensland devised an implementation strategy to embed best practice occupational therapist-led EAM. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted to compare the determinants of implementation success across the different health services, using the COM-B model of behaviour change. Six semi-structured interviews were completed with occupational therapists involved at each site, following 12 months of implementation. Interview data were triangulated with minutes from three combined site steering committee meetings, eight local steering committee meetings, and field notes. Thematic analysis was completed to compare barriers and facilitators to best practice uptake of EAM and differences in outcomes between the two sites. RESULTS: Both sites commenced implementation with similar states of capability and motivation. After 12 months, one site considered that practice change had been embedded as noted in steering committee minutes and comments; however, the other site observed limited progress. According to the COM-B analysis, opportunity (the factors that lie outside the individual's control) had a significant influence on how both sites were able to respond to the practice change and navigate some of the unexpected challenges that emerged, including the COVID-19 pandemic. Existing team structure, multiple responsibilities of key stakeholders, differences in access to resources, and lack of connection between complementary services meant that COVID-19 disruptions were only a catalyst for unveiling other systemic issues. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the power of external factors on influencing behaviour change for best practice implementation. Learnings from the study will provide deeper understanding of completing implementation projects in regional and rural contexts and support the future implementation of EAM in occupational therapy clinical settings.

Long term tailored implementation of structured "TREAT" journal clubs in allied health: a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) commonly use journal clubs (JCs) to support Evidence-Based Practice (EBP). There is however little research regarding implementing and sustaining JCs in the long term, and their impact on EBP use and skills in AHPs. This study investigated the impact of implementing a structured JC format, called "TREAT" (previously only investigated across 6 sessions), over a longer period of 16 sessions for AHPs in a public health service. The study also investigated AHP's attendance, adherence, satisfaction and barriers and enablers to implementing the format. METHODS: A mixed methods hybrid-effectiveness implementation design was employed, guided by the Knowledge-to-Action cycle. EBP skills, confidence, use, and attitudes were assessed (Adapted Fresno Test, EBPQ, tailored journal club culture questionnaire) at baseline, and after 10 and 16-monthly sessions. Satisfaction and impact on clinical practice were explored using questionnaires at 10 and 16-months, with free-form responses identifying enablers and barriers to EBP culture and implementation. Data on attendance and adherence to the TREAT format were also collected. RESULTS: Six JCs comprising a total of 132 unique participants from seven Allied Health professions were assessed across three time points. EBP skills improved on the Adapted Fresno Test after 10-monthly (6.6 points: 95% CI, 0.43 to 12.7) and 16-monthly sessions (7.8 points, 95% CI, 0.85 to 14.7), and on self-reported total EBPQ ratings of confidence at 10-months (4.9 points: 95% CI, 2.2 to 7.5) and 16-months (5.7 points: 95% CI 2.7 to 8.7). Of 132 AHPs, 88 reported adopting new treatments/resources and 64 reported updating clinical procedures. Mean attendance was 5.7 sessions (SD = 3.8). Adherence to TREAT components in each session was 86% (95% CI, 83% to 89%). Most participants recommended the format and reported a desire to continue. Enablers to the JC included using clinically relevant topics and active participation while reported barriers included limited time to prepare. CONCLUSIONS: Despite variable attendance, TREAT JCs can continue to be implemented within a service for 16 monthly-sessions, and may contribute to improved EBP skills and confidence and changes in clinical practice over time. Tailoring of implementation strategies was shown to be important to address local enablers and barriers.

Embedded researchers' purpose and practice: Current perspectives from Australia.

OBJECTIVE: The embedded researcher model proposes that if research is co-produced with academics, clinical staff will have greater engagement with and ownership of the research findings, and they will be able to integrate evidence in practice. This paper describes the role and purpose of embedded researchers in Australian healthcare settings. METHODS: A purposive sample of current and former embedded researchers were invited to participate in an exploratory online survey. Embedded researchers were defined as individuals with research qualifications who worked, or had worked, for at least 30% of their time in a healthcare organisation doing research or research capacity building. RESULTS: Most embedded researchers described a dual purpose, in building clinicians' capacity for research while also undertaking clinical research. Only a small proportion of respondents described their purpose as supporting and improving clinical practice. Most embedded researchers described working to both traditional academic key performance indicators and a complementary range of clinical performance and healthcare service indicators. CONCLUSION: Embedded researchers provide more research development and engagement in health services than is recognised or currently reported. In addition to traditional academic indicators, they described a broad range of clinical and health service indicators which measured capacity building.

Embedded researchers in Australia: Survey of profile and experience across medical, nursing and midwifery and allied health disciplines.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study explores embedded researcher's age, qualifications, research environment and experience in healthcare and academic organisations in Australia and makes comparisons across three core professional disciplines of nursing and midwifery, medicine and allied health. BACKGROUND: The embedded researcher model, where a researcher is embedded as a core member of the clinical team, offers promise to support the implementation of research evidence into practice. Currently, there is a lack of clarity about how the model has been adopted across the three largest professional disciplines in Australian health care. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was designed and reported, using the STROBE Statement. METHODS: A purposive sample of embedded researchers was invited to participate in an exploratory online survey. Embedded researchers worked, or had worked, for a minimum of 30% of their time, in a healthcare organisation doing research or building research capacity. Participant responses were extracted from the survey and imported into SPSS for analysis. RESULTS: Perspectives of 100 Australian embedded researchers were compared across nursing and midwifery (36%, n = 37), allied health (35%, n = 36) and medicine (26%, n = 27). Professional differences are reported in respondents' qualifications and experience, employment conditions and their research cultures and environments. Comparatively, most nursing and midwifery embedded researchers were older, more clinically experienced than allied health respondents, who were more research qualified. Medical-embedded researchers are typically older, more clinically experienced and focussed on producing personally relevant clinical research. Nursing and midwifery embedded researchers reported doing clinical research within their teams, as well as research capacity building, management and clinical practice roles. CONCLUSIONS: Embedded researchers describe different career trajectories across the three largest professional disciplines in Australian health care. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Embedded researchers from different professional disciplines enact their work differently. It appears that when they engage in research capacity building via a range of management and networking roles, embedded researchers contribute to their organisation's research culture and receive greater recognition for their achievements.

Outcomes of a funding initiative to promote allied health research activity: a qualitative realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Providing funding for clinicians to have protected time to undertake research can address a commonly cited barrier to research - lack of time. However, limited research has evaluated the impact or mechanisms of such funding initiatives. In the current economic environment, it is important that funding is used efficiently and judiciously and that mechanisms and contexts that may assist with maximising outcomes of funding initiatives are identified. This study aimed to describe the medium-term outcomes of a funding initiative to promote allied health research activity and to identify the key mechanisms and contexts that facilitated these outcomes. METHODS: We used a qualitative research design informed by a realist evaluation, to conduct 10 semi-structured interviews with allied health professionals who had participated in a funding initiative 1-3 years ago. Questions explored outcomes, mechanisms and contexts of the funding initiative. Data was thematically coded into context-mechanism-outcome configurations. RESULTS: Medium term outcomes included increased individual research opportunities, influence on team research culture and impact on clinical work/practice. Other outcomes included increased clinician confidence, knowledge and skill, and research outputs. However, some participants still had difficulties progressing research. Four context-mechanism-outcome configurations were identified to explain which contexts and mechanisms produced these outcomes. Examples of contexts included perception of managerial support, undertaking a research-based higher degree and joint applications, while mechanisms included accessing infrastructure and resources as well as individual researcher factors like motivation. CONCLUSION: Providing funding to allied health professionals to undertake and complete research can lead to important outcomes, including increased research opportunities, capacity and culture, increased research outputs, and changes to clinical practice. Outcomes are influenced by unique contexts and mechanisms and these should be considered in future implementation of similar funding initiatives.

The impact of a small-group educational intervention for allied health professionals to enhance evidence-based practice: mixed methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are recommended to use evidence-based practice (EBP) principles to update and improve clinical practice. Well-designed educational initiatives, together with practice and feedback opportunities can improve individuals' EBP knowledge, skills and attitudes. METHODS: A concurrent mixed methods assessment was designed to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of four monthly workshops on allied health professionals' knowledge, skills, self-efficacy and behaviour. In between workshops, professionals were encouraged to practice and integrate EBP learnings with colleagues in their workplace. Participants completed three pre and post intervention assessments: Evidence-based Practice Confidence Scale; adapted Fresno test; and an adapted EBP Implementation Scale. A purpose designed satisfaction questionnaire was completed immediately after the educational intervention and follow up focus groups were conducted after 3 months. Mean change in assessment data was quantitatively assessed and comments from the clinician satisfaction questionnaire and focus groups were thematically analysed and interpreted together with quantitative data using the Classification Rubric for EBP Assessment tools in Education (CREATE). RESULTS: Sixteen allied health professionals participated in the EBP workshops and completed all baseline and post intervention assessments. Seven clinicians participated in follow up focus groups. All clinicians reported a positive reaction to the learning experience, preferring short monthly workshops to a full day session. They self-reported improvements in self-efficacy (mean change 15 p < 0.001) and implementing EBP behaviours (mean change 7, p < 0.001) from pre- to post-intervention. Although the positive change in EBP knowledge measured by the adapted Fresno test was not statistically significant (mean change 10, p = 0.21), clinicians described examples of improved knowledge and skills across all five key steps of EBP during the focus groups. A further, post hoc analysis of individual questions in the two self-reported scales indicated consistent improvement across key EBP knowledge and skills. CONCLUSIONS: A tailored small group EBP education intervention can enhance AHPs' self-efficacy to develop answerable questions, search the literature, critically appraise, apply and evaluate research evidence. Through practicing these behaviours and sharing new learning with their peers, allied health professionals can enhance their capability and motivation to use research evidence to potentially improve clinical practice.

Factors that influence the sustainability of structured allied health journal clubs: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Structured journal clubs are a widely used tool to promote evidence-based practice in health professionals, however some journal clubs (JC) are more effectively sustained than others. To date, little research has provided insights into factors which may influence sustainability of JCs within health care settings. As part of a larger randomised controlled study, this research aimed to gain understanding of clinicians' experiences of sustaining a structured JC format (TREAT- Tailoring Research Evidence and Theory) within their clinical context. The study also aimed to identify which strategies may assist longer term sustainability and future implementation of the TREAT format. METHODS: We employed a qualitative methodology, informed by behaviour change theory. Clinicians (n = 19) from five different JCs participated in focus groups to explore their experience in sustaining the JC format six months after the formal trial period had completed. Clinicians were asked to describe factors which they perceived helped or hindered sustaining components of the JC format within their local context. Following a descriptive summary of the data, barriers and enablers were thematically analysed according to behaviour change theory domains: capability, motivation and opportunity and further mapped to targeted implementation strategies. RESULTS: Participants reported perceived benefits of maintaining the TREAT format and described several components that promoted its sustainability. Sustaining factors linked to individuals' capability included building research knowledge and skills and having access to research experts. Sustaining factors that enhanced opportunities for behaviour change included management expectation to attend and a team culture which values evidence based practice, while factors found to enhance individuals' motivation included the JC having close application to practice and clinicians sensing ownership of the JC. Several implementation strategies to enhance these factors are described including graduated support to clinicians in facilitation of JCs and greater engagement with managers. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term sustainability of a structured JC is dependent on both individual and service level factors and a balance of implementation strategies that enhance capability, opportunity and motivation. Consideration of how clinicians can be engaged to take ownership and build their own capability from the commencement of the JC is important. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12616000811404 .

Integrated children's clinic care (ICCC) versus a self-directed care pathway for children with a chronic health condition: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Children with chronic health conditions have better health-related outcomes when their care is managed in a personalised and coordinated way. However, increased demand on Australian ambulatory care hospital services has led to longer waitlist times to access specialists and appropriate intervention services; placing vulnerable children at increased risk of poorer short-term (e.g. social difficulties) and long-term (e.g. convictions) health and social outcomes. Traditional approaches to increasing frequency and service of delivery are expensive and can have minimal impact on caregiver burden. A community based service-integration approach, rather than self-directed care is proposed as increased service linkages are more likely to occur and improve the health outcomes of children with a chronic health condition. METHODS: An open, unblinded, multi-centre randomised controlled trial in two Australian public hospitals. 112 children (0-16 years) fulfilling the inclusion criteria will be randomised to one of two clinical pathways for management of their chronic health condition: (1) integrated children's care clinic (ICCC) or (2) self-directed care pathway. All children and caregivers will be interviewed at 1 week, and 3, 6 and 12 month time intervals. Primary outcome measures include the Pediatric Quality of Life (PedQOL) questionnaire, Subjective Units of Distress Scale, Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) and Rotter's Locus of Control Scale. Secondary outcome measures include the total number of medical appointments, school days missed and quantity of services accessed. Our main objectives are to determine if the ICCC results in better health and economics outcomes compared to the self-directed care pathway. DISCUSSION: The success of a health systems approach needs to be balanced against clinical, mortality and cost-effectiveness data for long-term sustainability within a publicly funded health system. A clinical pathway that is sustainable, cost-effective, provides efficient evidence-based care and improves the quality of life outcomes for children with chronic health conditions has the potential to reduce waitlist times, improve access to health services, increase consumer satisfaction; and prevent costs associated with poorly managed chronic health conditions into adulthood. This study will be the first to provide clinical and health economics data on an integrated care pathway for the management of chronic health conditions in children. On a broader scale, results from this study will help guide care coordination frameworks for children with chronic health conditions; particularly with the introduction and implementation of a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) across Australia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR) ACTRN12617001188325 . Registered: 14th August, 2017.

Research capacity building frameworks for allied health professionals - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Building the capacity of allied health professionals to engage in research has been recognised as a priority due to the many benefits it brings for patients, healthcare professionals, healthcare organisations and society more broadly. There is increasing recognition of the need for a coordinated multi-strategy approach to building research capacity. The aim of this systematic review was to identify existing integrated models and frameworks which guide research capacity building for allied health professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary healthcare organisations. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken searching five databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, AustHealth and Web of Science) using English language restrictions. Two authors independently screened and reviewed studies, extracted data and performed quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Content and thematic analysis methods were used to code and categorise the data. RESULTS: A total of 8492 unique records were screened by title and abstract, of which 20 were reviewed in full-text. One quantitative study and five qualitative studies were included, each of which describing a research capacity building framework. Three interconnected and interdependent themes were identified as being essential for research capacity building, including 'supporting clinicians in research', 'working together' and 'valuing research for excellence'. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this systematic review have been synthesised to develop a succinct and integrated framework for research capacity building which is relevant for allied health professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary healthcare organisations. This framework provides further evidence to suggest that research capacity building strategies are interlinked and interdependent and should be implemented as part of an integrated 'whole of system' approach, with commitment and support from all levels of leadership and management. Future directions for research include using behaviour change and knowledge translation theories to guide the implementation and evaluation of this new framework. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42018087476 .

The effectiveness and feasibility of TREAT (Tailoring Research Evidence and Theory) journal clubs in allied health: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Journal clubs (JC) may increase clinicians' evidence-based practice (EBP) skills and facilitate evidence uptake in clinical practice, however there is a lack of research into their effectiveness in allied health. We investigated the effectiveness of a structured JC that is Tailored According to Research Evidence And Theory (TREAT) in improving EBP skills and practice compared to a standard JC format for allied health professionals. Concurrently, we explored the feasibility of implementing TREAT JCs in a healthcare setting, by evaluating participating clinicians' perceptions and satisfaction. METHODS: We conducted an explanatory mixed methods study involving a cluster randomised controlled trial with a nested focus group for the intervention participants. Nine JCs with 126 allied health participants were randomly allocated to receive either the TREAT or standard JC format for 1 h/month for 6 months. We conducted pre-post measures of EBP skills and attitudes using the EBP questionnaire and Assessing Competence in Evidence-Based Medicine tool and a tailored satisfaction and practice change questionnaire. Post-intervention, we also conducted a focus group with TREAT participants to explore their perceptions of the format. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between JC formats in EBP skills, knowledge or attitudes or influence on clinical practice, with participants maintaining intermediate level skills across time points. Participants reported significantly greater satisfaction with the organisation of the TREAT format. Participants in both groups reported positive changes to clinical practice. Perceived outcomes to the TREAT format and facilitating mechanisms were identified including the use of an academic facilitator, group appraisal approach and consistent appraisal tools which assisted skill development and engagement. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to implement an evidence-based JC for allied health clinicians. While clinicians were more satisfied with the TREAT format, it did not significantly improve their EBP skills, attitudes, knowledge and/or practice, when compared to the standard format. The use of an academic facilitator, group based critical appraisal, and the consistent use of appraisal tools were perceived as useful components of the JC format. A structured JC may maintain EBP skills in allied health clinicians and facilitate engagement, however additional training may be required to further enhance EBP skills. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12616000811404 Retrospectively registered 21 June 2016.

A pre-post evaluation of a knowledge translation capacity-building intervention.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Knowledge translation (KT) aims to reduce research-practice gaps. Few studies have investigated methods to build clinicians' capacity for KT. To: (i) evaluate the impact of a multifaceted KT capacity-building intervention; (ii) understand barriers and enablers to clinicians' use of KT; and (iii) identify useful strategies. METHODS: A pre-post study to develop KT capacity amongst occupational therapy clinicians (n = 46) in a large metropolitan hospital. A customised questionaire (baseline and 18 months) identified KT-related behaviours and barriers and enablers guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). McNemar's tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were completed on matched data (n = 20). At follow-up additional items explored perceptions of change and usefulness of strategies. RESULTS: At follow-up, participants had read more clinical guidelines (10 vs. 17) and more participants reported using strategies to increase the use of recommended clinical practices (P = 0.006). The main barriers at baseline were from the TDF domains of 'attention, memory and decision processes', 'knowledge' and 'environmental context and resources', while main enablers were from 'social/professional role and identity', 'reinforcement', 'social influence' and 'beliefs about consequences' domains. At follow-up, significant improvements were seen in 'knowledge' (p < 0.001), 'environmental context & resources' (P < 0.001), 'skills' (P = 0.008) 'beliefs about consequences' (P = 0.011), 'beliefs about capabilities' (P = 0.018), and 'memory, attention & decision processes' (P = 0.048) and participants agreed that KT had become part of the departments' culture. Strategies perceived most useful included working as a team, having a dedicated staff member, mentoring meetings, department leader support, learning about KT over time, and training sessions. CONCLUSIONS: The KT capacity-building intervention changed one clinician-reported behaviour and perceived impact of barriers across six domains. Clinicians reported perceived improvement in understanding of - and confidence in - KT, and changes in the culture to one of engaging with KT as part of clinical practice. Further research into KT capacity building is needed.

Short-course versus long-course oral antibiotic treatment for infections treated in outpatient settings: a review of systematic reviews.

Purpose: To summarize the evidence comparing the effectiveness of short and long courses of oral antibiotics for infections treated in outpatient settings. Methods: We identified systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials for children and adults with bacterial infections treated in outpatient settings from Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and The Database of Review of Effects. Data were extracted on the primary outcome of clinical resolution and secondary outcomes. Results: We identified 30 potential reviews, and included 9. There was no difference in the clinical cure for children treated with short or long course antibiotics for Group A streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis (OR 1.03, 95% CI:0.97, 1.11); community acquired pneumonia (RR 0.99, 95% CI:0.97, 1.01); acute otitis media [<2 years old OR: 1.09 (95% CI:0.76, 1.57); ≥2 years old OR: 0.85 (95% CI:0.60, 1.21)]; or urinary tract infection (RR 1.06, 95% CI:0.64, 1.76). There was no difference in the clinical cure for adults treated with short or long course antibiotics for acute bacterial sinusitis (RR 0.95, 95% CI:0.81, 1.21); uncomplicated cystitis in non-pregnant women (RR 1.10, 95% CI:0.96, 1.25), or elderly women (RR: 0.98, 95% CI:0.62, 1.54); acute pyelonephritis (RR 1.03, 95% CI:0.80, 1.32); or community acquired pneumonia (RR: 0.96, 95% CI:0.74, 1.26). We found inadequate evidence about the effect on antibiotic resistance. Conclusions: This overview of systematic reviews has identified good quality evidence that short course antibiotics are as effective as longer courses for most common infections managed in ambulatory care. The impact on antibiotic resistance and associated treatment failure requires further study.

A cross sectional observational study of research activity of allied health teams: is there a link with self-reported success, motivators and barriers to undertaking research?

BACKGROUND: Team-based approaches to research capacity building (RCB) may be an efficient means to promote allied health research participation and activity. In order to tailor such interventions, a clearer understanding of current patterns of research participation within allied health teams is needed. Different self-report measures exist which evaluate a team's research capacity and participation, as well as associated barriers and motivators. However, it remains unclear how such measures are associated with a team's actual research activity (e.g., journal publications, funding received). In response, this observational study aimed to identify the research activity, self-reported success, and motivations and barriers to undertaking research of eight allied health professional (AHP) teams and to explore whether any relationships exist between the self-reported measures and actual research activity within each team. METHODS: A total of 95 AHPs from eight teams completed the research capacity and culture survey to evaluate team success, barriers and motivators to undertaking research, and an audit of research activity from January 2013 to August 2014 was undertaken within each team. Kendell's correlation coefficients were used to determine the association between research activity (i.e., number of journal publications, ethically approved projects and funding received) and the self-reported measures. RESULTS: Seven out of eight teams rated their teams as having average success in research and demonstrated some form of research activity including at least two ethically approved projects. Research activity varied between teams, with funding received ranging from $0 to over $100,000, and half the teams not producing any journal publications. Team motivators demonstrated a stronger association with research activity compared to barriers, with the motivator "enhancing team credibility" being significantly associated with funding received. No significant association between self-reported research success and actual research activity was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest that self-report measures of research success may not always correspond to actual research activity, and a combination of both these measures may be useful when planning RCB interventions. Variation in activity between teams and organisations should also be considered when tailoring RCB interventions. Reinforcing intrinsically motivating rewards of research may also be useful in promoting research participation for some teams.

Allied health research positions: a qualitative evaluation of their impact.

BACKGROUND: Research positions embedded within healthcare settings have been identified as an enabler to allied health professional (AHP) research capacity; however, there is currently limited research formally evaluating their impact. In 2008, a Health Practitioner industrial agreement funded a research capacity building initiative within Queensland Health, Australia, which included 15 new allied health research positions. The present project used a qualitative and realist approach to explore the impact of these research positions, as well as the mechanisms which facilitated or hindered their success within their respective organisations. METHODS: Forty-four AHP employees from six governmental health services in Queensland, Australia, participated in the study. Individual interviews were undertaken, with individuals in research positions (n = 8) and their reporting line managers (n = 8). Four stakeholder focus groups were also conducted with clinicians, team leaders and professional heads who had engaged with the research positions. RESULTS: Nine key outcomes of the research positions were identified across individual, team/service and organisational/community levels. These outcomes included clinician skill development, increased research activity, clinical and service changes, increased research outputs and collaborations, enhanced research and workplace culture, improved profile of allied health, development of research infrastructure, and professional development of individuals in the research positions. Different mechanisms that influenced these outcomes were identified. These mechanisms were grouped by those related to the (1) research position itself, (2) organisational factors and (3) implementation factors. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings highlight the potential value of the research positions for individuals, teams and clinical services across different governmental healthcare services, and demonstrate the impact of the roles on building the internal and external profile of allied health. Results build upon the emerging evidence base for allied health research positions and have important implications for a number of stakeholders (i.e. individuals in the research positions, AHPs and their managers, university partners and state-wide executives). Key recommendations are provided for all stakeholders to enhance the ongoing impact of these roles and the potential advocacy for additional positions and resources to support them.

The role and impact of research positions within health care settings in allied health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Embedding dedicated research positions within healthcare settings is a potential strategy to build allied health research capacity, with different health care organisations investing in such positions. The aim of this review was to gather evidence regarding the nature of the role of the research position in allied health professional (AHP) healthcare settings and the impact that these positions have on building research capacity. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken searching eight databases (Medline CINAHL, Cochrane, OTSeeker, Speechbite, PEDro, Web of Science, and Proquest) using English language restrictions. Both authors independently screened abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Studies were included that reported the evaluation and/or components of the role of a dedicated research position with AHPs in any healthcare setting. A thematic analysis approach was used to synthesise findings. RESULTS: A total of 360 abstracts were initially screened, with 58 full text articles being reviewed. Eight unique studies were included in the thematic analysis clarifying either the nature of role of the research position (n = 7) or impact of the position (n = 4). Studies included mixed methods (n = 3), descriptive case study (n = 4), and observational (n = 1) designs. The majority of studies reported the research positions to provide academic support to individual clinicians and their teams, while developing their own research projects. Other studies reported support for research capacity building at a service and organisational level. Positive changes from these research positions was reported via increased individual research skills and participation and research outputs, improvements in research culture, attitudes and team and organisational level skills. CONCLUSION: Emerging evidence suggests that research positions embedded within healthcare settings can influence individual and team based research skills and research participation of AHPs. Future research is needed to further investigate the sustainability of changes arisen from research positions and what mechanisms of the positions have the greatest impact. Healthcare managers should consider how to support potential components of the research position roles identified in the literature, as well consider evaluating their impact on research capacity, cultural and attitudinal changes of AHP staff in addition to traditional research metrics.

Promoting physical therapists' use of research evidence to inform clinical practice: part 3--long term feasibility assessment of the PEAK program.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is needed to develop effective educational programs for promoting evidence based practice (EBP) and knowledge translation (KT) in physical therapy. This study reports long-term outcomes from a feasibility assessment of an educational program designed to promote the integration of research evidence into physical therapist practice. METHODS: Eighteen physical therapists participated in the 6-month Physical therapist-driven Education for Actionable Knowledge translation (PEAK) program. The participant-driven active learning program consisted of four consecutive, interdependent components: 1) acquiring managerial leadership support and electronic resources in three clinical practices, 2) a 2-day learner-centered EBP training workshop, 3) 5 months of guided small group work synthesizing research evidence into a locally relevant list of, actionable, evidence-based clinical behaviors for therapists treating persons with musculoskeletal lumbar conditions--the Best Practices List, and 4) review and revision of the Best Practices List, culminating in participant agreement to implement the behaviors in practice. Therapists' EBP learning was assessed with standardized measures of EBP-related attitudes, self-efficacy, knowledge and skills, and self-reported behavior at baseline, immediately-post, and 6 months following conclusion of the program (long-term follow-up). Therapist adherence to the Best Practice List before and after the PEAK program was assessed through chart review. RESULTS: Sixteen therapists completed the long-term follow-up assessment. EBP self-efficacy and self-reported behaviors increased from baseline to long-term follow-up (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). EBP-related knowledge and skills showed a trend for improvement from baseline to long-term follow-up (p = 0.05) and a significant increase from immediate-post to long-term follow-up (p = 0.02). Positive attitudes at baseline were sustained throughout (p = 0.208). Eighty-nine charts were analyzed for therapist adherence to the Best Practices List. Six clinical behaviors had sufficient pre- and post-PEAK charts to justify analysis. Of those, one behavior showed a statistically significant increase in adherence, one had high pre- and post-PEAK adherence, and four were change resistant, starting with low adherence and showing no meaningful improvement. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the feasibility of the PEAK program to produce long-term improvements in physical therapists' EBP-related self-efficacy and self-reported behavior. EBP knowledge and skills showed improvement from post-intervention to long-term follow-up and a trend toward long-term improvements. However, chart review of therapists' adherence to the participant generated Best Practices List in day-to-day patient care indicates a need for additional support to facilitate behavior change. Future versions of the PEAK program and comparable multi-faceted EBP and KT educational programs should provide ongoing monitoring, feedback, and problem-solving to successfully promote behavior change for knowledge translation.