Changing medical student attitudes to patient safety: a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Although patient safety is becoming widely taught in medical schools, its effect has been less rigorously evaluated. We describe a multicentre study to evaluate student changes in patient safety attitudes using a standardised instrument, the Attitudes to Patient Safety Questionnaire3 (APSQ3). METHODS: A patient safety training package designed for medical students was delivered in the first year and second year in four Australian medical schools. It comprises eight face-to-face modules, each of two hours. Seminars start with an interactive introduction using questions, video and role play, followed by small group break-outs to discuss a relevant case study. Groups are led by medical school tutors with no prior training in patient safety. Students and tutors then reassemble to give feedback and reinforce key concepts. Knowledge and attitudes to patient safety were measured using the APSQ3, delivered prior to safety teaching, at the end of the first and second years and 12 months after teaching ceased. RESULTS: A significant improvement in attitude over time was demonstrated for four of nine key items measured by the APSQ3: value of patient safety teaching; danger of long working hours, value of team work and the contribution patients can make in reducing error. Informal feedback from students was very positive. CONCLUSION: We showed persistent, positive learning from a patient safety education intervention 12 months after teaching finished. Building on the introduction of patient safety teaching into medical schools, pathways for motivated students such as appropriate electives, option terms and team-based research projects would be of value.

Strengthening the capacity of nursing leaders through multifaceted professional development initiatives: A mixed method evaluation of the 'Take The Lead' program.

BACKGROUND: Effective nursing leadership is necessary for the delivery of safe, high quality healthcare. Yet experience and research tells us that nursing leaders are commonly unprepared for their roles. Take The Lead (TTL), a large-scale, multifaceted professional development program was initiated in New South Wales, Australia, to strengthen the capacity of Nursing/Midwifery Unit Managers (N/MUMs). The aim of this study was to examine the effects of TTL on job performance, nursing leadership and patient experience. METHODS: Nursing/Midwifery Unit Managers (n = 30) and managers of N/MUMs (n = 30) who had completed the TTL program were interviewed between August and December 2010. The semi-structured interviews included a combination of open-ended questions and questions that required respondents to rate statements using a Likert scale. Data from the open-ended questions were thematically analysed to identify and categorise key concepts. The responses to the Likert items were analysed via descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Nursing/Midwifery Unit Managers' participation in TTL engendered improvements in job performance and leadership skills, as well as some improvement in patients' experiences of care. The program facilitated role clarification and helped foster peer-support and learning networks, which were perceived to provide ongoing professional and personal benefits to participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed a consensus about the beneficial outcomes of TTL among those involved with the program. It supports the significant and ongoing value of widely implemented, multifaceted nursing leadership development programs and demonstrates that participants value their informal interactions as highly as they do the formal content. These findings have implications for delivery mode of similar professional development programs.

Multidisciplinary diabetes team care: the experiences of young adults with Type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: This research examined whether young adults with Type 1 diabetes engage with the multidisciplinary consultation process and if not, then why. METHODS: We designed a web-based self-reported survey, available online from February to May 2011, for Australian adults 18-35 years with Type 1 diabetes. Respondents were asked about which clinicians they consulted to assist with self-management. To expand on the results of the survey, we interviewed 33 respondents. SURVEY: Respondents (n = 150) consulted with the following clinicians: endocrinologist and diabetes educators: 23.3%; endocrinologist only: 18.0%; endocrinologist, diabetes educators and dieticians: 14.6%; endocrinologist, diabetes educators, dietician and general practitioners (GP): 11.3%; endocrinologist and GP: 10.6%; GP only: 4.6%; all clinicians recommended to assist with self-management: 1.3%; 2.7% did not consult any clinician. Interview: Participants (n = 33) reported eight key disincentives to consultation with multidisciplinary clinicians. These were time constraints; provision of conflicting advice; inaccessibility of health services; variation in service standards; cost constraints; failure of clinicians to refer to other clinicians; lack of opportunity to build a therapeutic relationship; and failure of clinicians to engage in shared decision making. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that high attrition rates of young adults with Type 1 diabetes from recommended diabetes health services is linked to the failure of those services to meet the needs and preferences of their patients. The identified needs and preferences included joint consultation with multi-disciplinary team clinicians; flexible access to advice by email or telephone consultation; and shared decision making. Patient engagement in health-service re-design has implications for improved health-service delivery and enhanced treatment outcomes.

The development, design, testing, refinement, simulation and application of an evaluation framework for communities of practice and social-professional networks.

BACKGROUND: Communities of practice and social-professional networks are generally considered to enhance workplace experience and enable organizational success. However, despite the remarkable growth in interest in the role of collaborating structures in a range of industries, there is a paucity of empirical research to support this view. Nor is there a convincing model for their systematic evaluation, despite the significant potential benefits in answering the core question: how well do groups of professionals work together and how could they be organised to work together more effectively? This research project will produce a rigorous evaluation methodology and deliver supporting tools for the benefit of researchers, policymakers, practitioners and consumers within the health system and other sectors. Given the prevalence and importance of communities of practice and social networks, and the extent of investments in them, this project represents a scientific innovation of national and international significance. METHODS AND DESIGN: Working in four conceptual phases the project will employ a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to develop, design, field-test, refine and finalise an evaluation framework. Once available the framework will be used to evaluate simulated, and then later existing, health care communities of practice and social-professional networks to assess their effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes. Peak stakeholder groups have agreed to involve a wide range of members and participant organisations, and will facilitate access to various policy, managerial and clinical networks. DISCUSSION: Given its scope and size, the project represents a valuable opportunity to achieve breakthroughs at two levels; firstly, by introducing novel and innovative aims and methods into the social research process and, secondly, through the resulting evaluation framework and tools. We anticipate valuable outcomes in the improved understanding of organisational performance and delivery of care. The project's wider appeal lies in transferring this understanding to other health jurisdictions and to other industries and sectors, both nationally and internationally. This means not merely publishing the results, but contextually interpreting them, and translating them to advance the knowledge base and enable widespread institutional and organisational application.

Diabetes education: the experiences of young adults with type 1 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Clinician-led diabetes education is a fundamental component of care to assist people with Type 1 diabetes (T1D) self-manage their disease. Recent initiatives to incorporate a more patient-centered approach to diabetes education have included recommendations to make such education more individualized. Yet there is a dearth of research that identifies patients' perceptions of clinician-led diabetes education. We aimed to describe the experience of diabetes education from the perspective of young adults with T1D. METHODS: We designed a self-reported survey for Australian adults, aged 18-35 years, with T1D. Participants (n = 150) were recruited by advertisements through diabetes consumer-organizations. Respondents were asked to rate aspects of clinician-led diabetes education and identify sources of self-education. To expand on the results of the survey we interviewed 33 respondents in focus groups. SURVEY: The majority of respondents (56.0%) were satisfied with the amount of continuing clinician-led diabetes education; 96.7% sought further self-education; 73.3% sourced more diabetes education themselves than that provided by their clinicians; 80.7% referred to diabetes organization websites for further education; and 30.0% used online chat-rooms and blogs for education. Focus groups: The three key themes that emerged from the interview data were deficiencies related to the pedagogy of diabetes education; knowledge deficiencies arising from the gap between theoretical diabetes education and practical reality; and the need for and problems associated with autonomous and peer-led diabetes education. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that there are opportunities to improve clinician led-diabetes education to improve patient outcomes by enhancing autonomous health-literacy skills and to incorporate peer-led diabetes education and support with clinician-led education. The results provide evidence for the potential value of patient engagement in quality improvement and health-service redesign.

Shared decision-making: the perspectives of young adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is at the core of patient-centered care. We examined whether young adults with type 1 diabetes perceived the clinician groups they consulted as practicing SDM. METHODS: In a web-based survey, 150 Australians aged 18-35 years and with type 1 diabetes rated seven aspects of SDM in their interactions with endocrinologists, diabetes educators, dieticians, and general practitioners. Additionally, 33 participants in seven focus groups discussed these aspects of SDM. RESULTS: Of the 150 respondents, 90% consulted endocrinologists, 60% diabetes educators, 33% dieticians, and 37% general practitioners. The majority of participants rated all professions as oriented toward all aspects of SDM, but there were professional differences. These ranged from 94.4% to 82.2% for "My clinician enquires about how I manage my diabetes"; 93.4% to 82.2% for "My clinician listens to my opinion about my diabetes management"; 89.9% to 74.1% for "My clinician is supportive of my diabetes management"; 93.2% to 66.1% for "My clinician suggests ways in which I can improve my self-management"; 96.6% to 85.7% for "The advice of my clinician can be understood"; 98.9% to 82.2% for "The advice of my clinician can be trusted"; and 86.5% to 67.9% for "The advice of my clinician is consistent with other members of the diabetes team". Diabetes educators received the highest ratings on all aspects of SDM. The mean weighted average of agreement to SDM for all consultations was 84.3%. Focus group participants reported actively seeking clinicians who practiced SDM. A lack of SDM was frequently cited as a reason for discontinuing consultation. The dominant three themes in focus group discussions were whether clinicians acknowledged patients' expertise, encouraged patients' autonomy, and provided advice that patients could utilize to improve self-management. CONCLUSION: The majority of clinicians engaged in SDM. Young adults with type 1 diabetes prefer such clinicians. They may fail to take up recommended health services when clinicians do not practice this component of patient-centered care. Such findings have implications for patient safety, improved health outcomes, and enhanced health service delivery.

Leadership in complex networks: the importance of network position and strategic action in a translational cancer research network.

BACKGROUND: Leadership behaviour in complex networks is under-researched, and little has been written concerning leadership of translational research networks (TRNs) that take discoveries made 'at the bench' and translate them into practices used 'at the bedside.' Understanding leaders' opportunities and behaviours within TRNs working to solve this key problem in implementing evidence into clinical practice is therefore important. This study explored the network position of governing body members and perceptions of their role in a new TRN in Sydney, Australia. The paper asks three questions: Firstly, do the formal, mandated leaders of this TRN hold key positions of centrality or brokerage in the informal social network of collaborative ties? Secondly, if so, do they recognise the leadership opportunities that their network positions afford them? Thirdly, what activities associated with these key roles do they believe will maximise the TRN's success? METHODS: Semi-structured interviews of all 14 governing body members conducted in early 2012 explored perceptions of their roles and sought comments on a list of activities drawn from review of successful transdisciplinary collaboratives combined with central and brokerage roles. An on-line, whole network survey of all 68 TRN members sought to understand and map existing collaborative connections. Leaders' positions in the network were assessed using UCInet, and graphs were generated in NetDraw. RESULTS: Social network analysis identified that governing body members had high centrality and high brokerage potential in the informal network of work-related ties. Interviews showed perceived challenges including 'silos' and the mismatch between academic and clinical goals of research. Governing body members recognised their central positions, which would facilitate the leadership roles of leading, making decisions, and providing expert advice necessary for the co-ordination of effort and relevant input across domains. Brokerage potential was recognised in their clearly understood role of representing a specialty, campus or research group on the governing body to provide strategic linkages. Facilitation, mentoring and resolving conflicts within more localised project teams were spoken of as something 'we do all the time anyway,' as well as something they would do if called upon. These leadership roles are all linked with successful collaborative endeavours in other fields. CONCLUSIONS: This paper links the empirical findings of the social network analysis with the qualitative findings of the interviews to show that the leaders' perceptions of their roles accord with both the potential inherent in their network positions as well as actual activities known to increase the success of transdisciplinary teams. Understanding this is key to successful TRNs.