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.

Effectiveness of topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy for burn scar prevention and management in children 12-months postburn: A parallel group randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The longer-term effectiveness of silicone and pressure burn scar interventions was evaluated at 12-months postburn. DESIGN: Parallel group, randomised trial. SETTING: Hospital outpatient clinics, research centre. PARTICIPANTS: Children referred for burn scar management following grafted or spontaneously healed acute burn injuries or scar reconstruction surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to: (1) topical silicone gel only, (2) pressure garment only, or (3) combined topical silicone gel and pressure garment. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were scar thickness (blinded ultrasound measurement) and itch intensity (caregiver proxy-report, numeric rating scale). RESULTS: Of 153 participants randomised who received the interventions (silicone n = 51, pressure garment n = 49, combined n = 53), 86 were followed-up at 12-months postburn (n = 34, n = 28, n = 24). No differences were identified for the primary outcomes using intention-to-treat analysis. Scar thickness mean difference (95% confidence interval) = 0.00 cm (-0.04, 0.05); -0.03 cm (-0.07, 0.02); 0.03 cm (-0.02, 0.08) and scar itch = 0.09 (-0.88, 1.06); -0.21 (-1.21, 0.79); 0.30 (-0.73, 1.32) for silicone vs pressure; silicone vs combined and combined vs pressure respectively. No serious adverse effects occurred. CONCLUSION: Similar to short-term results, the combined intervention offered no statistically or clinically significant benefit for improving the primary outcomes compared to each intervention alone. No differences in the primary outcomes were identified between the silicone and pressure alone groups.

Effectiveness of topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy for burn scar prevention and management in children: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of silicone and pressure garments (alone and in combination) in children receiving scar management post-burn. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Hospital outpatient clinics, colocated research centre, or the participant's home. PARTICIPANTS: Children (0-18 years) referred for burn scar management. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to (1) topical silicone gel only, (2) pressure garment therapy only, or (3) combined topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes included scar thickness and itch intensity at the primary end-point of six months post-burn injury. The outcome assessor and data analyst were blinded for scar thickness. RESULTS: Participants (N = 153; silicone n = 51, pressure n = 49, combined n = 53) had a median (inter-quartile range) age of 4.9 (1.6, 10.2) years and percent total body surface area burn of 1% (0.5%, 3%) and were 65% male. At six months post-burn injury, intention-to-treat analysis identified thinner scars in the silicone (n = 51 scar sites) compared to the combined group (n = 48 scar sites; mean difference (95% confidence interval) = -0.04 cm (-0.07, -0.00), P = 0.05). No other between-group differences were identified for scar thickness or itch intensity at six months post-burn. CONCLUSION: No difference was identified in the effectiveness of silicone and pressure interventions alone. No benefit to a combined silicone and pressure intervention was identified for the prevention and management of abnormal scarring in children at six months post-burn injury, compared to the silicone or pressure interventions alone.

Cost-effectiveness of scar management post-burn: a trial-based economic evaluation of three intervention models.

Optimal burn scar management has the potential to markedly improve the lives of children, but can require substantial healthcare resources. The study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of three scar management interventions: pressure garment; topical silicone gel; combined pressure garment and topical silicone gel therapy, alongside a randomised controlled trial of these interventions. Participants were children (n = 153) referred for burn scar management following grafting, spontaneous healing after acute burn injury, or reconstructive surgery. Healthcare resource use was costed from a health service perspective (6-months post-burn time-horizon). The mean total scar management cost was lowest in the topical silicone gel group ($382.87 (95% CI $337.72, $443.29)) compared to the pressure garment ($1327.02 (95% CI $1081.46, $1659.95)) and combined intervention $1605.97 ($1077.65, $2694.23)) groups. There were no significant between-group differences in Quality Adjusted Life Year estimates. There was a 70% probability that topical silicone gel dominated pressure garment therapy (was cheaper and more effective), a 29% probability that pressure garment therapy dominated combined therapy, and a 63% probability that topical silicone gel dominated combined therapy. In conclusion, topical silicone gel was the cheaper intervention, and may be favoured in the absence of clear clinical effect favouring pressure garment therapy or a combination of these management approaches.Trial registration: ACTRN12616001100482 (prospectively registered).

Variability of pressure at the pressure garment-scar interface in children after burn: A pilot longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Current consensus for the ideal pressure range at the pressure garment to scar interface is 15-25mmHg. Interface pressure variability has been reported at new pressure garment fitting in children. Pressure reductions up to 25% have been recorded over one month in adults. METHOD: A pilot longitudinal cohort study was completed with children aged less than 18 years receiving pressure garment therapy after burn. Interface pressure was measured at first pressure garment fitting, one month and three months after fitting. Analysis was conducted using Linear Mixed Models. RESULTS: Thirty-four children were recruited to the study, 62% were male. Participants had a median (IQR) age of 3 (6) years. At the first garment fitting, 32% of stationary and 25% of dynamic measurements were within 15-25mmHg. Pressure variations were recorded at one and three months with scar location (p=0.03) and %TBSA (p=0.006) identified as predictors of stationary interface pressure. No statistically significant predictors of dynamic pressure were identified. DISCUSSION: Interface pressure variability was recorded over time during children's wear of the first pressure garment after burn. Further investigation of factors contributing to pressure changes, subsequent impact on adherence and the effect of sub-optimal pressure application on burn scar outcomes is indicated.

Occupational therapy for people with dementia and their family carers provided at home: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of occupational therapy provided at home on activities of daily living, behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) and quality of life (QOL) for people with dementia, and the effect on family carer burden, depression and QOL. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Eight databases were searched to February 2018. Randomised controlled trials of occupational therapy delivered at home for people with dementia and their family carers that measured ADL, and/or BPSD were included. Two independent reviewers determined eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. RESULTS: Fifteen trials were included (n=2063). Occupational therapy comprised multiple components (median=8 sessions). Compared with usual care or attention control occupational therapy resulted in improvements in the following outcomes for people with dementia: overall ADL after intervention (standardised means difference (SMD) 0.61, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.05); instrumental ADL alone (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.37; moderate quality); number of behavioural and psychological symptoms (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.08; moderate quality); and QOL (SMD 0.76, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.24) after the intervention and at follow-up (SMD 1.07, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.55). Carers reported less hours assisting the person with dementia (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.07); had less distress with behaviours (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.05; moderate quality) and improved QOL (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.33; moderate quality). Two studies compared occupational therapy with a comparison intervention and found no statistically significant results. GRADE ratings indicated evidence was very low to moderate quality. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that occupational therapy provided at home may improve a range of important outcomes for people with dementia and their family carers. Health professionals could consider referring them for occupational therapy. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42011001166.

Reliability and clinical utility of the Pliance X for measuring pressure at the interface of pressure garments and burn scars in children.

BACKGROUND: Reliable, clinically acceptable pressure measuring devices are important to accurately record interface pressure. The Pliance X is a device that may overcome previous device limitations (i.e. pressure garment distortion, temperature dependent sensors). This research aimed to identify the test-retest reliability and clinical utility of the Pliance X in children receiving pressure garment therapy post-burn. METHODS: Data was collected as part of a pilot longitudinal cohort study. Immediate test-retest reliability was investigated at baseline and analysed using Intra-Class Correlation Coefficients (ICCs). Clinical utility was evaluated at baseline using the criteria of appropriate, accessible, practicable and acceptable. RESULTS: Thirty-one children completed baseline measurements. Participants had a median age of three years (IQR: 1.5, 7.5), and 61% were male. Test-retest reliability of the Pliance X was close to acceptable for clinical use for stationary interface pressure (ICC=0.87, n=27). The Pliance X was appropriate and acceptable for children of all ages who were not distressed. DISCUSSION: Further reliability testing is required, including inter-rater reliability testing. The device's clinical utility could be improved with alternate sensor styles and an instant mean pressure reading to enable immediately clinically useful information on the interface pressure.

Effectiveness of topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy for burn scar prevention and management in children: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal scar development following burn injury can cause substantial physical and psychological distress to children and their families. Common burn scar prevention and management techniques include silicone therapy, pressure garment therapy, or a combination of both. Currently, no definitive, high-quality evidence is available for the effectiveness of topical silicone gel or pressure garment therapy for the prevention and management of burn scars in the paediatric population. Thus, this study aims to determine the effectiveness of these treatments in children. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial will be conducted at a large tertiary metropolitan children's hospital in Australia. Participants will be randomised to one of three groups: Strataderm® topical silicone gel only, pressure garment therapy only, or combined Strataderm® topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy. Participants will include 135 children (45 per group) up to 16 years of age who are referred for scar management for a new burn. Children up to 18 years of age will also be recruited following surgery for burn scar reconstruction. Primary outcomes are scar itch intensity and scar thickness. Secondary outcomes include scar characteristics (e.g. colour, pigmentation, pliability, pain), the patient's, caregiver's and therapist's overall opinion of the scar, health service costs, adherence, health-related quality of life, treatment satisfaction and adverse effects. Measures will be completed on up to two sites per person at baseline and 1 week post scar management commencement, 3 months and 6 months post burn, or post burn scar reconstruction. Data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate regression analyses. DISCUSSION: Results of this study will determine the effectiveness of three noninvasive scar interventions in children at risk of, and with, scarring post burn or post reconstruction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001100482 . Registered on 5 August 2016.