Improving emergency department care for adults presenting with mental illness: a systematic review of strategies and their impact on outcomes, experience, and performance.

Background: Care delivery for the increasing number of people presenting at hospital emergency departments (EDs) with mental illness is a challenging issue. This review aimed to synthesise the research evidence associated with strategies used to improve ED care delivery outcomes, experience, and performance for adults presenting with mental illness. Method: We systematically reviewed the evidence regarding the effects of ED-based interventions for mental illness on patient outcomes, patient experience, and system performance, using a comprehensive search strategy designed to identify published empirical studies. Systematic searches in Scopus, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, and Medline were conducted in September 2023 (from inception; review protocol was prospectively registered in Prospero CRD42023466062). Eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) primary research study, published in English; and (2) (a) reported an implemented model of care or system change within the hospital ED context, (b) focused on adult mental illness presentations, and (c) evaluated system performance, patient outcomes, patient experience, or staff experience. Pairs of reviewers independently assessed study titles, abstracts, and full texts according to pre-established inclusion criteria with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Independent reviewers extracted data from the included papers using Covidence (2023), and the quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute suite of critical appraisal tools. Results: A narrative synthesis was performed on the included 46 studies, comprising pre-post (n = 23), quasi-experimental (n = 6), descriptive (n = 6), randomised controlled trial (RCT; n = 3), cohort (n = 2), cross-sectional (n = 2), qualitative (n = 2), realist evaluation (n = 1), and time series analysis studies (n = 1). Eleven articles focused on presentations related to substance use disorder presentation, 9 focused on suicide and deliberate self-harm presentations, and 26 reported mental illness presentations in general. Strategies reported include models of care (e.g., ED-initiated Medications for Opioid Use Disorder, ED-initiated social support, and deliberate self-harm), decision support tools, discharge and transfer refinements, case management, adjustments to liaison psychiatry services, telepsychiatry, changes to roles and rostering, environmental changes (e.g., specialised units within the ED), education, creation of multidisciplinary teams, and care standardisations. System performance measures were reported in 33 studies (72%), with fewer studies reporting measures of patient outcomes (n = 19, 41%), patient experience (n = 10, 22%), or staff experience (n = 14, 30%). Few interventions reported outcomes across all four domains. Heterogeneity in study samples, strategies, and evaluated outcomes makes adopting existing strategies challenging. Conclusion: Care for mental illness is complex, particularly in the emergency setting. Strategies to provide care must align ED system goals with patient goals and staff experience.

Implementation of large, multi-site hospital interventions: a realist evaluation of strategies for developing capability.

BACKGROUND: This study presents guidelines for implementation distilled from the findings of a realist evaluation. The setting was local health districts in New South Wales, Australia that implemented three clinical improvement initiatives as part of a state-wide program. We focussed on implementation strategies designed to develop health professionals' capability to deliver value-based care initiatives for multisite programs. Capability, which increases implementers' ability to cope with unexpected scenarios is key to managing change. METHODS: We used a mixed methods realist evaluation which tested and refined program theories elucidating the complex dynamic between context (C), mechanism (M) and outcome (O) to determine what works, for whom, under what circumstances. Data was drawn from program documents, a realist synthesis, informal discussions with implementation designers, and interviews with 10 key informants (out of 37 identified) from seven sites. Data analysis employed a retroductive approach to interrogate the causal factors identified as contributors to outcomes. RESULTS: CMO statements were refined for four initial program theories: Making it Relevant- where participation in activities was increased when targeted to the needs of the staff; Investment in Quality Improvement- where engagement in capability development was enhanced when it was valued by all levels of the organisation; Turnover and Capability Loss- where the effects of staff turnover were mitigated; and Community-Wide Priority- where there was a strategy of spanning sites. From these data five guiding principles for implementers were distilled: (1) Involve all levels of the health system to effectively implement large-scale capability development, (2) Design capability development activities in a way that supports a learning culture, (3) Plan capability development activities with staff turnover in mind, (4) Increased capability should be distributed across teams to avoid bottlenecks in workflows and the risk of losing key staff, (5) Foster cross-site collaboration to focus effort, reduce variation in practice and promote greater cohesion in patient care. CONCLUSIONS: A key implementation strategy for interventions to standardise high quality practice is development of clinical capability. We illustrate how leadership support, attention to staff turnover patterns, and making activities relevant to current issues, can lead to an emergent learning culture.

What factors are considered in hospital funding models? A review of the literature on health services funding in organisation for economic co-operation and development countries.

BACKGROUND: One of the most difficult challenges in healthcare involves equitable allocation of resources. Our review aimed to identify international funding models in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries for government-funded public hospitals and evidence underpinning their efficacy, via review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature. METHODS: Ovid-Medline, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and PubMed were searched for peer-reviewed literature. Advanced Google searches and targeted hand searches of relevant organisational websites identified grey literature. Inclusion criteria were: English language, published between 2011 and 2022, and that the article: (1) focused on healthcare funding; (2) reported on or identified specific factors, indexes, algorithms or formulae associated with healthcare funding; and (3) referred to countries that are members of the OECD, excluding the United States (US). RESULTS: For peer-reviewed literature 1189 abstracts and 35 full-texts were reviewed; six articles met the inclusion criteria. For grey literature, 2996 titles or abstracts and 37 full-texts were reviewed; five articles met the inclusion criteria. Healthcare funding arrangements employed in 15 OECD countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom [UK; specifically, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland]) were identified, but papers reported population-based funding arrangements for specific regions rather than hospital-specific models. CONCLUSIONS: While some models adjusted for deprivation and ethnicity factors, none of the identified documents reported on health systems that adjusted funding allocation for social determinants such as health literacy levels.

Experience-based codesign approach to improve care in Australian emergency departments for complex consumer cohorts: the MyED project protocol, Stages 1.1-1.3.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) care must adapt to meet current and future demands. In Australia, ED quality measures (eg, prolonged length of stay, re-presentations or patient experience) are worse for older adults with multiple comorbidities, people who have a disability, those who present with a mental health condition, Indigenous Australians, and those with a culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) background. Strengthened ED performance relies on understanding the social and systemic barriers and preferences for care of these different cohorts, and identifying viable solutions that may result in sustained improvement by service providers. A collaborative 5-year project (MyED) aims to codesign, with ED users and providers, new or adapted models of care that improve ED performance, improve patient outcomes and improve patient experience for these five cohorts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Experience-based codesign using mixed methods, set in three hospitals in one health district in Australia. This protocol introduces the staged and incremental approach to the whole project, and details the first research elements: ethnographic observations at the ED care interface, interviews with providers and interviews with two patient cohorts-older adults and adults with a CALD background. We aim to sample a diverse range of participants, carefully tailoring recruitment and support. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/PID02749-2022/ETH02447). Prior informed written consent will be obtained from all research participants. Findings from each stage of the project will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Project outputs will be disseminated for implementation more widely across New South Wales, Australia.

Australian Genomics: Outcomes of a 5-year national program to accelerate the integration of genomics in healthcare.

Australian Genomics is a national collaborative partnership of more than 100 organizations piloting a whole-of-system approach to integrating genomics into healthcare, based on federation principles. In the first five years of operation, Australian Genomics has evaluated the outcomes of genomic testing in more than 5,200 individuals across 19 rare disease and cancer flagship studies. Comprehensive analyses of the health economic, policy, ethical, legal, implementation and workforce implications of incorporating genomics in the Australian context have informed evidence-based change in policy and practice, resulting in national government funding and equity of access for a range of genomic tests. Simultaneously, Australian Genomics has built national skills, infrastructure, policy, and data resources to enable effective data sharing to drive discovery research and support improvements in clinical genomic delivery.

Standardizing variation: Scaling up clinical genomics in Australia.

PURPOSE: Clinical genomics demands close interaction of physicians, laboratory scientists, and genetic professionals. Taking genomics to scale requires an understanding of the underlying processes from the perspective of nongenetic physicians who are new to the field. We identified components of the processes amenable to adaptation when scaling up clinical genomics. METHODS: Semistructured interviews informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework with nongenetic physicians, who were using clinical genomics in practice, were guided by an annotated process map with 7 steps following the patient's journey. Findings from the individual maps were synthesized into an overview process map and a series of individual maps by common location and specialty. Interviews were analyzed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: In total, 16 nongenetic physicians (eg, nephrologists, immunologists) participated, generating 1 overview and 10 individual process maps. Sixteen common steps were identified across clinical specialties and locations, with variations over 9 steps. We report the potential for standardization across these 9 steps. CONCLUSION: When scaling up complex interventions, it is essential to identify steps where variation can be accommodated. With these results we show how process mapping can be used to identify steps where variation is acceptable during scale up to accommodate adaptation to local context, allowing for the inevitable evolution of factors influencing ongoing implementation and sustainability.

The Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (Mackenzie's Mission): Design and Implementation.

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) provides people with information about their chance of having children with autosomal recessive or X-linked genetic conditions, enabling informed reproductive decision-making. RGCS is recommended to be offered to all couples during preconception or in early pregnancy. However, cost and a lack of awareness may prevent access. To address this, the Australian Government funded Mackenzie's Mission­the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project. Mackenzie's Mission aims to assess the acceptability and feasibility of an easily accessible RGCS program, provided free of charge to the participant. In study Phase 1, implementation needs were mapped, and key study elements were developed. In Phase 2, RGCS is being offered by healthcare providers educated by the study team. Reproductive couples who provide consent are screened for over 1200 genes associated with >750 serious, childhood-onset genetic conditions. Those with an increased chance result are provided comprehensive genetic counseling support. Reproductive couples, recruiting healthcare providers, and study team members are also invited to complete surveys and/or interviews. In Phase 3, a mixed-methods analysis will be undertaken to assess the program outcomes, psychosocial implications and implementation considerations alongside an ongoing bioethical analysis and a health economic evaluation. Findings will inform the implementation of an ethically robust RGCS program.

Innovative models of care for the health facility of the future: a protocol for a mixed-methods study to elicit consumer and provider views.

INTRODUCTION: To address the challenges of rapidly changing healthcare, governments and health services are increasingly emphasising healthcare delivery models that are flexible, person centred, cost-effective and integrate hospital services more closely with primary healthcare and social services. In addition, such models increasingly embed consumer codesign, integration of services, and leverage digital technologies such as telehealth and sophisticated medical records systems. OBJECTIVES: This paper provides a study protocol to describe a method to elicit consumer and healthcare provider needs and expectations for the development of innovative care models. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A literature review identified six key models of care, supported by a common theme of consumer-focused care, along with the international evidence supporting the efficacy of these models. A mixed-methods study of the needs and expectations of consumer members and health providers who reside or work in the area of a new hospital catchment will be undertaken. They will complete a community-specific and provider-specific, short demographic questionnaire (delivered during the recruitment process) and be assigned to facilitator-coordinated online workshops comprising small focus groups. Follow-up interviews will be offered. Culturally and linguistically diverse members and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders and their communities will also be consulted. Data will be analysed thematically (qualitative) and statistically (quantitative), and findings synthesised using a triangulated approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be actively disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and in a report to stakeholders. This study was reviewed and approved by the relevant Ethics Committee in New South Wales, Australia.

"The times they are a-changin'": A longitudinal, mixed methods case study of a hospital transformation.

BACKGROUND: Changes to hospital infrastructure are inevitable in ever-evolving healthcare systems. The redevelopment of hospitals and opening of new buildings can be a complex and challenging time for staff as they must find ways to deliver safe and high-quality care while navigating the complexities and uncertainties of change. This study explores the perspectives and experiences of staff and patients before and after the opening of a new hospital building as part of a large public hospital redevelopment in Sydney, Australia. METHODS: The study comprised a longitudinal mixed methods case study design. Methods included two rounds of staff surveys (n = 292 participants), two rounds of staff interviews (n = 66), six rounds of patient surveys (n = 255), and analysis of hospital data at tri-monthly intervals over two years. Data were compared before (2019) and after (2020) a new hospital building opened at a publicly funded hospital in Sydney, Australia. RESULTS: Four key themes and perspectives emerged from the interviews including change uncertainty, communication effectiveness, staffing adequacy and staff resilience. Significant differences in staff perceptions of change readiness over time was identified. Specifically, perceptions that the organisational change was appropriate significantly decreased (2019: 15.93 ± 3.86; 2020: 14.13 ± 3.62; p < .001) and perceptions that staff could deal with the change significantly increased (2019: 17.30 ± 4.77; 2020: 19.16 ± 4.36; p = .001) after the building opened compared to before. Global satisfaction scores from patient survey data showed that patient experience significantly declined after the building opened compared to before (2020: 81.70 ± 21.52; 2019: 84.43 ± 18.46)), t(254) = -64.55, p < 0.05, and improved a few months after opening of the new facilities. This coincided with the improvement in staff perceptions in dealing with the change. CONCLUSIONS: Moving into a new hospital building can be a challenging time for staff and patients. Staff experienced uncertainty and stress, and displayed practices of resilience to deliver patient care during a difficult period of change. Policy makers, hospital managers, staff and patients must work together to minimise disruption to patient care and experience. Key recommendations for future hospital redevelopment projects outline the importance of supporting and informing staff and patients during the opening of a new hospital building.

Mobile Apps for People With Rare Diseases: Review and Quality Assessment Using Mobile App Rating Scale.

BACKGROUND: Mobile apps are becoming increasingly popular, with 5.70 million apps available in early 2021. Smartphones can provide portable and convenient access to health apps. Here, we consider apps for people with one of the estimated 7000 rare conditions, which are defined as having an incidence of <1 in 2000. The needs of people with rare conditions are known to be different from those of people with more common conditions. The former may be socially isolated (not knowing anyone else who has the condition) and may not be able to find reliable information about the disorder. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to search for apps developed specifically for people diagnosed with a rare disease and to assess them for quality using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). We examine features that address 6 identified needs of people with a rare disorder and make recommendations for future developers. METHODS: Google Play Store (Android) and Apple App Store (iOS) were searched for relevant health-related apps specifically for rare diseases. The search included the names of 10 rare disease groups. App quality was determined using MARS, assessing app engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information. RESULTS: We found 29 relevant apps (from a total of 2272) addressing 14 rare diseases or disease groups. The most common rare conditions addressed were cystic fibrosis (n=6), hemophilia (n=5), and thalassemia (n=5). The most common app features were web-based information and symptom trackers. The mean MARS score was 3.44 (SD 0.84). Lowest scores were for engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Most apps provided factual and visual information, providing tools for self-monitoring and resources to help improve interactions during health consultations. App origin and quality varied greatly. Developers are recommended to consider ways to make appropriate apps more easily identifiable to consumers, to always include high-quality information, improve engagement, provide qualitative evaluations of the app, and include consumers and clinicians in the design.

Dimensions of safety culture: a systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods for assessing safety culture in hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The study of safety culture and its relationship to patient care have been challenged by variation in definition, dimensionality and methods of assessment. This systematic review aimed to map methods to assess safety culture in hospitals, analyse the prevalence of these methods in the published research literature and examine the dimensions of safety culture captured through these processes. METHODS: We included studies reporting on quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods to assess safety culture in hospitals. The review was conducted using four academic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science) with studies from January 2008 to May 2020. A formal quality appraisal was not conducted. Study purpose, type of method and safety culture dimensions were extracted from all studies, coded thematically, and summarised narratively and using descriptive statistics where appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 694 studies were included. A third (n=244, 35.2%) had a descriptive or exploratory purpose, 225 (32.4%) tested relationships among variables, 129 (18.6%) evaluated an intervention, while 13.8% (n=96) had a methodological focus. Most studies exclusively used surveys (n=663; 95.5%), with 88 different surveys identified. Only 31 studies (4.5%) used qualitative or mixed methods. Thematic analysis identified 11 themes related to safety culture dimensions across the methods, with 'Leadership' being the most common. Qualitative and mixed methods approaches were more likely to identify additional dimensions of safety culture not covered by the 11 themes, including improvisation and contextual pressures. DISCUSSION: We assessed the extent to which safety culture dimensions mapped to specific quantitative and qualitative tools and methods of assessing safety culture. No single method or tool appeared to measure all 11 themes of safety culture. Risk of publication bias was high in this review. Future attempts to assess safety culture in hospitals should consider incorporating qualitative methods into survey studies to evaluate this multi-faceted construct.

A dynamic systems view of clinical genomics: a rich picture of the landscape in Australia using a complexity science lens.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genomics represents a paradigm shifting change to health service delivery and practice across many conditions and life-stages. Introducing this complex technology into an already complex health system is a significant challenge that cannot be managed in a reductionist way. To build robust and sustainable, high quality delivery systems we need to step back and view the interconnected landscape of policymakers, funders, managers, multidisciplinary teams of clinicians, patients and their families, and health care, research, education, and philanthropic institutions as a dynamic whole. This study holistically mapped the landscape of clinical genomics within Australia by developing a complex graphic: a rich picture. Using complex systems theory, we then identified key features, challenges and leverage points of implementing clinical genomics. METHODS: We used a multi-stage, exploratory, qualitative approach. We extracted data from grey literature, empirical literature, and data collected by the Australian Genomic Health Alliance. Nine key informants working in clinical genomics critiqued early drafts of the picture, and validated the final version. RESULTS: The final graphic depicts 24 stakeholder groups relevant to implementation of genomics into Australia. Clinical genomics lies at the intersection of four nested systems, with interplay between government, professional bodies and patient advocacy groups. Barriers and uncertainties are also shown. Analysis using complexity theory showed far-reaching interdependencies around funding, and identified unintended consequences. CONCLUSION: The rich picture of the clinical genomic landscape in Australia is the first to show key stakeholders, agencies and processes and their interdependencies. Participants who critiqued our results were instantly intrigued and engaged by the graphics, searching for their place in the whole and often commenting on insights they gained from seeing the influences and impacts of other stakeholder groups on their own work. Funding patterns showed unintended consequences of increased burdens for clinicians and inequity of access for patients. Showing the system as a dynamic whole is the only way to understand key drivers and barriers to largescale interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

What Can Health Services Researchers Offer Health Systems? Developing Meaningful Partnerships Between Academics and Health System Workers Comment on "Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering with University-Based Researchers in Canada - A Call to 'Re-imagine' Research".

As healthcare researchers, we know very well our own experiences on the challenges of partnering with those in the health system to do collaborative, internationally-regarded studies aiming for impact. Bowen and colleagues' study in Canada empirically examines these issues from the other side, interviewing health system leaders about their perspectives of us researchers, research collaborations and the challenges and opportunities these pose. Based on their findings, they propose a need to re-imagine the contours of research. Inspired by that, in this commentary we examine the context for research partnerships and consider some of the emerging models for fostering more meaningful collaborations between researchers and those working in healthcare systems and organisations. Based on principles of embedded research and researchers, these models-including translational research networks (TRNs) and researcher-in-residence models-rely on a complex interplay of personal and interpersonal factors to be successful.

Exploring interdisciplinary teamwork to support effective ward rounds.

PURPOSE: This paper aims to explore if health professionals share understanding of teamwork that supports collaborative ward rounds. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A purpose-designed survey was conducted in two acute medical and two rehabilitation wards from a metropolitan teaching hospital. Medical officers, nurses and allied health professionals participated. To understand characteristics that support collaborative ward rounds, questions developed from literature and industry experience asked: what are the enablers and challenges to teamwork; and what are clinicians' experiences of positive teamwork? Descriptive and thematic analyses were applied to the dimensions of effective teamwork as a framework for deductive coding. FINDINGS: Seventy-seven clinicians participated (93% response rate). Findings aligned with dimensions of teamwork framework. There was no meaningful difference between clinicians or specialty. Enablers to teamwork were: effective communication, shared understanding of patient goals, and colleague's roles. Challenges were ineffective communication, individual personalities, lack of understanding about roles and responsibilities, and organisational structure. Additional challenges included: time; uncoordinated treatment planning; and leadership. Positive teamwork was influenced by leadership and team dynamics. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Ward rounds benefit from a foundation of collaborative teamwork. Different dimensions of teamwork present during ward rounds support clinicians' shared understanding of roles, expectations and communication. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Rounds such as structured rounding, aim to improve teamwork. Inverting this concept to first develop effective collaboration will support team adaptability and resilience. This enables teams to transition between the multiple rounding processes undertaken in a single ward. The emphasis becomes high-quality teamwork rather than a single rounding process.

Evaluation of a hospital-based integrated model of eye care for diabetic retinopathy assessment: a multimethod study.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetic eye disease is a leading cause of blindness but can be mitigated by regular eye assessment. A framework of issues, developed from the literature of barriers to eye assessment, was used to structure an examination of perceptions of a new model of care for diabetic retinopathy from the perspective of staff using the model, and health professionals referring patients to the new service. DESIGN: Multimethod: interviews and focus groups, and a separate survey. SETTING: A new clinic based on an integrated model of care was established at a hospital in outer metropolitan Sydney, Australia in 2017. Funded jointly by Centre for Eye Health (CFEH) and the hospital, the clinic was equipped and staffed by optometrists who work alongside the ophthalmologists in the existing hospital eye clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Five (of seven) hospital staff working in the clinic (ophthalmologists and administrative officers) or referring to it from other departments (endocrinologists); nine optometrists from CFEH who developed or worked in the clinic; 10 community-based optometrists as potential referrers. RESULTS: The new clinic was considered to have addressed known barriers to eye assessment, including access, assistance for patients unable/unwilling to organise eye checks and efficient management of human resources. The clinic optimised known drivers of this model of care: providing clear scope of practice and protocols for shared care between optometrists and ophthalmologists, good communication between referrers and eye professionals and a collegial approach promoting interprofessional trust. Remaining areas of concern were few referrals from general practitioners, fewer referrals from hospital endocrinologists than expected and issues with stretched administrative capacity. There were also perceived mismatches between the priorities of hospital management and aims of the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The new model was considered to have addressed many of the barriers to assessment. While there remain issues with the model, there were also unexpected benefits.

Clinical genomic testing: what matters to key stakeholders?

Beyond a narrow focus on cost and outcomes, robust evidence of what is valued in genomic medicine is scarce. We gathered views on value from key stakeholders (clinical genomic staff, operational genomic staff and community representatives) in relation to three testing contexts (General Healthcare, Acute Care and Neurodevelopmental Conditions). We conducted an iterative focus group in three stages over a week using a multiphase mixed methods study, i.e. quantitative ratings and qualitative discussion. For each testing context, the characteristics of genomic testing were generated and ranked by the group using a co-productive approach. Up to 17 characteristics were identified in one scenario with several characteristics featuring in all three testing contexts. The likelihood of getting an answer was consistently reported as most highly valued, followed by the potential for the test to impact on clinical management (or wellbeing/health for Neurodevelopmental Conditions). Risk of discrimination did not feature highly across the different settings (and not at all in Acute Care). While cost was an issue in the general health setting, it was one of the least-valued characteristics in the other two testing contexts. In conclusion, co-producing an understanding of what is valued in different testing contexts, and identifying the areas of differences or commonalities, is important to maximise value provision and inform future policy to ensure that clinical genomic services meet the needs of the community and service providers.

Implementation of e-mental health for depression and anxiety: A critical scoping review.

The aim of this review was to scope the growth and development of implementation research of e-mental healthcare programs for anxiety and depression, the research and evaluation tools used, and the specific implementation processes and outcomes examined. A search of four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) was conducted from January 2000 to January 2019. Of 33 studies identified, most (n = 28) were published in the last five years. Only 10 used an implementation framework to guide implementation or evaluation. Most studies reported on acceptability (n = 28), appropriateness (n = 23), and feasibility (n = 17). Less commonly reported implementation outcomes were fidelity (n = 10) and adoption (n = 7); with penetration (n = 4), sustainability (n = 3), and implementation cost (n = 2) being studied rarely. Of the 21 studies that used surveys to study implementation outcomes, less than half used a previously published survey (n = 9). More rigorous implementation studies, underpinned by strong theory and real-world understanding, are urgently needed.

Patients, health professionals, and the health system: influencers on patients' participation in ward rounds.

BACKGROUND: The ward round is an opportunity to plan and deliver patient-centered care. Benefits include an effective and safer clinician-patient relationship, patient empowerment, reduced anxiety and increased trust in the health care system. Factors contributing to patient involvement in ward rounds is shaped by their preferences, ability, and opportunity. AIM: To investigate ward rounds and the patient experience with them, the relationship between the patient and clinicians, and how rounds facilitate collaboration between them. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multimethod study was conducted in a single Australian facility in acute medicine and rehabilitation specialties. An observational study of ward rounds in each setting was conducted with 14 patients, aged between 55 and 89 years followed by semi-structured interviews conducted with the patients observed. Descriptive and thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: One third of participants had not heard of the term ward round or could describe their purpose. Three main influencers on the patient experience of rounds were: self; the health system; and medical officers. No meaningful difference was found between patients in acute medicine and rehabilitation although all wanted to receive information from the senior medical officers. Patients more familiar with the health system were more active participants and took greater responsibility for their involvement in rounds and described higher satisfaction. CONCLUSION: There is a level of acceptance within the health system that patients understand what a ward round is. However, their role on the round is complex and this may only be developed through experiencing them. High system users teach themselves to navigate rounding processes to ensure their needs are met. To ensure equity in participation patients should be educated on ward rounds, what to expect and how to they can participate.

A transformative translational change programme to introduce genomics into healthcare: a complexity and implementation science study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Translating scientific advances in genomic medicine into evidence-based clinical practice is challenging. Studying the natural translation of genomics into 'early-adopting' health system sectors is essential. We will (a) examine 29 health systems (Australian and Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance flagships) integrating genomics into practice and (b) combine this learning to co-design and test an evidence-based generalisable toolkit for translating genomics into healthcare. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Twenty-nine flagships integrating genomics into clinical settings are studied as complex adaptive systems to understand emergent and self-organising behaviours among inter-related actors and processes. The Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid approach is applied to gather information on the delivery and potential for real-world implementation. Stages '1' and '2a' (representing hybrid model 1) are the focus of this protocol. The Translation Science to Population Impact (TSci Impact) framework is used to study policy decisions and service provision, and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is used to understand individual level behavioural change; both frameworks are applied across stages 1 and 2a. Stage 1 synthesises interview data from 32 participants involved in developing the genomics clinical practice systems and approaches across five 'demonstration-phase' (early adopter) flagships. In stage 2a, stakeholders are providing quantitative and qualitative data on process mapping, clinical audits, uptake and sustainability (TSci Impact), and psychosocial and environmental determinants of change (TDF). Findings will be synthesised before codesigning an intervention toolkit to facilitate implementation of genomic testing. Study methods to simultaneously test the comparative effectiveness of genomic testing and the implementation toolkit (stage 2b), and the refined implementation toolkit while simply observing the genomics intervention (stage 3) are summarised. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted. The results will be disseminated in academic forums and used to refine interventions to translate genomics evidence into healthcare. Non-traditional academic dissemination methods (eg, change in guidelines or government policy) will also be employed.

Medicine information exchange networks among healthcare professionals and prescribing in geriatric medicine wards.

AIMS: Effective transfer of information is vital for rational drug therapy. This is particularly important for older patients, who have a high prevalence of polypharmacy and are managed by multidisciplinary teams. We aimed to assess medicine information exchange (MIE) networks in geriatric medicine wards and whether they are associated with prescribing patterns. METHODS: We conducted network analysis in acute geriatric medicine wards from four hospitals to characterize MIE networks among multidisciplinary team members. Corresponding patient data were collected to analyze high-risk prescribing in conjunction with network characteristics. RESULTS: We found that junior doctors, senior nurses and pharmacists were central to MIE across all four hospitals. Doctors were more likely than other professions to receive medicines information in three hospitals. Reciprocity and the tendency to communicate within one's own profession also influenced network formation. No difference was observed in prescribing practice between hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding MIE networks can identify gaps in multidisciplinary communication that can be addressed. Networks may identify targets for dissemination of interventions to improve prescribing.