Listen and Change

In the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd and other Black Americans, the world has risen up in pain and anguish to condemn social injustice and racism that has systematically impacted the lives of people of color. Many of you have shared your outrage and impatience regarding lack of diversity in our profession, structural racism in our American culture that leads to inequities, and the need for a lasting systemic change. You have asked for implicit bias training, cultural humility, and frank conversations. You have asked us to look internally as individual members and as an organization. And you have asked us to listen.

Debriefing about the challenges of working in a remote area: A qualitative study of Australian allied health professionals' perspectives on clinical supervision.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of clinical supervision are more pronounced for health professionals in rural and remote areas. Most clinical supervision studies to date have occurred in metropolitan centres and have used the survey methodology to capture participant experiences. There is a lack of qualitative research that captures participants' lived experiences with clinical supervision at the frontline. METHODS: Participants were recruited from rural and remote sites of two Australian states using a purposive maximum variation sampling strategy. Data were collected through individual, semi-structured interviews with participants. Data were analysed using content analysis and themes were developed. Sixteen participants from six professions completed the interviews. RESULTS: Eight themes were developed including the content of supervision, context of supervision, value of supervision, increased need for professional support and unique characteristics of rural and remote clinical supervision. CONCLUSIONS: This study has highlighted the value of clinical supervision for the rural and remote health professional workforce. Furthermore, it has shed light on the unique characteristics of clinical supervision in this population. This information can be used by organisations and health professionals to ensure clinical supervision partnerships are effective thereby enhancing rural and remote workforce recruitment and retention.

Implementing a best-practice model of gestational diabetes mellitus care in dietetics: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Translating research into clinical practice is challenging for health services. Emerging approaches in implementation science recognise the need for a theory-driven approach to identify and overcome barriers to guideline adherence. However, many clinicians do not have the capacity, confidence, or expertise to realise change in their local settings. Recently, two regional sites participated in a facilitated implementation project of an evidence-based model of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) care in dietetics, supported by a team at a metropolitan centre. This study describes (i) stakeholder experiences', and (ii) learnings to inform implementation of the model of care (MOC) across Queensland. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study utilised semi-structured telephone interviews with staff involved in implementation of the MOC project at two regional sites. Eight participants were recruited; five participants were from one site. Interviews were transcribed and analysed to identify recurrent themes. RESULTS: Four main themes were derived: (1) catalyst for positive change, (2) managing project logistics, (3) overcoming barriers, and (4) achieving change. CONCLUSIONS: A model of external facilitated implementation using an evidence-based decision making tool is an effective method of fostering health service change and is acceptable to staff. Key elements of the facilitation were building confidence and capacity in local implementers, through regular contact, encouraging local networking, linking to higher management support and assessing and/or influencing workplace or organizational culture. However, the balance between delivering clinical care while participating in a service change project proved challenging to many participants.

Unmet Needs in Nutritional Care in African Paediatric Oncology Units.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of children diagnosed with cancer in low- and middle-income countries are malnourished, which likely affects survival. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: An online survey to paediatric oncology units (POUs) in Africa was done regarding nutritional assessment and care. RESULTS: Sixty-six surveys were received from POUs in 31 countries. Only 44.4% had a dedicated dietician for nutritional assessment and support; 29.6% undertook routine nutritional assessment during treatment. None reported defined criteria for nutritional intervention. Total parenteral nutrition was not available for 42.6% of POUs, while 51.8% did not have access to commercial enteral nutrition for inpatients, and 25.9% of the hospitals could not supply any home-based nutritional supplements. CONCLUSION: Nutritional assessment in POUs in Africa is neither routinely undertaken nor are there defined criteria to initiate nutritional interventions. Standardized guidelines for nutritional assessment and interventions are needed for African POUs to enable improved outcome.

Impact of disinvestment from weekend allied health services across acute medical and surgical wards: 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Disinvestment (removal, reduction, or reallocation) of routinely provided health services can be difficult when there is little published evidence examining whether the services are effective or not. Evidence is required to understand if removing these services produces outcomes that are inferior to keeping such services in place. However, organisational imperatives, such as budget cuts, may force healthcare providers to disinvest from these services before the required evidence becomes available. There are presently no experimental studies examining the effectiveness of allied health services (e.g., physical therapy, occupational therapy, and social work) provided on weekends across acute medical and surgical hospital wards, despite these services being routinely provided internationally. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of removing weekend allied health services from acute medical and surgical wards using a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority research design. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials between 1 February 2014 and 30 April 2015 among patients on 12 acute medical or surgical hospital wards spread across 2 hospitals. The hospitals involved were 2 metropolitan teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Data from n = 14,834 patients were collected for inclusion in Trial 1, and n = 12,674 in Trial 2. Trial 1 was a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority stepped-wedge trial where the 'current' weekend allied health service was incrementally removed from participating wards each calendar month, in a random order, while Trial 2 used a conventional non-inferiority stepped-wedge design, where a 'newly developed' service was incrementally reinstated on the same wards as in Trial 1. Primary outcome measures were patient length of stay (proportion staying longer than expected and mean length of stay), the proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event, and the proportion with an unplanned readmission within 28 days of discharge. The 'no weekend allied health service' condition was considered to be not inferior if the 95% CIs of the differences between this condition and the condition with weekend allied health service delivery were below a 2% increase in the proportion of patients who stayed in hospital longer than expected, a 2% increase in the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days, a 2% increase in the proportion who had any adverse event, and a 1-day increase in the mean length of stay. The current weekend allied health service included physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work, and allied health assistant services in line with usual care at the participating sites. The newly developed weekend allied health service allowed managers at each site to reprioritise tasks being performed and the balance of hours provided by each professional group and on which days they were provided. Analyses conducted on an intention-to-treat basis demonstrated that there was no estimated effect size difference between groups in the proportion of patients staying longer than expected (weekend versus no weekend; estimated effect size difference [95% CI], p-value) in Trial 1 (0.40 versus 0.38; estimated effect size difference 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.31, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but the proportion staying longer than expected was greater with the newly developed service compared to its no weekend service control condition (0.39 versus 0.40; estimated effect size difference 0.02 [0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.04, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin) in Trial 2. Trial 1 and 2 findings were discordant for the mean length of stay outcome (Trial 1: 5.5 versus 6.3 days; estimated effect size difference 1.3 days [0.9 to 1.8], p < 0.001, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: 5.9 versus 5.0 days; estimated effect size difference -1.6 days [-2.0 to -1.1], p < 0.001, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions for the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days in either trial (Trial 1: 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.18, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: -0.01 [-0.02 to 0.01], p = 0.62, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions in the proportion of patients who experienced any adverse event in Trial 1 (0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.33, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but a lower proportion of patients had an adverse event in Trial 2 when exposed to the no weekend allied health condition (-0.03 [-0.05 to -0.004], p = 0.02, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). Limitations of this research were that 1 of the trial wards was closed by the healthcare provider after Trial 1 and could not be included in Trial 2, and that both withdrawing the current weekend allied health service model and installing a new one may have led to an accommodation period for staff to adapt to the new service settings. Stepped-wedge trials are potentially susceptible to bias from naturally occurring change over time at the service level; however, this was adjusted for in our analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In Trial 1, criteria to say that the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to current weekend allied health condition were not met, while neither the no weekend nor current weekend allied health condition demonstrated superiority. In Trial 2, the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to the newly developed weekend allied health condition across all primary outcomes, and superior for the outcomes proportion of patients staying longer than expected, proportion experiencing any adverse event, and mean length of stay. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001231730 and ACTRN12613001361796.

Public health nutrition workforce development in seven European countries: constraining and enabling factors.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about current public health nutrition workforce development in Europe. The present study aimed to understand constraining and enabling factors to workforce development in seven European countries. DESIGN: A qualitative study comprised of semi-structured face-to-face interviews was conducted and content analysis was used to analyse the transcribed interview data. SETTING: The study was carried out in Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. SUBJECTS: Sixty key informants participated in the study. RESULTS: There are constraining and enabling factors for public health nutrition workforce development. The main constraining factors relate to the lack of a supportive policy environment, fragmented organizational structures and a workforce that is not cohesive enough to implement public health nutrition strategic initiatives. Enabling factors were identified as the presence of skilled and dedicated individuals who assume roles as leaders and change agents. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to strengthen coordination between policy and implementation of programmes which may operate across the national to local spectrum. Public health organizations are advised to further define aims and objectives relevant to public health nutrition. Leaders and agents of change will play important roles in fostering intersectorial partnerships, advocating for policy change, establishing professional competencies and developing education and training programmes.

Examination of the utility of the promoting action on research implementation in health services framework for implementation of evidence based practice in residential aged care settings.

AIM: This study examined the relevance and fit of the PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) as an explanatory model for practice change in residential aged care. BACKGROUND: Translation of research knowledge into routine practice is a complex matter in health and social care environments. Examination of the environment may identify factors likely to support and hinder practice change, inform strategy development, predict and explain successful uptake of new ways of working. Frameworks to enable this have been described but none has been tested in residential aged care. METHODS: This paper reports preliminary qualitative analyses from the Encouraging Best Practice in Residential Aged Care Nutrition and Hydration project conducted in New South Wales in 2007-2009. We examined congruence with the PARiHS framework of factors staff described as influential for practice change during 29 digitally recorded and transcribed staff interviews and meetings at three facilities. FINDINGS: Unique features of the setting were flagged, with facilities simultaneously filling the roles of residents' home, staff's workplace and businesses. Participants discussed many of the same characteristics identified by the PARiHS framework, but in addition temporal dimensions of practice change were flagged. CONCLUSION: Overall factors described by staff as important for practice change in aged care settings showed good fit with those of the PARiHS framework. This framework can be recommended for use in this setting. Widespread adoption will enable cross-project and international synthesis of findings, a major step towards building a cumulative science of knowledge translation and practice change.

[Services portfolio of a department of endocrinology and clinical nutrition]. / Cartera de Servicios de Endocrinología y Nutrición.

Endocrinology and Clinical Nutrition are branches of Medicine that deal with the study of physiology of body glands and hormones and their disorders, intermediate metabolism of nutrients, enteral and parenteral nutrition, promotion of health by prevention of diet-related diseases, and appropriate use of the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive tools related to these disciplines. Development of Endocrinology and Clinical Nutrition support services requires accurate definition and management of a number of complex resources, both human and material, as well as adequate planning of the care provided. It is therefore essential to know the services portfolio of an ideal Department of Endocrinology and Clinical Nutrition because this is a useful, valid and necessary tool to optimize the available resources, to increase efficiency, and to improve the quality of care.

Practice paper of the American Dietetic Association: addressing racial and ethnic health disparities.

Minority populations have remained in relatively poor health compared to the majority population and continue to be underserved by the health care system. Racial and ethnic health disparities are not new phenomena. Understanding the causes of these disparities continues to evolve. Within the past decade researchers have looked more toward social determinants of health to explain the differences. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care provided documentation to shift the discussion from patient behaviors to the contributions of health care systems, including health care providers, that contribute to health disparities. The report was the first comprehensive study that documented racial and ethnic inequities within the US health care delivery system (ie, differential treatment on the basis of race and ethnicity). The authors of the IOM report indicated that they found some evidence to suggest that bias, prejudice, and stereotyping by providers may contribute to differences in care. It is possible that food and nutrition practitioners have the same biases and are presented with the same systems challenges as the health care providers referenced in the IOM report. It is, therefore, also possible that food and nutrition practitioners may be at risk of contributing to health disparities. This article provides an in-depth look at the recommendations put forth by the IOM, offers discipline-specific recommendations consistent with those outlined in the IOM model, and introduces other models that may be of use as food and nutrition practitioners move forward with developing strategies to eliminate racial and ethnic health disparities.