Intentional rounding: facilitators, benefits and barriers.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe the implementation, practice and sustainability of Intentional Rounding (IR) within two diverse settings (aged care and maternity). BACKGROUND: The profile of patients in hospitals has changed over time, generally being more severe, placing heavy demands on nurses' time. Routine non-urgent care is often provided only when there is time. IR has been found to increase both patient and staff satisfaction, also resulting in improved patient outcomes such as reduced falls and call bell use. IR is also used as a time management tool for safe and reliable provision of routine care. METHODS: This descriptive qualitative research study comprised of three focus groups in a metropolitan hospital. RESULTS: Fifteen nurses participated in three focus groups. Seven main themes emerged from the thematic analysis of the verbatim transcripts: implementation and maintenance, how IR works, roles and responsibilities, context and environment, benefits, barriers and legal issues. CONCLUSION: IR was quickly incorporated into normal practice, with clinicians being able to describe the main concepts and practices. IR was seen as a management tool, facilitating accountability and continuity of management support being essential for sustainability. Clinicians reported increases in patient and staff satisfaction, and the opportunity to provide patient education. While patient type and acuity, ward layout and staff experience affected the practice of IR, the principles of IR are robust enough to allow for differences in the ward specialty and patient type. However, care must be taken when implementing IR to reduce the risk of alienating experienced staff. Incorporation of IR charts into the patient health care record is recommended. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Engaging all staff, encouraging ownership and stability of management are key factors in the successful implementation and maintenance of IR. IR is flexible and robust enough to accommodate different patient types and acuity.

Nutritional screening, assessment and implementation strategies for adults in an Australian acute tertiary hospital: a best practice implementation report.

OBJECTIVE: The project aimed to improve the effectiveness of nutritional screening and assessment practices through clinical audits and the implementation of evidence-based practice recommendations. INTRODUCTION: In the absence of optimal nutrition, health may decline and potentially manifest as adverse health outcomes. In a hospitalized person, poor nutrition may adversely impact on the person's outcome. If the nutritional status can be ascertained, nutritional needs can be addressed and potential risks minimized.The overall purpose of this project was to review and monitor staff compliance with nutritional screening and assessment best practice recommendations ensuring there is timely, relevant and structured nutritional therapeutic practices that support safe, compassionate and person-centered care in adults in a tertiary hospital in South Western Sydney, Australia, in the acute care setting. METHODS: A baseline retrospective chart audit was conducted and measured against 10 best practice criteria in relation to nutritional screening and assessment practices. This was followed by a facilitated multidisciplinary focus group to identify targeted strategies, implementation of targeted strategies, and a post strategy implementation chart audit.The project utilized the Joanna Briggs Institute Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System (JBI PACES) and Getting Research into Practice (GRIP) tool, including evidence from other available supporting literature, for promoting change in healthcare practice. RESULTS: The baseline audit revealed deficits between current practice and best practice across the 10 criteria. Barriers for implementation of nutritional screening and assessment best practice criteria were identified by the focus group and an education strategy was implemented. There were improved outcomes across all best practice criteria in the follow-up audit. CONCLUSIONS: The baseline audit revealed gaps between current practice and best practice. Through the implementation of a targeted education program and resource package, outcomes improved in the follow up audit. The findings indicated that engagement from multidisciplinary team members and consumers was effective in developing tailored education that improved knowledge of best practice. This was demonstrated by an increase in the percentage of compliance across the 10 criteria, although leaving room for more improvement. A policy has been developed for implementation and future audits are planned to measure whether improved practices have been sustained.

Nursing clinical handover improvement practices among acute inpatients in a tertiary hospital in Sydney: a best practice implementation project.

BACKGROUND: The nursing handover normally occurs at the beginning of a nurse's shift and is considered essential for continuity of care. Nursing handovers have the potential to communicate accurate information about a patient's condition, treatment and anticipated needs but also to be ineffective or even harmful if information is incomplete or omitted. The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care has recognized clinical handover as a National Standard, thus reinforcing its importance. OBJECTIVES: This project aimed to conduct an audit of nursing clinical handover practices to implement evidence-based best practice recommendations to assess the effectiveness of these strategies to maximize the effectiveness of clinical handover across 11 units in a large tertiary hospital. METHODS: The project used the Joanna Briggs Institute's Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System and Getting Research into Practice audit tool for promoting change in healthcare practice. A baseline audit of 330 observations of nursing clinical handover was conducted and measured against seven best practice recommendations, followed by the implementation of targeted strategies and a follow-up audit. RESULTS: The baseline audit revealed significant deficits between current practice and best practice in all but one criterion. Barriers for implementation of nursing clinical handover best practice criteria were identified by the project team, and a bundled education strategy was implemented. There were significantly improved outcomes across all best practice criteria in the follow-up audit. CONCLUSIONS: The findings showed how audits may be used to promote best practice in healthcare and that focused education and provision of relevant resources can have an immediate and positive impact on clinical practice. Some of the measured criteria improved to a moderate degree, leaving room for improvement; however, by the end of the project attitudes toward nursing clinical handover had been "transformed" from a passive routine "must do" task to an active process with a focus on safety and patient/carer engagement. Future audits are planned to ensure sustainability.

Are you busy for the next 5 years? Recruitment in the Childhood Asthma Prevention Study (CAPS).

OBJECTIVE: The process of recruitment into randomized controlled trials is not often reported. In the present paper, the methods used for recruitment into the Childhood Asthma Prevention Study are reported and the reasons why eligible subjects chose not to participate or withdrew from the trial are examined. METHODOLOGY: Recruitment was conducted at the antenatal clinics of six hospitals in Sydney (NSW, Australia). Pregnant women with a family history of asthma who consented to participate were randomized into one of four groups and were asked to follow a set of interventions. The study will continue until the infants are 5 years old. RESULTS: Of 7171 women screened, 2095 (29.2%) were eligible, of whom only 616 (29.4% of eligible women) were recruited. The main reasons for not taking part in the study were a lack of interest, ineligibility (on further questioning), inability to be contacted and 'too busy'. During the first 21/2 years of the trial, 10% of participants withdrew. The most common reasons for withdrawal from the study were loss of contact, family moving interstate or overseas and medical reasons. In families that withdrew from the trial or who were eligible but did not participate, the parents were significantly younger, mothers were less educated and fathers were less likely to be in full-time employment. CONCLUSIONS: By collecting demographic data on people who withdrew from the study and chose not to participate, we gained a better understanding of why our recruitment rate was low. The preferential recruitment of some sectors of the community has important implications for the ways in which future studies will be planned.