Ultrasonography or Radiography for Suspected Pediatric Distal Forearm Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Data on whether ultrasonography for the initial diagnostic imaging of forearm fractures in children and adolescents is noninferior to radiography for subsequent physical function of the arm are limited. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial in Australia, we recruited participants 5 to 15 years of age who presented to the emergency department with an isolated distal forearm injury, without a clinically visible deformity, in whom further evaluation with imaging was indicated. Participants were randomly assigned to initially undergo point-of-care ultrasonography or radiography, and were then followed for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was physical function of the affected arm at 4 weeks as assessed with the use of the validated Pediatric Upper Extremity Short Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) score (range, 8 to 40, with higher scores indicating better function); the noninferiority margin was 5 points. RESULTS: A total of 270 participants were enrolled, with outcomes for 262 participants (97%) available at 4 weeks (with a window of ±3 days) as prespecified. PROMIS scores at 4 weeks in the ultrasonography group were noninferior to those in the radiography group (mean, 36.4 and 36.3 points, respectively; mean difference, 0.1 point; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.3 to 1.4). Intention-to-treat analyses (in 266 participants with primary outcome data recorded at any time) produced similar results (mean difference, 0.1 point; 95% CI, -1.3 to 1.4). No clinically important fractures were missed, and there were no between-group differences in the occurrence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In children and adolescents with a distal forearm injury, the use of ultrasonography as the initial diagnostic imaging method was noninferior to radiography with regard to the outcome of physical function of the arm at 4 weeks. (Funded by the Emergency Medicine Foundation and others; BUCKLED Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12620000637943).

Development of a Prioritization Framework to Aid Healthcare Funding Decision Making in Health Technology Assessment in Australia: Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study develops a prioritization framework to aid healthcare funding decision making in health technology assessment (HTA) in Australia using a multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach. METHODS: MCDA frameworks for HTAs were reviewed through literature survey to identify the initial criteria and levels within each criterion. Key stakeholders and experts were consulted to confirm these criteria and levels. A conjoint analysis using 1000Minds was undertaken with policy makers from the Department of Health to establish ranking criteria and weighting scores. Monte Carlo simulations were used to examine the sensitivity of findings to factors affecting the ranking and weighting scores. The MCDA was then applied to 6 examples of chronic care models or technologies projects to demonstrate the performance of this approach. RESULTS: Five criteria (clinical efficacy/effectiveness, safety and tolerability, severity of the condition, quality/uncertainty, and direct impact on healthcare costs) were consistently ranked highest by healthcare decision makers. Among the criteria, patient-level health outcomes were considered the most important, followed by social and ethical values. The analyses were robust to inform the uncertainty in the parameter. CONCLUSIONS: This study has developed an MCDA tool that effectively integrates key priorities for HTA reviews, reflecting the values and preferences of healthcare stakeholders in Australia. Although this tool aims to align the assessment process more closely with health benefits, it also highlights the importance of considering other criteria.

Health-related quality of life and experience measures, to assess patients' experiences of peripheral intravenous catheters: a secondary data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are essential for successful administration of intravenous treatments. However, insertion failure and PIVC complications are common and negatively impact patients' health-outcomes and experiences. We aimed to assess whether generic (not condition-specific) quality of life and experience measures were suitable for assessing outcomes and experiences of patients with PIVCs. METHODS: We undertook a secondary analysis of data collected on three existing instruments within a large randomised controlled trial, conducted at two adult tertiary hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Instruments included the EuroQol Five Dimension - Five Level (EQ5D-5L), the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Treatment Satisfaction - General measure (FACIT-TS-G, eight items), and the Australian Hospital Patient Experience Question Set (AHPEQS, 12 items). Responses were compared against two clinical PIVC outcomes of interest: all-cause failure and multiple insertion attempts. Classic descriptives were reported for ceiling and floor effects. Regression analyses examined validity (discrimination). Standardised response mean and effect size (ES) assessed responsiveness (EQ5D-5L, only). RESULTS: In total, 685 participants completed the EQ5D-5L at insertion and 526 at removal. The FACIT-TS-G was completed by 264 and the AHPEQS by 262 participants. Two FACIT-TS-G items and one AHPEQS item demonstrated ceiling effect. Instruments overall demonstrated poor discrimination, however, all-cause PIVC failure was significantly associated with several individual items in the instruments (e.g., AHPEQS, 'unexpected physical and emotional harm'). EQ5D-5L demonstrated trivial (ES < 0.20) responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Initial investigation of an existing health-related quality of life measure (EQ5D-5L) and two patient-reported experience measures (FACIT-TS-G; AHPEQS) suggest they are inadequate (as a summary measure) to assess outcomes and experiences for patients with PIVCs. Reliable instruments are urgently needed to inform quality improvement and benchmark standards of care.

Measuring performance in allied health professional role substitution models of care: a clinician survey.

BACKGROUND: Professional role substitution models of care have emerged as a key strategy to address increasing healthcare demand. Gaining insights from those actively engaged in the process of these models' implementation and evaluation is pivotal to ensuring sustainability and further successful implementation. The purpose of this study was to describe allied-health clinicians' perceptions, practice, and experiences of healthcare performance evaluation in professional role substitution models of care. METHODS: Data were collected via an online platform between 22 June - 22 July 2022 using a combination of convenience and network-based sampling of allied-health clinicians involved or interested in the implementation and evaluation of professional role substitution models of care. Clinicians answered 25 questions which consisted of demographic and targeted questions regarding performance evaluation across six domains of healthcare quality (effectiveness, safety, appropriateness, access & equity, continuity of care, and cost, efficiency, productivity & sustainability). RESULTS: A total of 102 clinicians accessed the survey, with 72 providing complete survey data. Eleven allied-health professions were represented, working across twelve specialities in thirteen hospital and health services. Whilst most allied-health clinicians (93-100%) supported measuring performance in each of the six healthcare quality domains, only 26-58% were measuring these domains in practice. Allied-health leadership support (62.5%), clinician drive (62.5%), consumer engagement (50%) and medical support (46%) were enablers whilst a lack of resources (human, time, financial (47%)), healthcare performance frameworks and/or policies (40%) were identified as barriers. Given the opportunity, clinicians would invest the most financial resources in digital solutions as a core strategy to improve performance evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Allied-health professionals expressed strong support for principles of performance evaluation, however in practice, performance evaluation is still in its infancy in professional role substitution models of care. Organisations can implement strategies that maximise the enablers whilst addressing barriers identified to improve performance evaluation in these models of care.

'The big value of it is getting the patient seen by the right person at the right time': clinician perceptions of the value of allied health primary contact models of care.

Allied health primary contact clinic models of care have increasingly been used as a strategy to increase public health service capacity. A recent systematic review found little consistency or agreement on how primary contact clinics are evaluated. The concept of value of primary contact clinics, which has important implications for evaluation, has not yet been explored in-depth. To explore allied health clinicians' perceptions of the value of allied health primary contact clinics, with the goal of informing an evaluation framework, a descriptive qualitative approach utilizing semi-structured interviews was employed. Participants included allied health staff embedded in clinical lead roles within primary contact clinics across four acute care hospitals in a metropolitan health service located in South-East Queensland, Australia. Lead staff from 30 identified primary contact clinic models in the health service were approached to take part via email. All eligible participants who provided consent were included. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used. A total of 23 clinicians (n = 23) representing 22 diverse models of primary contact clinics participated. Most participants were physiotherapists, dietitians, or occupational therapists, although speech pathology, audiology, and podiatry were also represented. Participant perceptions of the 'value' of PCCs were a highly complex phenomenon, comprising five intersecting domains: (i) patient satisfaction; (ii) clinical outcomes; (iii) care pathway and resource use; (iv) health service performance; and (v) staff satisfaction and professional standing. These five core value domains were positively or negatively influenced by 12 perceived benefits and 8 perceived drawbacks, respectively. Value domains were also highly interrelated and impacted upon each other. The concept of 'value' relating to primary contact clinics involves multiple intersecting domains encompassing different perspectives. This study highlighted potential benefits and drawbacks of primary contact clinics that have not yet been measured or explored in the literature, and as such may be useful for healthcare administrators to consider. The findings of this study will inform an evaluation framework including health economics calculator for primary contact clinics.

Implementation frameworks, strategies and outcomes in optimizing central venous access device practice in paediatrics: A scoping review.

Paediatric patients with complex or acute conditions may require a central venous access device, however, almost one-third of these devices have associated complications (e.g. infections). Implementation of evidence-based practices regarding central venous access devices can reduce and potentially prevent complications. AIMS: This scoping review aimed to explore recent interventional research in CVAD management through an implementation lens. DESIGN: This scoping review used the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Studies were included if they were written in English, published in 2012 to July 2023, involved children and were relevant to the study aims. Risk of bias was appraised by the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. DATA SOURCES: Searches were undertaken in EMBASE, CINAHL (Ebsco), PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). RESULTS: Of the 1769 studies identified in a systematic search, 46 studies were included. Studies mostly focused on health professionals and central venous access device maintenance and had quantitative pre-post study designs. Adherence to implementation frameworks was lacking, with many studies employing quality improvement approaches. Implementation strategies were typically multipronged, using health-professional education, bundles and working groups. Bundle compliance and reductions in central line-associated bloodstream infections were the most featured outcomes, with most studies primarily focusing on effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSION: Translation of evidence-based practices to the clinical setting is difficult and current adoption of implementation frameworks (apart from 'quality improvement') is limited. Implementation strategies are diverse and dependent on the local context, and study outcomes typically focus on the effectiveness of the physical intervention, rather than measuring the implementation effort itself. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENTS: Future intervention research requires a more uniform and deliberate application of implementation frameworks and strategies. IMPACT: Greater exploration of relationships between frameworks and strategies and implementation and service outcomes is required to increase understanding of their role in maximizing resources to improve health care. Adhered to best reporting guidelines as per PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2018). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Associations between facial expressions and observational pain in residents with dementia and chronic pain.

AIM: To identify specific facial expressions associated with pain behaviors using the PainChek application in residents with dementia. DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis from a study exploring the feasibility of PainChek to evaluate the effectiveness of a social robot (PARO) intervention on pain for residents with dementia from June to November 2021. METHODS: Participants experienced PARO individually five days per week for 15 min (once or twice) per day for three consecutive weeks. The PainChek app assessed each resident's pain levels before and after each session. The association between nine facial expressions and the adjusted PainChek scores was analyzed using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: A total of 1820 assessments were completed with 46 residents. Six facial expressions were significantly associated with a higher adjusted PainChek score. Horizontal mouth stretch showed the strongest association with the score, followed by brow lowering parting lips, wrinkling of the nose, raising of the upper lip and closing eyes. However, the presence of cheek raising, tightening of eyelids and pulling at the corner lip were not significantly associated with the score. Limitations of using the PainChek app were identified. CONCLUSION: Six specific facial expressions were associated with observational pain scores in residents with dementia. Results indicate that automated real-time facial analysis is a promising approach to assessing pain in people with dementia. However, it requires further validation by human observers before it can be used for decision-making in clinical practice. IMPACT: Pain is common in people with dementia, while assessing pain is challenging in this group. This study generated new evidence of facial expressions of pain in residents with dementia. Results will inform the development of valid artificial intelligence-based algorithms that will support healthcare professionals in identifying pain in people with dementia in clinical situations. REPORTING METHOD: The study adheres to the CONSORT reporting guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One resident with dementia and two family members of people with dementia were consulted and involved in the study design, where they provided advice on the protocol, information sheets and consent forms, and offered valuable insights to ensure research quality and relevance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number (ACTRN12621000837820).

An mHealth application for chronic vascular access: A multi-method evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare consumers require diverse resources to assist their navigation of complex healthcare interactions, however, these resources need to be fit for purpose. AIM: In this study, we evaluated the utility, usability and feasibility of children, families and adults requiring long-term intravenous therapy using a recently developed mobile health application (App), intravenous (IV) Passport. DESIGN: Multi-site, parallel, multi-method, prospective cohort study. METHODS: A multi-site, multi-method study was carried out in 2020-2021, with 46 participants (20 adults, 26 children/family) reporting on their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months. RESULTS: Overall, utility rates were acceptable, with 78.3% (N = 36) using the IV Passport over the follow-up period, with high rates of planned future use for those still active in the project (N = 21; 73%), especially in the child/family cohort (N = 13; 100%). Acceptability rates were high (9/10; IQR 6.5-10), with the IV Passport primarily used for documenting new devices and complications. Thematic analysis revealed three main themes (and multiple subthemes) in the qualitative data: Advocacy for healthcare needs, Complexity of healthcare and App design and functionality. CONCLUSION: Several recommendations were made to improve the end-user experience including 'how to' instructions; and scheduling functionality for routine care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The IV Passport can be safely and appropriately integrated into healthcare, to support consumers. IMPACT: Patient-/parent-reported feedback suggests the Intravenous Passport is a useful tool for record-keeping, and positive communication between patients/parents, and clinicians. REPORTING METHOD: Not applicable. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Consumers reported their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months.

An mHealth application for chronic vascular access: Consumer led co-creation.

PURPOSE: Children with chronic and complex health conditions frequently need intravenous devices. The current approach to intravenous device selection, insertion, and monitoring is inconsistent, and healthcare consumers are often negatively affected by siloed health information, and poor future planning. Despite child- and family-centred care being recognised as a pillar of paediatric nursing care, limited implementation for vascular access device planning and management is evident. DESIGN AND METHODS: To address this, we conducted a multi-phased approach to co-create, then evaluate, a mobile health (mHealth) application: IV Passport. Co-creation involved a prioritisation survey, followed by a Passport advisory panel consensus meeting. Following confirmation of the required content and features of the Passport, the mHealth application was designed and content validation achieved via survey. RESULTS: The prioritisation survey yielded recommendations for seven features (e.g., graphical presentations of current/past devices). Content for nine device types (e.g., totally implanted ports) was suggested, each with 10 related items (e.g., insertion site). Content items for device-associated complications, future vascular access plans, and educational resources were also suggested. Following design, the application was released through Apple and Android platforms; and adapted to a paper version. Content validation was established; 100% strongly agreed the application was easy to use; 80% agreed/strongly agreed that they would recommend the Passport to others. CONCLUSION: IV Passport embodies effective child- and family-centred care through consumer co-creation to empower patients and families manage vascular access devices. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: IV Passport remains active; and can be utilised across many healthcare settings and patient populations.

Implementing paediatric appropriate use criteria for endotracheal suction to reduce complications in mechanically ventilated children with respiratory infections.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal suction is used to maintain endotracheal tube patency. There is limited guidance to inform clinical practice for children with respiratory infections. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether implementation of a paediatric endotracheal suction appropriate use guideline Paediatric AirWay Suction (PAWS) is associated with an increased use of appropriate and decreased use of inappropriate suction interventions. METHODS: A mixed-method, pre-implementation-post-implementation study was conducted between September 2021 and April 2022. Suction episodes in mechanically ventilated children with a respiratory infection were eligible. Using a structured approach, we implemented the PAWS guideline in a single paediatric intensive care unit. Evaluation included clinical (e.g., suction intervention appropriateness), implementation (e.g., acceptability), and cost outcomes (implementation costs). Associations between implementation of the PAWS guideline and appropriateness of endotracheal suction intervention use were investigated using generalised linear models. RESULTS: Data from 439 eligible suctions were included in the analysis. Following PAWS implementation, inappropriate endotracheal tube intervention use reduced from 99% to 58%, an absolute reduction (AR) of 41% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25%, 56%). Reductions were most notable for open suction systems (AR: 48%; 95% CI: 30%, 65%), 0.9% sodium chloride use (AR: 23%; 95% CI: 8%, 38%) and presuction and postsuction manual bagging (38%; 95% CI: 16%, 60%, and 86%; 95% CI: 73%, 99%), respectively. Clinicians perceived PAWS as acceptable and suitable for use. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of endotracheal tube suction appropriate use guidelines in a mixed paediatric intensive care unit was associated with a large reduction in inappropriate suction intervention use in paediatric patients with respiratory infections.

Experiences of children with central venous access devices: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Our study aims to explore the experience of having a central venous access device (CVAD) from the perspective of the child and family and how movements within and outside of hospital environments influence this experience. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was conducted across Children's Health Queensland (Australia), including inpatient and home-care settings. Children less than 18 years with CVADs were eligible and followed for 3 months or CVAD removal. A subgroup of primary caregivers participated in semi-structured interviews. Quantitative and qualitative measures of child and family CVAD experiences were explored. RESULTS: In total, 163 patients with 200 CVADs were recruited and followed for 6993 catheter days (3329 [48%] inpatients; 3147 [45%] outpatients; 517 [7%] home). Seventeen participants were interviewed. Experiences of having a CVAD were complex but predominantly positive primarily related to personalized CVAD care, healthcare quality, and general wellbeing. Their experience was shaped by their movements through hospital and home environments, including care variation and distress with procedures. Device selection and insertion location further influenced experience, including safety, impairments in activities of daily living, school, and recreation. CONCLUSIONS: CVAD experiences were influenced by nonmodifiable (e.g., diagnosis) and modifiable factors (e.g., education; care variation). Clinical approaches and policies that account for family and child considerations should be explored. IMPACT: Variation in decision making and management for pediatric CVADs is accepted by many clinicians, but the influence this variation has on the health experience of children and their families is less well explored. This is the first study to draw from a broad range of children requiring CVADs to determine their experience within and outside of healthcare facilities. Interdisciplinary clinicians and researchers need to work collaboratively with children and their families to provide resources and support services to ensure they have positive experiences with CVADs, no matter where they are managed, or who they are managed by.

Activating pharmacists to reduce the frequency of medication-related problems (ACTMed): a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Medicines are the most frequent health care intervention type; their safe use provides significant benefits, but inappropriate use can cause harm. Systemic primary care approaches can manage serious medication-related problems in a timely manner. OBJECTIVES: ACTMed (ACTivating primary care for MEDicine safety) uses information technology and financial incentives to encourage pharmacists to work more closely with general practitioners to reduce the risk of harm, improve patients' experience of care, streamline workflows, and increase the efficiency of medical care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The stepped wedge cluster randomised trial in 42 Queensland primary care practices will assess the effectiveness of the ACTMed intervention. The primary outcome will be the proportion of people at risk of serious medication-related problems - patients with atrial fibrillation, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, or asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - who experience such problems. We will also estimate the cost per averted serious medication-related problem and the cost per averted potentially preventable medication-related hospitalisation. ETHICS APPROVAL: The University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee approved the pilot (2021/HE002189) and trial phases of the ACTMed study (2022/HE002136). Access to Patron data was granted by the Patron Data Governance Committee (PAT052ACTMed). Access to linked hospitalisations and deaths data are subject to Public Health Act approval (pending). DISSEMINATION OF FINDINGS: A comprehensive dissemination plan will be co-developed by the researchers, the ACTMed steering committee and consumer advisory group, project partners, and trial site representatives. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities will be supported in leading community-level dissemination. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (pilot: ACTRN12622000595718; 21 April 2022; full trial: ACTRN12622000574741; 14 April 2022).

Testing for selection bias and moral hazard in private health insurance: Evidence from a mixed public-private health system.

Separating selection bias from moral hazard in private health insurance (PHI) markets has been a challenging task. We estimate selection bias and moral hazard in Australia's mixed public-private health system, where PHI premiums are community-rated rather than risk-rated. Using longitudinal cohort data, with fine-grained measures for medical services predominantly funded by PHI providers, we find consistent and robust estimates of advantageous selection among hospitalized cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients. Specifically, we show that in addition to their risk-averse attributes, CVD patients who purchase PHI use fewer services that are not covered by PHI providers (e.g., general practitioners and emergency departments) and have fewer comorbidities. Finally, unlike previous studies, we show that ex-post moral hazard exists in the use of specific "in-hospital" medical services such as specialist and physician services, miscellaneous diagnostic procedures, and therapeutic treatments. From the perspective of PHI providers, the annual cost of moral hazard translates to a lower bound estimate of $707 per patient, equivalent to a 3.03% reduction in their annual profits.

Does affirmative action reduce disparities in healthcare use by Indigenous peoples? Evidence from Australia's Indigenous Practice Incentives Program.

Globally, Indigenous populations experience poorer health but use less primary healthcare than their non-Indigenous counterparts. In 2010, the Australian government introduced a targeted reform aimed at reducing these disparities. The reform reduced, or abolished prescription medicine co-payments and provided financial incentives for GPs to better manage chronic disease care for Indigenous peoples. Exploiting the framework of a natural experiment, we investigate how the reform affected these health disparities in primary and specialist healthcare utilization using longitudinal administrative data from 75,826 Australians, including 1896 Indigenous peoples, with cardiovascular disease. The differences-in-differences estimates indicate that the reform increased primary healthcare use among Indigenous peoples, including 12.9% more prescription medicines, 6.6% more GP services, and 34.0% more chronic disease services, but also reduced specialist attendances by 11.8%. Increases in primary care were larger for those who received the largest co-payment relief and lived in metropolitan regions, whereas the reduction in specialist attendances was concentrated among lower income Indigenous patients. Affirmative action can reduce inequalities in Indigenous use of primary healthcare, albeit careful design is required to ensure that benefits are equitable and do not lead to substitution away from valuable, or necessary, care.

An overview of reproductive carrier screening panels for autosomal recessive and/or X-linked conditions: How much do we know?

BACKGROUND & AIM: Reproductive carrier screening seeks to identify couples at a high risk of having offspring affected by autosomal recessive and X-linked (XL) conditions. The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of existing carrier screening panels by examining their gene content and characteristics, identifying the most common genes/conditions included in these panels, and analyzing their listed prices. METHODS: A comprehensive evaluation of existing carrier screening panels was conducted by searching for web-based content, reviewing information brochures, and establishing direct contact with the providers via email or phone. RESULTS: Twenty-two panels and their providers were identified with a cumulative total of 2205 unique genes. The number of genes included in these panels varied from 44 to 2054. Only 15 genes (0.7%) were included in all the panels. The carrier frequency of these 15 common genes and their associated conditions varied greatly, but the conditions associated with the genes are "severe". The price of these 22 panels ranged from $349 to $4320 per couple (USD in 2023). The correlation between the listed price and the number of selected genes among these panels was small and not statistically significant (r = 0.1023, p = 0.6959). CONCLUSION: Considerable discrepancies exist among carrier screening panels. Ongoing research and monitoring are necessary to capture the dynamic nature of the carrier screening landscape, providing up-to-date information for clinical practice and informed decision-making.

An eConsultant versus a hospital-based outpatient consultation for general (internal) medicine: a costing analysis.

BACKGROUND: The eConsultant model of care is an outpatient substitution approach which has been evaluated and implemented extensively internationally. It provides an asynchronous, digital, clinician-to-clinician advice service, giving primary care physicians remote access to specialist support for patient care within 3 business days. Results from initial trials of the eConsultant model in Australia support international evidence of reduced wait times and improved access to specialist input, avoidance of face-to-face hospital outpatient visits, and better integrated care. This study compared the cost of delivery of an eConsultant episode of care with that of a hospital-based outpatient appointment. METHODS: A cost-minimisation analysis, using a decision analytic model, was used to compare the two approaches. eConsultant costs were calculated from specialist reported data (minutes spent preparing the response; the number of patients referred subsequently for a hospital-based outpatient appointment) and administration staff data (time spent recording the occasion-of-service). Outpatient costs were calculated using finance data and information from outpatient clinic managers at the hospital-based outpatient clinic. The primary outcome was incremental cost saving per patient from a hospital system perspective. Uncertainty was explored using one-way sensitivity analyses and characterised with probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: The traditional referral pathway cost estimate was $587.20/consult compared to $226.13/consult for an eConsultant episode: an efficiency saving of $361.07 per patient. The incremental difference between eConsultant and traditional care was most sensitive to the cost estimate of an outpatient attendance, the time for a specialist to complete an eConsult, and the probability of a patient requiring a face-to-face hospital-based attendance following an eConsult. However, at the upper bounds of each of these estimates, an eConsult remained the most cost-efficient model. In 96.5% of the Monte Carlo simulations eConsult was found to be more cost efficient than the traditional approach. CONCLUSIONS: The eConsultant model of care was associated with a 61.5% efficiency gain, allowing diversion of support to hospital-based outpatient appointments.

Improving difficult peripheral intravenous access requires thought, training and technology (DART3): a stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the most used invasive medical device in healthcare. Yet around half of insertion attempts are unsuccessful leading to delayed medical treatments and patient discomfort of harm. Ultrasound-guided PIVC (USGPIVC) insertion is an evidence-based intervention shown to improve insertion success especially in patients with Difficult IntraVenous Access (BMC Health Serv Res 22:220, 2022), however the implementation in some healthcare settings remains suboptimal. This study aims to co-design interventions that optimise ultrasound guided PIVC insertion in patients with DIVA, implement and evaluate these initiatives and develop scale up activities. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted in three hospitals (two adult, one paediatric) in Queensland, Australia. The intervention will be rolled out across 12 distinct clusters (four per hospital). Intervention development will be guided by Michie's Behavior Change Wheel with the aim to increase local staff capability, opportunity, and motivation for appropriate, sustainable adoption of USGPIVC insertion. Eligible clusters include all wards or departments where > 10 PIVCs/week are typically inserted. All clusters will commence in the control (baseline) phase, then, one cluster per hospital will step up every two months, as feasible, to the implementation phase, where the intervention will be rolled out. Implementation strategies are tailored for each hospital by local investigators and advisory groups, through context assessments, staff surveys, and stakeholder interviews and informed by extensive consumer interviews and consultation. Outcome measures align with the RE-AIM framework including clinical-effectiveness outcomes (e.g., first-time PIVC insertion success for DIVA patients [primary outcome], number of insertion attempts); implementation outcomes (e.g., intervention fidelity, readiness assessment) and cost effectiveness outcomes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework will be used to report the intervention as it was implemented; how people participated in and responded to the intervention; contextual influences and how the theory underpinning the intervention was realised and delivered at each site. A sustainability assessment will be undertaken at three- and six-months post intervention. DISCUSSION: Study findings will help define systematic solutions to implement DIVA identification and escalation tools aiming to address consumer dissatisfaction with current PIVC insertion practices. Such actionable knowledge is critical for implementation of scale-up activities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered (Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12621001497897).

Implementing PainChek and PARO to Support Pain Assessment and Management in Residents with Dementia: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common problem but often undiagnosed and untreated in people with dementia. AIMS: This study explored the experiences of residents with dementia, family, andformal carers with (1) pain assessment and management for residents with dementia; (2) the use of the PainChek app for pain assessment, and (3) the use of a social robot PARO for pain management in residents with dementia. DESIGN: A qualitative study. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were conducted with 13 residents withdementia, three family members, and 18 formal carers from a residential aged carefacility. METHOD: Residents with dementia interacted with PARO for 15 mins, five days perweek for three weeks. The PainChek app assessed pain levels before and after eachsession. After three-week intervention, individual interviews were conducted withresidents, family, and formal carers who experienced or observed the use of PainChekapp and PARO for residents. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, andanalyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes were identified regarding pain in residents with dementia: (1) the impact, challenges and strategies of pain assessment and management; (2) benefits and barriers of using PainChek app to assess pain; (3) benefits of interacting with PARO to manage pain and behavioral symptoms; and (4) implementing PainChek app and PARO to support pain assessment and management in dementia care. CONCLUSIONS: Technology, such as PainChek and PARO, is promising to improve painassessment and reduce pain for people with dementia. Barriers to using technologyinclude limited staff training and the implementation of person-centered care.

Is 2-Stage Septic Revision Worth the Money? A Cost-Utility Analysis of a 1-Stage Versus 2-Stage Septic Revision of Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the gold standard for the management of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee, but several studies have demonstrated that 1-stage exchange is as effective as 2-stage exchange. This study aimed to support decision-making via an economic evaluation of 1-stage compared to 2-stage exchange for total knee arthroplasty septic revision in patients who did not have compelling indication PJI (ie, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, multiorganism, systemic sepsis, comorbidities, culture negative, resistant organism, and immunocompromised) to undergo a 2-stage exchange. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed using a Markov cohort model from the health care provider perspective using Australia data. One-stage septic knee revisions were compared with 2-stage exchange procedures for chronic PJI using a patient-lifetime horizon. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), whereas costs were presented in 2020 Australian dollars. Sensitivity analyses, population expected values of perfect information, and the perfect information for parameters (EVPPI) were assessed to estimate the opportunity costs surrounding the decision made at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 2-stage exchange compared with 1-stage exchange was $231,000 per QALY, with 98.5% of the probabilistic sensitivity simulations above the willingness-to-pay threshold. The population expected value of perfect information was $882,000, whereas the expected value of perfect information for parameters for the "cost parameters" was $207,000. CONCLUSION: The adoption of 1-stage septic knee revision is the optimal choice for patients who have a PJI and who do not have a compelling need for a 2-stage exchange arthroplasty. One-stage exchange for PJI should be advocated in patients who meet the eligibility criteria.

One-stage revision versus debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) for acute prosthetic knee infection: an exploratory cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown that debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is an effective procedure for acute infection of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to explore DAIR and one-stage revision for homogenous cohorts with acute postoperative and acute hematogenous infection of TKA, without compelling indications to perform a staged revision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was an exploratory analysis that used retrospective data from Queensland Health, Australia, for DAIR and one-stage revision of TKA between June 2010 and May 2017 (3-year average follow-up). The re-revision burden, mortality rate, and the cost of the interventions were explored. Costs were expressed in 2020 Australian dollars. RESULTS: There were 15 (DAIR) and 142 (one-stage) patients with homogenous characteristics in the sample. The re-revision burden for DAIR was 20%, while for one-stage revision it was 12.68%. Two deaths were associated with a one-stage revision and no death was associated with DAIR. The total cost since the index revision of DAIR, $162,939, was higher than for one-stage revision $130,924 (p value = 0.501), due to higher re-revision burden. CONCLUSIONS: This study would suggest the use of one-stage revision over DAIR for acute postoperative and acute hematogenous infection of TKA. It suggests that there could be other potential criteria which have not been ascertained that need to be considered for optimal DAIR selection. The study indicates the need for more research and, of note, high-quality randomized controlled trials to provide a well-defined treatment protocol with high level of evidence to guide patient selection for DAIR.