Development of a tool to support managers in planning and evaluating staff training.

AIM: To explore decision-making and evaluation strategies used by healthcare managers in relation to staff training and education, and to develop a tool to support managers with these tasks. METHOD: Using snowball sampling, 30 healthcare managers in a variety of healthcare settings were recruited and interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Data were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Four overarching themes were identified in relation to decision-making regarding staff training: the nature and characteristics of courses relevant to practice; the effect of practice requirements for education and training; staff motivation and interest; and the process of staff selection for training. Managers did not use formal, structured processes to make decisions about staff selection for training, nor to evaluate the outcomes of the training. Instead, they largely relied on their personal experience, knowledge and professional judgements. Based on these findings, the study team developed the Assessment, Planning and Evaluation of Training (APET) tool to support the planning and evaluation of training, and they invited feedback from healthcare managers. Positive feedback suggests that this tool could support managers' decision-making in relation to planning and evaluating staff training. CONCLUSION: Healthcare managers' decision-making in relation to the planning and evaluation of staff training relied on judgements based on their personal experience and knowledge. The APET tool developed by the study team has the potential to ensure vital resources such as time and money are used optimally, which would improve outcomes for staff, patients and healthcare organisations.

Do surgical care bundles reduce the risk of surgical site infections in patients undergoing colorectal surgery? A systematic review and cohort meta-analysis of 8,515 patients.

BACKGROUND: Care bundles are a strategy that can be used to reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI), but individual studies of care bundles report conflicting outcomes. This study assesses the effectiveness of care bundles to reduce SSI among patients undergoing colorectal surgery. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of care bundles to reduce SSI. The search strategy included database and clinical trials register searches from 2012 until June 2014, searching reference lists of retrieved studies and contacting study authors to obtain missing data. The Downs and Black checklist was used to assess the quality of all studies. Raw data were used to calculate pooled relative risk (RR) estimates using Cochrane Review Manager. The I(2) statistic and funnel plots were performed to identify publication bias. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to examine the influence of individual data sets on pooled RRs. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the analysis, with 13 providing sufficient data for a meta-analysis. Most study bundles included core interventions such as antibiotic administration, appropriate hair removal, glycemic control, and normothermia. The SSI rate in the bundle group was 7.0% (328/4,649) compared with 15.1% (585/3,866) in a standard care group. The pooled effect of 13 studies with a total sample of 8,515 patients shows that surgical care bundles have a clinically important impact on reducing the risk of SSI compared to standard care with a CI of 0.55 (0.39-0.77; P = .0005). CONCLUSION: The systematic review and meta-analysis documents that use of an evidence-based, surgical care bundle in patients undergoing colorectal surgery significantly reduced the risk of SSI.

'This wound has spoilt everything': emotional capital and the experience of surgical site infections.

In this article we explore the experience of suffering from a surgical site infection, a common complication of surgery affecting around 5 per cent of surgical patients, via an interview study of 17 patients in the Midlands in the UK. Despite their prevalence, the experience of surgical site infections has received little attention so far. In spite of the impairment resulting from these iatrogenic problems, participants expressed considerable stoicism and we interpret this via the notion of emotional capital. This idea derives from the work of Pierre Bourdieu, Helga Nowotny and Diane Reay and helps us conceptualise the emotional resources accumulated and expended in managing illness and in gaining the most from healthcare services. Participants were frequently at pains not to blame healthcare personnel or hospitals, often discounting the infection's severity, and attributing it to chance, to 'germs' or to their own failure to buy and apply wound care products. The participants' stoicism was thus partly afforded by their refusal to blame healthcare institutions or personnel. Where anger was described, this was either defused or expressed on behalf of another person. Emotional capital is associated with deflecting the possibility of complaint and sustaining a deferential and grateful position in relation to the healthcare system.