Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 25(6): 104998, 2024 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38643969

ABSTRACT

interRAI provides a suite of standardized, validated instruments used to assess health and psychosocial well-being, and to inform person-centered care planning. Data obtained from these standardized tools can also be used at a population level for research and to inform policy, and interRAI is currently used in more than 40 countries globally. We present a brief overview of the use of interRAI internationally within research and policy settings, and then introduce how interRAI is used within the universal public health system in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), including considerations relating to Maori, the Indigenous people of NZ. In NZ, improvement in interRAI data utilization for research purposes was called for from aged care, health providers, and researchers, to better use these data for quality improvement and health advancement for New Zealanders. A national research network has been established, providing a medium for researchers to form relationships and collaborate on interRAI research with a goal of translating routinely collected interRAI data to improve clinical care, patient experience, service development, and quality improvement. In 2023, the network members met (hybrid: in-person and online) and identified research priorities. These were collated and developed into a national interRAI research agenda by the NZ interRAI Research Network Working Group. Research priorities included reviewing the interRAI assessment processes, improving methods for data linkage to national data sets, exploring how Indigenous Data Sovereignty can be upheld, as well as a variety of clinically focused research topics. Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research: This appears to be the first time national interRAI research priorities have been formally identified. Priorities identified have the potential to inform quality and clinical improvement activities and are likely of international relevance. The methodology described to cocreate the research priorities will also be of wider significance for those looking to do so in other countries.


Subject(s)
Quality Improvement , New Zealand , Humans , Patient-Centered Care , Health Services Research
2.
BJGP Open ; 6(1)2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34645654

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Safer prescribing in general practice may help to decrease preventable adverse drug events (ADE) and related hospitalisations. AIM: To test the effect of the Safer Prescribing and Care for the Elderly (SPACE) intervention on high-risk prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or antiplatelet medicines and related hospitalisations. DESIGN & SETTING: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in general practice. Participants were patients at increased risk of ADEs from NSAIDs and/or antiplatelet medicines at baseline. SPACE comprises automated search to generate for each GP a list of patients with high-risk prescribing; pharmacist outreach to provide education and one-on-one review of list with GP; and automated letter inviting patients to seek medication review with their GP. METHOD: The primary outcome was the difference in high-risk prescribing of NSAIDs and/or antiplatelet medicines at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were high-risk prescribing for gastrointestinal, renal, or cardiac ADEs separately, 12-month outcomes, and related ADE hospitalisations. RESULTS: Thirty-nine practices were recruited with 205 GPs and 191 593 patients, of which 21 877 (11.4%) were participants. Of the participants, 1479 (6.8%) had high-risk prescribing. High-risk prescribing improved in both groups at 6 and 12 months compared with baseline. At 6 months, there was no significant difference between groups (odds ratio [OR] 0.99; 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.87 to 1.13) although SPACE improved more for gastrointestinal ADEs (OR 0.81; 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.96). At 12 months, the control group improved more (OR 1.29; 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.49). There was no significant difference for related hospitalisations. CONCLUSION: Further work is needed to identify scalable interventions that support safer prescribing in general practice. The use of automated search and feedback plus letter to patient warrants further exploration.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL