Patient participation in surgical wound care in acute care settings: An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections can significantly impact postoperative recovery. Patient participation, which involves patients actively engaging in wound care, has been linked to improved healing and reduced wound complications. However, there is limited synthesis of the literature that explores the patient's role and participation in the context of surgical wound care. OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' perceptions of how they participate in surgical wound care, within 30 days post-operation. DESIGN: An integrative review guided by Whittemore and Knafl's methodology. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022363669). DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in Medline (Ovid), CINAHL (Complete), and EMBASE (Elsevier) databases in October 2023, supplemented by forward and backward citation searching. REVIEW METHODS: Based on a priori eligibility criteria, two authors independently screened articles to select relevant studies. The quality of the included research articles was critically appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A descriptive and thematic synthesis was used to synthesise the findings. RESULTS: Of the 4701 records screened for titles and abstracts, 25 studies using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs were included. Three key themes were identified. In theme 1, 'I am healing: how my wound shapes me and my journey,' physical symptoms, psychological factors and previous experiences significantly influenced patients' engagement in wound care. Theme 2, 'Taking charge of my healing: my active engagement in wound care' described how patient participation in surgical wound care goes beyond clinical procedures and can include the use of technology and holistic self-care. Finally, theme 3, 'Navigating the path to recovery: How others shape my experience' showed that effective communication is crucial for promoting participation, yet issues like inadequate information can leave patients unprepared for wound management. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights opportunities to personalise and prioritise a patient-oriented approach to surgical wound care. Clinicians and educators should adopt an individualised approach by tailoring patient participation based on patient factors (i.e. physical symptoms) and adopt patient-centred communication approaches. Researchers should focus on exploring approaches to self-care and technology, as these approaches may enhance patient participation in wound care.

Clinicians' perceptions of "enhanced recovery after surgery" (ERAS) protocols to improve patient safety in surgery: a national survey from Australia.

BACKGROUND: Surgical patients are at risk of postoperative complications, which may lead to increased morbidity, mortality, hospital length-of-stay and healthcare costs. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) protocols are evidence-based and have demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing complications and associated consequences. However, their adoption in Australia has been limited and the reason for this is unclear. This study aimed to describe clinicians' perceptions of ERAS protocols in Australia. METHODS: A national online survey of anaesthetists, surgeons and nurses was undertaken. Invitations to participate were distributed via emails from professional colleges. The 30-item survey captured respondent characteristics, ERAS perceptions, beliefs, education and learning preferences and future planning considerations. The final question was open-ended for elaboration of perceptions of ERAS. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to describe and compare group differences across disciplines relative to perceptions of ERAS. RESULTS: The sample included 178 responses (116 nurses, 65.2%; 36 surgeons, 20.2%; 26 anaesthetists, 14.6%) across six states and two territories. More than half (n = 104; 58.8%) had used ERAS protocols in patient care, and most perceived they were 'very knowledgeable' (n = 24; 13.6%) or 'knowledgeable' (n = 71; 40.3%) of ERAS. However, fewer nurses had cared for a patient using ERAS (p <.01) and nurses reported lower levels of knowledge (p <.001) than their medical counterparts. Most respondents agreed ERAS protocols improved patient care and financial efficiency and were a reasonable time investment (overall Md 3-5), but nurses generally recorded lower levels of agreement (p.013 to < 0.001). Lack of information was the greatest barrier to ERAS knowledge (n = 97; 62.6%), while seminars/lectures from international and national leaders were the preferred learning method (n = 59; 41.3%). Most supported broad implementation of ERAS (n = 130; 87.8%). CONCLUSION: There is a need to promote ERAS and provide education, which may be nuanced based on the results, to improve implementation in Australia. Nurses particularly need to be engaged in ERAS protocols given their significant presence throughout the surgical journey. There is also a need to co-design implementation strategies with stakeholders that target identified facilitators and barriers, including lack of support from senior administration, managers and clinicians and resource constraints.

Facilitators, barriers and acceptability of implementing a communication board in Sri Lankan intensive care units: A qualitative descriptive study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' and nurses' views of potential facilitators, barriers, and prospective acceptability of implementing a communication board in Sri Lankan intensive care units. DESIGN: A qualitative, descriptive study. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: Eight patients who received mechanical ventilation and nine nurses who worked in adult medical and surgical intensive care units were purposively selected. Data were collected via audio-taped, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews in January/February 2023. Interview guide questions were informed by the knowledge-to-action framework and the theoretical framework of acceptability. Data were analysed using inductive and deductive content analysis. The 32-item checklist of the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) was used to ensure the quality of reporting. SETTING: A 3,000 bed Sri Lankan teaching hospital with 18 intensive care units. FINDINGS: Four categories reflecting patients' and nurses' anticipated use of the board were found. The first category described patients' and nurses' 'readiness to use the communication board' and their positive attitudes towards it. The second category focused on the 'potential benefits of the communication board', while the third category emphasised the 'individual patient characteristics' that should be taken into consideration when implementing communication boards. The final category described practical aspects related to 'integrating communication boards into routine practice'. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates communication boards may improve communication between ventilated patients and nurses, and they are acceptable to end users. Adopting these tools may be a pivotal step to enhancing patient-centred care in demanding intensive care settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: An inability to communicate effectively with ventilated intensive care patients creates negative experiences for both patients and nurses. Communication boards may act as a medium to better understand patients' needs during mechanical ventilation.Understanding patients' and nurses' views is beneficial when designing patient-centred communication interventions in intensive care units.

Co-design of an intervention to improve patient participation in discharge medication communication.

Patients can experience medication-related harm and hospital readmission because they do not understand or adhere to post-hospital medication instructions. Increasing patient medication literacy and, in turn, participation in medication conversations could be a solution. The purposes of this study were to co-design and test an intervention to enhance patient participation in hospital discharge medication communication. In terms of methods, co-design, a collaborative approach where stakeholders design solutions to problems, was used to develop a prototype medication communication intervention. First, our consumer and healthcare professional stakeholders generated intervention ideas. Next, inpatients, opinion leaders, and academic researchers collaborated to determine the most pertinent and feasible intervention ideas. Finally, the prototype intervention was shown to six intended end-users (i.e. hospital patients) who underwent usability interviews and completed the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability questionnaire. The final intervention comprised of a suite of three websites: (i) a medication search engine; (ii) resources to help patients manage their medications once home; and (iii) a question builder tool. The intervention has been tested with intended end-users and results of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability questionnaire have shown that the intervention is acceptable. Identified usability issues have been addressed. In conclusion, this co-designed intervention provides patients with trustworthy resources that can help them to understand medication information and ask medication-related questions, thus promoting medication literacy and patient participation. In turn, this intervention could enhance patients' medication self-efficacy and healthcare utilization. Using a co-design approach ensured authentic consumer and other stakeholder engagement, while allowing opinion leaders and researchers to ensure that a feasible intervention was developed.

Post-operative nursing activities to prevent wound complications in patients undergoing colorectal surgeries: A scoping review.

AIMS: To identify postoperative interventions and quality improvement initiatives used to prevent wound complications in patients undergoing colorectal surgeries, the types of activities nurses undertake in these interventions/initiatives and how these activities align with nurses' scope of practice. DESIGN: A scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Three health databases were searched, and backward and forward citation searching occurred in April 2022. Research and quality improvement initiatives included focussed on adult patients undergoing colorectal surgery, from 2010 onwards. Data were extracted about study characteristics, nursing activities and outcomes. The 'Dimensions of the scope of nursing practice' framework was used to classify nursing activities and then the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendations framework was used to synthesise the review findings. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included. These studies often reported negative wound pressure therapy and surgical site infection bundle interventions/initiatives. Nurses' scope of practice was most frequently 'Technical procedure and delegated medical care' meaning nurses frequently acted under doctors' orders, with the most common delegated activity being dressing removal. CONCLUSION: The full extent of possible interventions nurses could undertake independently in the postoperative period requires further exploration to improve wound outcomes and capitalise on nurses' professional role. IMPACT STATEMENT: Nurses' role in preventing postoperative wound complications is unclear, which may inhibit their ability to influence postoperative outcomes. In the postoperative period, nurses undertake technical activities, under doctors' orders to prevent wound infections. For practice, nurses need to upkeep and audit their technical skills. New avenues for researchers include exploration of independent activities for postoperative nurses and the outcomes of these activities. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: There may be opportunities to broaden nurses' scope of practice to act more autonomously to prevent wound complication. REPORTING METHOD: Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A health consumer interpreted the data and prepared the manuscript.

Early mobility and family partnerships in the intensive care unit: A scoping review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness significantly impacts the well-being of patients and families. Previous studies show that family members are willing to participate in patient care. Involving families in early mobility interventions may contribute to improved recovery and positive outcomes for patients and families. AIM: In this scoping review, we investigated early mobility interventions for critically ill patients evaluated in randomized controlled trials and the extent to which family engagement in those interventions are reported in the literature. STUDY DESIGN: In this scoping review of reviews, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed and Cochrane Central databases were searched in October 2019 and updated in February 2022. Systematic reviews were included and assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. Data were synthesized using a narrative approach. PRISMA-ScR guidelines were adhered to for reporting. RESULTS: Thirty-three reviews were included which described a range of early mobility interventions for critically ill patients; none explicitly mentioned family engagement. Almost half of the reviews were of low or critically low quality. Insufficient detail of early mobility interventions prompted information to be extracted from the primary studies. CONCLUSIONS: There are a range of early mobility interventions for critically ill patients but few involve families. Given the positive outcomes of family participation, and family willingness to participate in care, there is a need to explore the feasibility and acceptability of family participation in early mobility interventions. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Family engagement in early mobility interventions for critically ill patients should be encouraged and supported. How to best support family members and clinicians in enacting family involvement in early mobility requires further investigation.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing pressure injury prevention and management guidelines in acute care: A mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based pressure injury prevention and management is a global health service priority. Low uptake of pressure injury guidelines leads to compromised patient outcomes. Understanding clinicians' and patients' views on the barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines and mapping the identified barriers and facilitators to the Theoretical Domains Framework and behaviour change techniques will inform an end-user and theoretically informed intervention to improve guideline uptake in the acute care setting. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise quantitative and qualitative evidence on i) hospital clinicians' and inpatients' perceptions and experiences of evidence-based pressure injury practices and ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines. DESIGN: A convergent integrated mixed-methods systematic review was conducted using the JBI approach. DATA SOURCE: English language peer-reviewed studies published from 2009 to August 2022 were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Library. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies reported: i) acute care hospital clinicians' and patients' perceptions and experiences of evidence-based pressure injury practices and ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal. Quantitative data was transformed into qualitised data, then thematically synthesised with qualitative data, comparing clinicians' and patients' views. Barriers and facilitators associated with each main theme were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and allocated to relevant behaviour change techniques. RESULTS: Fifty-five out of 14,488 studies of variable quality (29 quantitative, 22 qualitative, 4 mixed-methods) met the inclusion criteria. Four main themes represent factors thought to influence the implementation of evidence-based guidelines: 1) nurse-led multidisciplinary care, 2) patient participation in care, 3) practicability of implementation and 4) attitudes towards pressure injury prevention and management. Most barriers identified by clinicians were related to the third theme, whilst for patients, there were multiple barriers under theme 2. Barriers were mainly mapped to the Knowledge domain and Environmental Context and Resources domain and were matched to the behaviour change techniques of "instruction on how to perform a behaviour" and "restructuring the physical environment". Most facilitators mentioned by clinicians and patients were related to themes 1 and 2, respectively, and mapped to the Environmental Context and Resources domain. All patient-related attitudes in theme 4 were facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: These review findings highlight the most influential factors related to implementing evidence-based pressure injury care from clinicians' and patients' views and mapping these factors to the Theoretical Domains Framework and behaviour change techniques has contributed to developing a stakeholder-tailored implementation intervention in acute care settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021250885.

Development and validation of a survey designed to measure patient experience of and preference for surgical wound care discharge education: A pilot study.

AIM OF THE STUDY: To develop and undertake validation testing of a survey designed to measure patients' experiences of and preferences for surgical wound care discharge education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review and content analysis was undertaken on patients' experiences of and preferences for surgical wound care discharge education. Four themes were uncovered in the literature (wound care discharge education, preferences for discharge education delivery, participation in wound care decisions and patient ability to manage their surgical wound to prevent wound complications), which guided item generation. Three types of validity testing occurred including: 1) face validity testing by the research team; 2) content validity testing (using Delphi study) with an international panel of experts including patients, clinicians and researchers; and 3) content validity (using pilot-testing) of the survey with seven patients from the target population. RESULTS: Initially 106 items were generated from the literature, and of these, 55 items were subjected to content validity testing by an international panel of 41 experts. After two Delphi rounds, 18 items were retained. Most patients provided limited and very minor feedback during pilot-testing. However, pilot-testing resulted in a revised survey administration plan to deliver the survey via telephone, including adding prompts and preambles to items. CONCLUSION: An 18-item survey comprised of three groups of items and an individual item was rigorously developed. The survey requires further testing among a larger sample of patients to confirm the items reflect important aspects of patients' experiences of and preferences for surgical wound care discharge education.

A randomised controlled trial of a nutrition and a decision support intervention to enable partnerships with families of critically ill patients.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of supporting family members to partner with health professionals on nutrition intakes and decision-making and to evaluate intervention and study feasibility. BACKGROUND: Family partnerships can improve outcomes for critically ill patients and family members. Interventions that support families to engage with health professionals require evaluation. DESIGN: A multi-centre, randomised, parallel group superiority Phase II randomised controlled trial. METHODS: In nine intensive care units (ICUs) across three countries, critically ill patients ≥60 years, or those 55-59 years with advanced chronic diseases and expected ICU length of stay >72 h and their family member were enrolled between 9 May 2017 and 31 March 2020. Participants were randomised (1:1:1) to either a decision support or nutrition optimisation family-centred intervention, or usual care. Primary outcomes included protein and energy intake during ICU and hospital stay (nutrition intervention) and family satisfaction (decision support). Study feasibility was assessed as a composite of consent rate, intervention adherence, contamination and physician awareness of intervention assignment. RESULTS: We randomised 135 patients/family members (consent rate 51.7%). The average rate of randomisation was 0.5 (0.13-1.53) per month. Unavailability (staff/family) was the major contributor to families not being approached for consent. Declined consent was attributed to families feeling overwhelmed (58/126, 46%). Pandemic visitor restrictions contributed to early study cessation. Intervention adherence for the decision support intervention was 76.9%-100.0% and for the nutrition intervention was 44.8%-100.0%. Nutritional adequacy, decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision-making and overall family satisfaction with ICU were similar for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Active partnerships between family members and health professionals are important but can be challenging to achieve in critical care contexts. We were unable to demonstrate the efficacy of either intervention. Feasibility outcomes suggest further refinement of interventions and study protocol may be warranted. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Interventions to promote family partnerships in critical illness are needed but require a greater understanding of the extent to which families want and are able to engage and the activities in which they have most impact. REPORTING METHOD: This study has been reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers were engaged in and contributed to the development and subsequent iterations of the two family-centred interventions use in this study. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial registration. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, ID: NCT02920086. Registered on 30 September 2016. First patient enrolled on 9 May 2017 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT02920086&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=.

Effectiveness of discharge education for patients undergoing general surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is some evidence to suggest that discharge education may reduce the risk of postoperative complications, however, a critical evaluation of the body of evidence is needed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of discharge education interventions versus standard education given to general surgery patients prior to, or up to 30-days of hospital discharge on clinical and patient-reported outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical outcomes were 30-day surgical site infection incidence and re-admission up to 28 days. Patient-reported outcomes included patient knowledge, self-confidence, satisfaction, and quality of life. SETTING: Participants were recruited from hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adult general surgical patients. METHODS: MEDLINE (Pubmed), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Elsevier) and the Cochrane Library were searched in February 2022. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of interventions published between 2010 and 2022, with adults undergoing general surgical procedures receiving discharge education on surgical recovery, including wound management, were eligible for inclusion. Quality appraisal was undertaken using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomised Studies. The Grading of Assessment, Development, Recommendations, and Evaluation was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence based on the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Ten eligible studies (eight randomised control trials and two non-randomised studies of interventions) with 965 patients were included. Six randomised control trials assessed the effect of discharge education interventions on 28-day readmission (Odds ratio 0.88, 95 % confidence interval 0.56-1.38). Two randomised control trials assessed the effect of discharge education interventions on surgical site infection incidence (Odds ratio = 0.84, 95 % confidence interval 0.39-1.82). The results of the non-randomised studies of interventions were not pooled due to heterogeneity in outcome measures. The risk of bias was either moderate or high for all outcomes, and the body of evidence using GRADE was judged as very low for all outcomes studied. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of discharge education on the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing general surgery cannot be determined due to the uncertainty of the evidence base. Despite the increased use of web-based interventions to deliver discharge education to general surgery patients, larger samples in more rigorous multicentre randomised control trials with parallel process evaluations are needed to better understand the effect of discharge education on clinical and patient-reported outcomes. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021285392. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Discharge education may reduce the likelihood of surgical site infection and hospital readmission but the body of evidence is inconclusive.

End-user perceptions of sub-epidermal moisture scanning (SEMS) acceptability: A descriptive qualitative study.

AIMS: To assess patients' and nurses' perceptions and experiences of subepidermal moisture scanning acceptability. DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative, sub-study, embedded within a pilot randomized control trial. METHODS: Ten patients who were in the intervention arm of the pilot trial and 10 registered nurses providing care for these patients on medical-surgical units participated in individual semi-structured interviews. Data were collected from October 2021 to January 2022. Interviews were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis, and perspectives (patient and nurse), were triangulated. RESULTS: Four categories were found. The first category 'Subepidermal moisture scanning is acceptable as part of care' showed that patients and nurses were willing to use subepidermal moisture scanning and viewed subepidermal moisture scanning as non-burdensome. The category 'Subepidermal moisture scanning may improve pressure injury outcomes' demonstrated that although subepidermal moisture scanning was believed to prevent pressure injuries, more research evidence about its benefits was required. 'Subepidermal moisture scanning augments existing pressure injury prevention practices', the third category, highlighted that subepidermal moisture scanning aligns with current pressure injury prevention practices while making these practices more patient-centred. In the final category, 'Important considerations when making subepidermal moisture scanning routine practice', practical issues were raised relating to training, guidelines, infection control, device availability and patient modesty. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that using subepidermal moisture scanning is acceptable for patients and nurses. Building the evidence base for subepidermal moisture scanning and then addressing practical issues prior to implementation, are important next steps. Our research suggests that subepidermal moisture scanning enhances individualized and patient-centred care, persuasive reasons to continue investigating subepidermal moisture scanning. IMPACT: For an intervention to be successfully implemented it must be both effective and acceptable, however, there is limited evidence of patients' and nurses' views of SEMS acceptability. SEM scanners are acceptable to use in practice for patients and nurses. There are many procedural aspects that need to be considered when using SEMS such as frequency of measurements. This research may have benefit for patients, as SEMS may promote a more individualized and patient-centred approach to pressure injury prevention. Further, these findings can assist researchers, providing justification to proceed with effectiveness research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A consumer advisor was involved in study design, interpretation of data and preparation of manuscript.

Older patient participation in discharge medication communication: an observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the extent to which older patients participate in discharge medication communication, and identify factors that predict patient participation in discharge medication communication. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: An Australian metropolitan tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 173 older patients were observed undertaking one medication communication encounter prior to hospital discharge. OUTCOME: Patient participation measured with MEDICODE, a valid and reliable coding framework used to analyse medication communication. MEDICODE provides two measures for patient participation: (1) Preponderance of Initiative and (2) Dialogue Ratio. RESULTS: The median for Preponderance of Initiative was 0.7 (IQR=0.5-1.0) and Dialogue Ratio was 0.3 (IQR=0.2-0.4), indicating healthcare professionals took more initiative and medication encounters were mostly monologue rather than a dialogue or dyad. Logistic regression revealed that patients had 30% less chance of having dialogue or dyads with every increase in one medication discussed (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.9, p=0.01). Additionally, the higher the patient's risk of a medication-related problem, the more initiative the healthcare professionals took in the conversation (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.1, p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Older patients are passive during hospital discharge medication conversations. Discussing less medications over several medication conversations spread throughout patient hospitalisation and targeting patients at high risk of medication-related problems may promote more active patient participation, and in turn medication safety outcomes.

Implementation frameworks, strategies and outcomes used in peripheral intravenous catheter studies: A systematic review.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to critically evaluate implementation frameworks, strategies and/or outcomes used to optimise peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) care and/or promote guideline adherence. BACKGROUND: Although a considerable volume of research has investigated the effectiveness of PIVC interventions and treatments to promote performance and prevent harm, how to best implement this evidence into dynamic clinical settings and populations is not well understood. Implementation science is central to translating evidence-based knowledge to the bedside; however, there is a gap in identifying the best implementation framework, strategies and/or outcomes to optimise PIVC care and/or guideline adherence. DESIGN: A systematic review. METHOD: The review was conducted using innovative automation tools. Five databases and clinical trial registries were searched on 14 October 2021. Qualitative and quantitative PIVC intervention studies reporting implementation strategies were included in the review. Data were extracted independently by experienced researchers in pairs. The Mixed Method Appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of individual studies. Narrative synthesis was used to present the findings. The systematic review was reported following the PRISMA checklist. RESULTS: Of 2189 references identified, 27 studies were included in the review. Implementation frameworks were used in 30% (n = 8) of studies, with most used during the preparation (n = 7, 26%) and delivery phase (n = 7, 26%) and then evaluation phase (n = 4, 15%). Multifaceted strategies were commonly adopted (n = 24, 89%) to promote PIVC care or study interventions which were clinician (n = 25, 93%) and patient-targeted (n = 15, 56%). The most commonly reported implementation outcomes were fidelity (n = 13, 48%) and adoption (n = 6, 22%). Most studies were scored as low quality (n = 18, 67%). CONCLUSION: We call for researchers and clinicians to work together and use implementation science frameworks to guide study design, implementation and evaluation in future PIVC studies, to improve evidence translation and thereby improve patient outcomes.

Patient experiences of, and preferences for, surgical wound care education.

The aim of this study was to describe patients' experiences of, and preferences for, surgical wound care discharge education and how these experiences predicted their ability to self-manage their surgical wounds. A telephone survey of 270 surgical patients was conducted across two hospitals two weeks after discharge. Patients preferred verbal (n = 255, 94.8%) and written surgical wound education (n = 178, 66.2%) from medical (n = 229, 85.4%) and nursing staff (n = 211, 78.7%) at discharge. The most frequent education content that patients received was information about follow-up appointments (n = 242, 89.6%) and who to contact in the community with wound care concerns (n = 233, 86.6%). Using logistic regression, patients who perceived that they participated in surgical wound care decisions were 6.5 times more likely to state that they were able to manage their wounds at home. Also, patients who agreed that medical and/or nursing staff discussed wound pain management were 3.1 times more likely to report being able to manage their surgical wounds at home. Only 40% (107/270) of patients actively participated in wound-related decision-making during discharge education. These results uncovered patient preferences, which could be used to optimise discharge education practices. Embedding patient participation into clinical workflows may enhance patients' self-management practices once home.

Patient-mediated interventions in hospital: A systematic review.

AIMS: To describe the characteristics of hospital-based, patient-mediated interventions and their impact on patient, clinician and organization outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Health literature databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE) were searched in August 2021. Backward and forward citation searching was conducted. REVIEW METHODS: Studies investigating patient-mediated interventions, targeted at adult hospitalized patients were eligible. Data were extracted related to study and intervention characteristics. Narrative synthesis was used to understand intervention impact on patient, clinician and organization outcomes (as per a framework). Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies, reporting 18 interventions, were included. Twelve interventions prompted patients to report health information about their own health/needs/concerns and six interventions encouraged patients to provide feedback about clinical practice. Across all interventions, there was evidence that patients used patient-mediated interventions and that they may improve patient communication. Healthcare professional outcomes were mixed for actual/intended use, acceptability and usefulness of interventions; yet there was some evidence of healthcare professional behaviour change. Interventions that encouraged patients to report health information about their own health/needs/concerns appeared more successful than other types of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that hospital-based patient-mediated interventions may influence patient communication and healthcare professional behaviour. Patient-mediated interventions that encourage patients to report patient data before a clinical encounter may be more impactful than interventions that encourage patient feedback during or post-encounter. IMPACT: To date, most patient-mediated intervention research has been conducted in primary care settings; we uncovered the types of patient-mediated interventions that have been trialled in hospitals. We found that patient communication and healthcare professional behaviour may be influenced by these patient-mediated interventions. Future researchers could explore the suitability and effectiveness of a wider range of hospital-based patient-mediated interventions. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: There was no funding to remunerate a patient/member of the public for this review.

Patient engagement, involvement, or participation - entrapping concepts in nurse-patient interactions: A critical discussion.

The importance of patients taking an active role in their healthcare is recognized internationally, to improve safety and effectiveness in practice. There is still, however, some ambiguity about the conceptualization of that patient role; it is referred to interchangeably in the literature as engagement, involvement, and participation. The aim of this discussion paper is to examine and conceptualize the concepts of patient engagement, involvement, and participation within healthcare, particularly nursing. The concepts were found to have semantic differences and similarities, although, from a nursing perspective, they can be summoned to illustrate the establishment of a mutual partnership between a patient and a nurse. The individualization of such processes requires the joint effort of engagement, involvement, or participation, represented by interactive actions of both the patient (asking questions, telling/speaking up, knowledge acquisition, learning, and decision-making) and the nurse (recognizing, responding, information sharing, teaching, and collaborating). Suggesting that the concepts can be used interchangeably comes with some caution, requiring that nurses embrace patients playing a role in their health and healthcare. Further research and practice development should focus on how patients and nurses receive and respond to each other to establish patient engagement, involvement, and participation.

The effect of sub-epidermal moisture on pressure injury prevention strategies and incidence of pressure injuries: A feasibility pilot randomised controlled trial.

AIM: Sub-epidermal moisture scanning (SEMS) is a novel point-of-care technology that measures localised oedema and detects early tissue damage that may develop into a pressure injury (PI). It provides objective data that may assist PI prevention (PIP) decision making. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of undertaking a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the effectiveness of SEMS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This pilot RCT recruited medical and surgical patients at risk of developing a PI in one Australian hospital. All participants received routine PIP care and daily visual skin assessment to determine the presence of a PI. The intervention group also received daily SEMS. Clinical staff were told if the sub-epidermal moisture (SEM) value was abnormal but were not given advice for PIP. Blinding of patients, care staff and outcome assessors was not practical. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment, retention, intervention fidelity, and patient outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1185 patients screened prior to eligibility, 950 were excluded (80%); 235 were then assessed for eligibility and 160 met the inclusion criteria (68.1%); 100 were recruited (70.0%) and randomised and 99 completed the trial (intervention n = 50; control n = 49) with one person withdrawn due to inappropriate recruitment (100% retention). Of the 657 expected SEMS observations, 598 were completed (91% intervention fidelity). Only 34 of 454 (7.4%) patient outcome data points were missing. CONCLUSIONS: Most feasibility criteria were met, indicating a definitive trial to assess the effectiveness of SEMS in a medical-surgical patient population is realistic. However, recruitment may be resource intensive and require specific strategies.