Evaluating the Implementation of a Multi-Component Intervention to Prevent Surgical Site Infection and Promote Evidence-Based Practice.

BACKGROUND: Published clinical practice guidelines on surgical site infection prevention are available; however, adherence to these guidelines remains suboptimal. AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and perceived benefits of intervention and implementation strategies co-created by researchers and clinicians to prevent surgical site infections. METHODS: This mixed-method evaluation study involved an audit of nurses' wound care practices, followed by focus group and individual interviews to understand the perceived benefits of the intervention and implementation strategies. Descriptive statistical analyses were used to compare post-intervention audit data with baseline results. Deductive and inductive content analyses were undertaken on the qualitative data. RESULTS: The audit showed improvements in using aseptic technique and wound care documentation practices following intervention implementation. Nurses perceived the change champion as effective in role-modelling good practice. Education strategies including a poster and using a scenario-based quiz were viewed as easy to understand and helpful for nurses to apply aseptic technique in practice. The instructions and education conducted to improve documentation were considered important in the success of the Wound Care Template implementation. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: The integrated knowledge translation approach used in this study ensured the intervention and the implementation strategies employed were appropriate and meaningful for clinicians. Such strategies may be used in other intervention studies. The change champion played an important role in driving change and acted as a vital partner during the co-creation and the implementation processes. Ongoing education, audit and feedback became integrated in the ward nurses' routine practice, which has the potential to continuously improve and sustain evidence-based practice.

Consumer opinions on adverse events associated with medical devices.

INTRODUCTION: Post-market surveillance of medical devices relies on compulsory and voluntary reports. Although direct consumer reporting of medical device-related adverse events (AEs) is available in Australia, the proportion of consumer reports has remained low. Limited qualitative research has previously explored consumer insights on AEs associated with medical devices and in particular, AE reporting. OBJECTIVE: To explore consumer opinions on AEs related to medical devices, and their knowledge of, experiences with, and views on, the reporting of medical device-related AEs. METHODS: Focus groups (n = 4; total of 29 participants) were conducted in metropolitan Sydney, Australia. Focus group discussions of approximately 1.5 h in length centred on consumers' understanding of AEs, opinions on AEs and their previous experiences, views on medical device benefits and harms, and actions taken (or potential actions) in response to AEs. With participant consent, discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Participants regarded medical device-related side effects to be unexpected AEs associated with their use. Where there was a clear need for the medical device itself, potential improvement in quality of life took precedence over potential harms. Most participants had not experienced negative issues with their medical device(s). There was poor awareness among participants of an existing direct consumer AE reporting system for medical devices. Despite this, the value of reporting was acknowledged. Severity of the AE was a key motivator for potential AE reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Further efforts are necessary to improve consumer awareness of available AE reporting systems to better support post-market surveillance and safe medical device use.

Preventing surgical site infections: Facilitators and barriers to nurses' adherence to clinical practice guidelines-A qualitative study.

AIMS: To identify the facilitators of and barriers to nurses' adherence to evidence-based wound care clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in an Australian tertiary hospital. BACKGROUND: Current research suggests that up to 50% of nurses are unaware of the evidence-based recommendations to prevent SSIs and that adherence to evidence-based CPGs is suboptimal. However, little is known regarding the facilitators and barriers to adherence to evidence-based CPGs. DESIGN: A qualitative study incorporating ethnographic data collection techniques. METHODS: Data collection included semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups (N = 20), and examination of existing hospital policy and procedure documents. Thematic analysis using inductive and deductive approaches was conducted. This manuscript adheres to the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines. FINDINGS: Data analysis revealed four themes: adhering to aseptic technique, knowledge and information seeking, documenting wound care and educating and involving patients in wound care. Facilitators and barriers within each theme were identified. Facilitators included participants' active information-seeking behaviour, a clear understanding of the importance of aseptic technique, and patient participation in wound care. Barriers included participants' knowledge and skills deficits regarding application of aseptic technique principles in practice, the availability of the hospital's wound care procedure document, suboptimal wound care documentation and the timing of patient education. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to develop interventions to improve nurses' adherence to recommended CPGs including following aseptic technique principles, hand hygiene, documentation and patient education. Hospital procedure documents that outline wound care need to reflect current recommended CPGs. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Adhering to evidence-based CPGs has been found to be effective in reducing and preventing SSIs. Our study provides an in-depth understanding of the barriers and facilitators to nurses' adherence to recommended CPGs. The findings may inform future practice improvements in wound care.

Consumer opinions on adverse events associated with medicines and vaccines.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the availability of an Australian consumer adverse event (AE) reporting system for over 50 years, reporting rates remain low. A comprehensive understanding of consumer perceptions and experiences regarding AEs is needed to further ascertain factors impacting their engagement in AE reporting. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore consumer opinions about AEs potentially associated with medicines and vaccines, and their experiences and understanding of managing and reporting AEs. METHODS: Six focus groups were conducted across metropolitan Sydney with a total of 48 adult participants. A semi-structured focus group topic guide was developed to explore consumers' understanding, experiences, and actions taken in relation to AEs; and perspectives on managing treatment benefits and harms. Discussions were audio-recorded with participant permission and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Consumers acknowledged the potential for side effects (SEs), however inaccurately estimated SE risk in response to verbal descriptors such as "common." Consumer appraisal of treatment benefits and harms was influenced by factors such as medical condition(s), previous experiences, and beliefs. Although many had experienced SEs, consumers only reported them if considered severe or troublesome. Minimal awareness of consumer AE reporting systems was evident. Doctors were the primary avenue for reporting; consumers preferred doctors to act as the intermediary in reporting AEs to an independent body. CONCLUSION: Consumers' lack of awareness of AE reporting systems was evident. With the complexities inherent in benefit/harm risk appraisal, information seeking, and AE reporting preferences, better consumer understanding of AEs and the systems available for reporting is needed.