The Viability and Acceptability of a Virtual Wound Care Command Centre in Australia.

The objective of this study was to assess the viability and acceptability of an innovative Virtual Wound Care Command Centre where patients in the community, and their treating clinicians, have access to an expert wound specialist service that comprises a digital wound application (app) for wound analysis, decision-making, remote consultation, and monitoring. Fifty-one patients with chronic (42.6%) wounds were healed, with a median time to healing of 66 (95% CI: 56-88) days. All patients reported high satisfaction with their wound care, 86.4% of patients recommended the Virtual Wound Care Command Centre with 84.1% of patients reporting the app as easy to use. The data revealed that the Virtual Wound Care Command Centre was a viable and acceptable patient-centred expert wound consultation service for chronic wound patients in the community.

Fighting the Same Battles on a New Battleground: Embedding Technologies in a Virtual Care Environment.

The pandemic necessitated the rapid design, development and implementation of technologies to allow remote monitoring of COVID-19 patients at home. This study aimed to explore the environmental barriers and facilitators to the successful development and implementation of virtual care technologies in this fast-paced context. We interviewed eight staff at a virtual hospital in Australia. We found key facilitators to be a learning organizational culture and strong leadership support. Barriers included interoperability issues, legislative constraints and unrealistic clinician expectations. Also, we found that a combination of hot-desking and the lack of single sign on in the virtual care environment, was reported to create additional work for staff. Overall, despite this unique context, our findings are consistent with prior work examining design and implementation of healthcare technologies. The fast pace and high-pressure environment appeared to magnify previously reported barriers, but also cultivate and foster a learning culture.

How digital health translational research is prioritised: a qualitative stakeholder-driven approach to decision support evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Digital health is now routinely being applied in clinical care, and with a variety of clinician-facing systems available, healthcare organisations are increasingly required to make decisions about technology implementation and evaluation. However, few studies have examined how digital health research is prioritised, particularly research focused on clinician-facing decision support systems. This study aimed to identify criteria for prioritising digital health research, examine how these differ from criteria for prioritising traditional health research and determine priority decision support use cases for a collaborative implementation research programme. METHODS: Drawing on an interpretive listening model for priority setting and a stakeholder-driven approach, our prioritisation process involved stakeholder identification, eliciting decision support use case priorities from stakeholders, generating initial use case priorities and finalising preferred use cases based on consultations. In this qualitative study, online focus group session(s) were held with stakeholders, audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Fifteen participants attended the online priority setting sessions. Criteria for prioritising digital health research fell into three themes, namely: public health benefit, health system-level factors and research process and feasibility. We identified criteria unique to digital health research as the availability of suitable governance frameworks, candidate technology's alignment with other technologies in use,and the possibility of data-driven insights from health technology data. The final selected use cases were remote monitoring of patients with pulmonary conditions, sepsis detection and automated breast screening. CONCLUSION: The criteria for determining digital health research priority areas are more nuanced than that of traditional health condition focused research and can neither be viewed solely through a clinical lens nor technological lens. As digital health research relies heavily on health technology implementation, digital health prioritisation criteria comprised enablers of successful technology implementation. Our prioritisation process could be applied to other settings and collaborative projects where research institutions partner with healthcare delivery organisations.

The viability and acceptability of a Virtual Wound Care Command Centre in Australia.

The objective of this study was to assess the viability and acceptability of an innovative Virtual Wound Care Command Centre where patients in the community, and their treating clinicians, have access to an expert wound specialist service that comprises a digitally enabled application for wound analysis, decision-making, remote consultation, and monitoring. Fifty-one patients with chronic wounds from 9 centres, encompassing hospital services, outpatient clinics, and community nurses in one metropolitan and rural state in Australia, were enrolled and a total of 61 wounds were analysed over 7 months. Patients received, on average, an occasion of service every 4.4 days, with direct queries responded to in a median time of 1.5 hours. During the study period, 26 (42.6%) wounds were healed, with a median time to healing of 66 (95% CI: 56-88) days. All patients reported high satisfaction with their wound care, 86.4% of patients recommended the Virtual Wound Care Command Centre with 84.1% of patients reporting the digital wound application as easy to use. Potential mean travel savings of $99.65 for rural patients per visit were recognised. The data revealed that the Virtual Wound Care Command Centre was a viable and acceptable patient-centred expert wound consultation service for chronic wound patients in the community.

Factors affecting the extent of Monday blues: evidence from a meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis of 34 samples identified a small but reliable "Monday blues" effect (-.08 < or = d < or = -.06) in samples reporting current or real-time moods for each day of the week. However, the size of the effect in samples reporting recalled summaries of moods experienced over the course of a day varied depending on whether the sample involved university students or nonstudents. University students reporting recalled summaries of daily moods showed a large Monday blues effect (d = -.25), whereas married men who were not students reported smaller effects with greater variance (-.19 < or = d