Assessing appropriateness of paediatric asthma management: A population-based sample survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We conducted a comprehensive assessment of guideline adherence in paediatric asthma care, including inpatient and ambulatory services, in Australia. METHODS: National and international clinical practice guidelines (CPG) relating to asthma in children were searched and 39 medical record audit indicator questions were developed. Retrospective medical record review was conducted across hospital inpatient admissions, emergency department (ED) presentations, general practice (GP) and paediatrician consultations in three Australian states for children aged ≤15 years receiving care in 2012 and 2013. Eligibility of, and adherence to, indicators was assessed from medical records by nine experienced and purpose-trained paediatric nurses (surveyors). RESULTS: Surveyors conducted 18 453 asthma indicator assessments across 1600 visits for 881 children in 129 locations. Overall, the adherence for asthma care across the 39 indicators was 58.1%, with 54.4% adherence at GP (95% CI: 46.0-62.5), 77.7% by paediatricians (95% CI: 40.5-97.0), 79.9% in ED (95% CI: 70.6-87.3) and 85.1% for inpatient care (95% CI: 76.7-91.5). For 14 acute asthma indicators, overall adherence was 56.3% (95% CI: 47.6-64.7). Lowest adherences were for recording all four types of vital signs in children aged >2 years presenting with asthma attack (15.1%, 95% CI: 8.7-23.7), and reviewing patients' compliance, inhaler technique and triggers prior to commencing a new drug therapy (20.5%, 95% CI: 10.1-34.8). CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated differences between existing care and CPG recommendations for paediatric asthma care in Australia. Evidence-based interventions to improve adherence to CPG may help to standardize quality of paediatric asthma care and reduce variation of care.

Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM): a framework for measuring researcher achievement, impact and influence derived from a systematic literature review of metrics and models.

OBJECTIVES: Effective researcher assessment is key to decisions about funding allocations, promotion and tenure. We aimed to identify what is known about methods for assessing researcher achievements, leading to a new composite assessment model. DESIGN: We systematically reviewed the literature via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols framework. DATA SOURCES: All Web of Science databases (including Core Collection, MEDLINE and BIOSIS Citation Index) to the end of 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: (1) English language, (2) published in the last 10 years (2007-2017), (3) full text was available and (4) the article discussed an approach to the assessment of an individual researcher's achievements. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Articles were allocated among four pairs of reviewers for screening, with each pair randomly assigned 5% of their allocation to review concurrently against inclusion criteria. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa (ĸ). The ĸ statistic showed agreement ranging from moderate to almost perfect (0.4848-0.9039). Following screening, selected articles underwent full-text review and bias was assessed. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-eight articles were included in the final review. Established approaches developed prior to our inclusion period (eg, citations and outputs, h-index and journal impact factor) remained dominant in the literature and in practice. New bibliometric methods and models emerged in the last 10 years including: measures based on PageRank algorithms or 'altmetric' data, methods to apply peer judgement and techniques to assign values to publication quantity and quality. Each assessment method tended to prioritise certain aspects of achievement over others. CONCLUSIONS: All metrics and models focus on an element or elements at the expense of others. A new composite design, the Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM), is presented, which supersedes past anachronistic models. The CRAM is modifiable to a range of applications.

The future of health systems to 2030: a roadmap for global progress and sustainability.

Most research on health systems examines contemporary problems within one, or at most a few, countries. Breaking with this tradition, we present a series of case studies in a book written by key policymakers, scholars and experts, looking at health systems and their projected successes to 2030. Healthcare Systems: Future Predictions for Global Care includes chapters on 52 individual countries and five regions, covering a total of 152 countries. Synthesised, two key contributions are made in this compendium. First, five trends shaping the future healthcare landscape are analysed: sustainable health systems; the genomics revolution; emerging technologies; global demographics dynamics; and new models of care. Second, nine main themes arise from the chapters: integration of healthcare services; financing, economics and insurance; patient-based care and empowering the patient; universal healthcare; technology and information technology; aging populations; preventative care; accreditation, standards, and policy; and human development, education and training. These five trends and nine themes can be used as a blueprint for change. They can help strengthen the efforts of stakeholders interested in reform, ranging from international bodies such as the World Health Organization, the International Society for Quality in Health Care and the World Bank, through to national bodies such as health departments, quality and safety agencies, non-government organisations (NGO) and other groups with an interest in improving healthcare delivery systems. This compendium offers more than a glimpse into the future of healthcare-it provides a roadmap to help shape thinking about the next generation of caring systems, extrapolated over the next 15 years.

The comparative performance of the Canadian and Australian health systems.

Using three data sets, each providing an overview of health service delivery in high-income countries, this article provides a high-level comparative analysis of health system performance against specified key performance indicators in two jurisdictions: Canada and Australia. Several variations, nuances, and points of comparison between delivery and organization of care are discussed. The article examines three policy and structural differences that may help explain the comparatively superior performance of the Australian system on most indicators, and two key areas of improvement for the Canadian system were illuminated: a stronger central government role and a national pharmaceutical plan. It is hoped that this article will empower health leaders to take action in these areas.