Economic evaluations performed alongside randomized implementation trials in clinical settings: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations alongside implementation trials compare the outcomes and costs of competing implementation strategies to identify the most efficient strategies. The aims of this systematic review were to investigate how economic evaluations are performed in randomized implementation trials in clinical settings and to assess the quality of these evaluations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted on 23 March 2023 to identify studies that reported on economic evaluations embedded in randomized implementation trials in clinical settings. A systematic search was applied across seven databases, and references of relevant reviews were screened for additional studies. The Drummond Checklist was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of included economic evaluations. Study characteristics and quality assessments were tabulated and described. RESULTS: Of the 6,550 studies screened for eligibility, 10 met the inclusion criteria. Included studies were published between 1990 and 2022 and from North America, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Africa. Most studies were conducted in the primary and out-patient care setting. Implementation costs included materials, staffing, and training, and the most common approach to collecting implementation costs was obtaining expense and budget reports. Included studies scored medium to high in terms of economic methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evidence is particularly useful for healthcare funders and service providers to inform the prioritization of implementation efforts in the context of limited resources and competing demands. The relatively small number of studies identified may be due to lack of guidance on how to conduct economic evaluations alongside implementation trials and the lack of standardized terminology used to describe implementation strategies in clinical research. We discuss these methodological gaps and present recommendations for embedding economic evaluations in implementation trials. First, reporting implementation strategies used in clinical trials and aligning these strategies with implementation outcomes and costs are an important advancement in clinical research. Second, economic evaluations of implementation trials should follow guidelines for standard clinical trial economic evaluations and adopt an appropriate costing and data collection approach. Third, hybrid trial designs are recommended to generate evidence for effective and cost-effective implementation strategies alongside clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023410186).

Lactogenic hormones in relation to maternal metabolic health in pregnancy and postpartum: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Maternal metabolic disease states (such as gestational and pregestational diabetes and maternal obesity) are reaching epidemic proportions worldwide and are associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Despite this, their aetiology remains incompletely understood. Lactogenic hormones, namely, human placental lactogen (hPL) and prolactin (PRL), play often overlooked roles in maternal metabolism and glucose homeostasis during pregnancy and (in the case of PRL) postpartum, and have clinical potential from a diagnostic and therapeutic perspective. This paper presents a protocol for a systematic review which will synthesise the available scientific evidence linking these two hormones to maternal and fetal metabolic conditions/outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE (via OVID), CINAHL and Embase will be systematically searched for all original observational and interventional research articles, published prior to 8 July 2021, linking hPL and/or PRL levels (in pregnancy and/or up to 12 months postpartum) to key maternal metabolic conditions/outcomes (including pre-existing and gestational diabetes, markers of glucose/insulin metabolism, postpartum glucose status, weight change, obesity and polycystic ovary syndrome). Relevant fetal outcomes (birth weight and placental mass, macrosomia and growth restriction) will also be included. Two reviewers will assess articles for eligibility according to prespecified selection criteria, followed by full-text review, quality appraisal and data extraction. Where possible, meta-analysis will be performed; otherwise, a narrative synthesis of findings will be presented. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conference meetings, and will be used to inform future research directions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021262771.

Integrating the complexity of healthcare improvement with implementation science: a longitudinal qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science seeks to enable change, underpinned by theories and frameworks such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Yet academia and frontline healthcare improvement remain largely siloed, with limited integration of implementation science methods into frontline improvement where the drivers include pragmatic, rapid change. Using the CIFR lens, we aimed to explore how pragmatic and complex healthcare improvement and implementation science can be integrated. METHODS: Our research involved the investigation of a case study that was undertaking the implementation of an improvement intervention at a large public health service. Our research involved qualitative data collection methods of semi-structured interviews and non-participant observations of the implementation team delivering the intervention. Thematic analysis identified key themes from the qualitative data. We examined our themes through the lens of CFIR to gain in-depth understanding of how the CFIR components operated in a 'real-world' context. RESULTS: The key themes emerging from our research outlined that leadership, context and process are the key components that dominate and affect the implementation process. Leadership which cultivates connections with front line clinicians, fosters engagement and trust. Navigating context was facilitated by 'bottom-up' governance. Multi-disciplinary and cross-sector capability were key processes that supported pragmatic and agile responses in a changing complex environment. Process reflected the theoretically-informed, and iterative implementation approach. Mapping CFIR domains and constructs, with these themes demonstrated close alignment with the CFIR. The findings bring further depth to CFIR. Our research demonstrates that leadership which has a focus on patient need as a key motivator to engage clinicians, which applies and ensures iterative processes which leverage contextual factors can achieve successful, sustained implementation and healthcare improvement outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our longitudinal study highlights insights that strengthen alignment between implementation science and pragmatic frontline healthcare improvement. We identify opportunities to enhance the relevance of CFIR in the 'real-world' setting through the interconnected nature of our themes. Our study demonstrates actionable knowledge to enhance the integration of implementation science in healthcare improvement.

A Learning Health System Framework to Operationalize Health Data to Improve Quality Care: An Australian Perspective.

Our healthcare system faces a burgeoning aging population, rising complexity, and escalating costs. Around 10% of healthcare is harmful, and evidence is slow to implement. Innovation to deliver quality and sustainable health systems is vital, and the methods are challenging. The aim of this study is to describe the process and present a perspective on a coproduced Learning Health System framework. The development of the Framework was led by publicly funded, collaborative, Academic Health Research Translation Centres, with a mandate to integrate research into healthcare to deliver impact. The focus of the framework is "learning together for better health," with coproduction involving leadership by an expert panel, a systematic review, qualitative research, a stakeholder workshop, and iterative online feedback. The coproduced framework incorporates evidence from stakeholders, from research, from data (practice to data and data to new knowledge), and from implementation, to take new knowledge to practice. This continuous learning approach aims to deliver evidence-based healthcare improvement and is currently being implemented and evaluated.

Using institutional entrepreneurship to understand the role of innovation teams in healthcare: a longitudinal qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: We draw on institutional theory to explore the roles and actions of innovation teams and how this influences their behaviour and capabilities as 'institutional entrepreneurs (IEs)', in particular the extent to which they are both 'willing' and 'able' to facilitate transformational change in healthcare through service redesign. DESIGN: A longitudinal qualitative study that applied a 'researcher in residence' as an ethnographic approach. SETTING: The development and implementation of two innovation projects within a single public hospital setting in an Australian state jurisdiction. PARTICIPANTS: Two innovation teams, with members including senior research fellows, PhD scholars and front-line clinicians (19 participants and 47 interviews). RESULTS: Despite being from the same hospital, the two innovation teams occupied contrasting subject positions with one facilitating transformational improvements in service delivery, while the other sought more conservative improvements. Cast as 'IEs' we show how one team took steps to build legitimacy for their interventions enabling spread and scale in improvements and how, in the other case, failure to build legitimacy resulted in unintended consequences which undermined the sustainability of the improvements achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting an institutional approach provided insight into the 'willingness' and 'ability' to facilitate transformational change in healthcare through service redesign. The manner in which innovation teams operate from different subject positions influences the structural and normative legitimacy afforded to their activities. Specifically, we observed that those with the most power (organisational or professional) to bring about transformational change can be the least willing to do so in ways which challenge current practice. Those most willing to challenge the status quo (more peripheral organisation members or professionals) can be least able to deliver transformation. Better understanding of these insights can inform healthcare leaders in supporting innovation team efforts, considering their subject position.

Bridging the research-practice gap in healthcare: a rapid review of research translation centres in England and Australia.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale partnerships between universities and health services are widely seen as vehicles for bridging the evidence-practice gap and for accelerating the adoption of new evidence in healthcare. Recently, different versions of these partnerships - often called academic health science centres - have been established across the globe. Although they differ in structure and processes, all aim to improve the integration of research and education with health services. Collectively, these entities are often referred to as Research Translation Centres (RTCs) and both England and Australia have developed relatively new and funded examples of these collaborative centres. METHODS: This paper presents findings from a rapid review of RTCs in Australia and England that aimed to identify their structures, leadership, workforce development and strategies for involving communities and service users. The review included published academic and grey literature with a customised search of the Google search engine and RTC websites. RESULTS: RTCs are complex system-level interventions that will need to disrupt the current paradigms and silos inherent in healthcare, education and research in order to meet their aims. This will require vision, leadership, collaborations and shared learnings, alongside structures, processes and strategies to deliver impact in the face of complexity. The impact of RTCs in overcoming the deeply entrenched silos across organisations, disciplines and sectors needs to be captured at the systems, organisation and individual levels. This includes workforce capacity and public and patient involvement that are vital to understanding the evolution of RTCs. In addition, new models of leadership are needed to support the brokering and mobilisation of knowledge in complex organisations. CONCLUSIONS: The development and funding of RTCs represents one of the most significant shifts in the health research landscape and it is imperative that we continue to explore how we can progress the integration of research and healthcare and ensure research meets stakeholder needs and is translated via the collaborations supported by these organisations. Because RTCs are a recent addition to the healthcare landscape in Australia, it is instructive to review the processes and infrastructure needed to support their implementation and applied health research in England.

Flipping the paradigm: a qualitative exploration of research translation centres in the United Kingdom and Australia.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, Research Translation Centres (RTCs) have been established in many countries. These centres (sometimes referred to as Academic Health Science Centres) are designed to bring universities and healthcare providers together in order to accelerate the generation and translation of new evidence that is responsive to health service and community priorities. This has the potential to effectively 'flip' the traditional research and education paradigms because it requires active participation and continuous engagement with stakeholders (especially service users, the community and frontline clinicians). Although investment and expectations of RTCs are high, the literature confirms a need to better understand the processes that RTCs use to mobilise knowledge, build workforce capacity, and co-produce research with patients and the public to ensure population impact and drive healthcare improvement. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected leaders and members from select RTCs in England and Australia. Convenience sampling was utilised to identify RTCs, based on their geography, accessibility and availability. Purposive sampling and a snowballing approach were employed to recruit individual participants for interviews, which were conducted face to face or via videoconferencing. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a reflexive and inductive approach. This involved two researchers comparing codes and interrogating themes that were analysed inductively against the study aims and through meetings with the research team. RESULTS: A total of 41 participants, 22 from England and 19 from Australia were interviewed. Five major themes emerged, including (1) dissonant metrics, (2) different models of leadership, (3) public and patient involvement and research co-production, (4) workforce development and (5) barriers to collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified the need for performance measures that capture community impact. Better aligned success metrics, enhanced leadership, strategies to partner with patients and the public, enhanced workforce development and strategies to enhance collaboration were all identified as crucial for RTCs to succeed.

An overview of healthcare improvement: unpacking the complexity for clinicians and managers in a learning health system.

Given the pace of technological advancement and government mandates for healthcare and system transformation, there is an imperative for change. Health systems are highly complex in their design, networks and interacting components, and experience demonstrates that change is very challenging to enact, sustain and scale. Policy-makers, academics and clinicians all need better insight into the nature of this complexity and an understanding of the evidence-base that can support healthcare improvement (HCI), or quality improvement, interventions and make them more effective in driving change. The evidence base demonstrates the vital role of clinical engagement and leadership in HCI, and it is imperative that clinicians engage to improve front-line healthcare. The literature on HCI is vast, applies different and inconsistent terminology and encompasses often loosely defined and overlapping concepts. An increasingly broad range of disciplines has contributed to the available evidence base, but often discipline-specific perspectives frame these contributions. Available literature can also be overly driven by the generation of theoretical concepts and the advancement of academic understanding. It does not necessarily primarily provide focussed and pragmatic insights to guide and inform frontline practice. We aim to address these issues by summarising theories, frameworks, models and success factors for improvement in complex health systems to assist clinicians and others to engage and lead change. We integrate the field of HCI into the learning health system highlighting the key role of the clinician. We seek to inform stakeholders; clinicians and managers to guide the planning, enacting, sustaining and scaling of HCI.

What Are Models of Care? A Systematic Search and Narrative Review to Guide Development of Care Models for Premature Ovarian Insufficiency.

No specific model of care (MoC) is recommended for premature ovarian insufficiency (POI), despite awareness that POI is associated with comorbidities requiring multidisciplinary care. This article aims to explore the definitions and central components of MoC in health settings, so that care models for POI can be developed. A systematic search was performed on Ovid Medline and Embase, and including gray literature. Unique definitions of MoC were identified, and thematic analysis was used to summarize the key component of MoC. Of 2,477 articles identified, 8 provided unique definitions of MoC, and 11 described components of MoC. Definitions differ in scope, focusing on disease, service, or system level, but a key feature is that MoC is operational, describing how care is delivered, as well as what that care is. Thematic analysis identified 42 components of MoC, summarized into 6 themes-stakeholder engagement, supporting integrated care, evidence-based care, defined outcomes and evaluation, behavior change methodology, and adaptability. Stakeholder engagement was central to all other themes. MoCs operationalize how best practice care can be delivered at a disease, service, or systems level. Specific MoC should be developed for POI, to improve clinical and process outcomes, translate evidence into practice, and use resources more efficiently.

Medical and Surgical Treatment of Reproductive Outcomes in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common, complex condition that affects up to 18% of reproductiveaged women, causing reproductive, metabolic and psychological dysfunctions. We performed an overview and appraisal of methodological quality of systematic reviews that assessed medical and surgical treatments for reproductive outcomes in women with PCOS. Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL PLUS and PROSPERO) were searched on the 15th of September 2017. We included any systematic review that assessed the effect of medical or surgical management of PCOS on reproductive, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality assessment by the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool were performed in duplicate. We identified 53 reviews comprising 44 reviews included in this overview; the majority were moderate to high quality. In unselected women with PCOS, letrozole was associated with a higher live birth rate than clomiphene citrate (CC), while CC was better than metformin or placebo. In women with CC-resistant PCOS, gonadotrophins were associated with a higher live birth rate than CC plus metformin, which was better than laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD). LOD was associated with lower multiple pregnancy rates than other medical treatments. In women with PCOS undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), the addition of metformin to gonadotrophins resulted in less ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), and higher pregnancy and live birth rates than gonadotrophins alone. Gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist was associated with less OHSS, gonadotrophin units and shorter stimulation length than GnRH agonist. Letrozole appears to be a good first line treatment and gonadotrophins, as a second line treatment, for anovulatory women with PCOS. LOD results in lower multiple pregnancy rates. However, due to the heterogeneous nature of the included populations of women with PCOS, further larger scale trials are needed with more precise assessment of treatments according to heterogeneous variants of PCOS.

Semistructured interviews regarding patients' perceptions of Choosing Wisely and shared decision-making: an Australian study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine how patients perceive shared decision-making regarding CT scan referral and use of the five Choosing Wisely questions with their general practitioner (GP). DESIGN: This is a qualitative exploratory study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: This study was conducted in a large metropolitan public healthcare organisation in urban Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Following purposive sampling, 20 patients and 2 carers participated. Patient participants aged 18 years or older were eligible if they were attending the healthcare organisation for a CT scan and referred by their GP. Carers/family were eligible to participate when they were in the role of an unpaid carer and were aged 18 years or older. Participants were required to speak English sufficiently to provide informed consent. Participants with cognitive impairment were excluded. FINDINGS: Eighteen interviews were conducted with the patient only. Two interviews were conducted with the patient and the patient's carer. Fourteen participants were female. Five themes resulted from the thematic analysis: (1) needing to know, (2) questioning doctors is not necessary, (3) discussing scans is not required, (4) uncertainty about questioning and (5) valuing the Choosing Wisely questions. Participants reported that they presented to their GP with a health problem that they needed to understand and address. Participants accepted their GPs decision to prescribe a CT scan to identify the nature of their problem. They reported ambivalence about engaging in shared decision-making with their doctor, although many participants reported valuing the Choosing Wisely questions. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making is an important principle underpinning Choosing Wisely. Practice implementation requires understanding patients' motivations to engage in shared decision-making with a focus on attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and emotions. Systems-level support and education for healthcare practitioners in effective communication is important. However, this needs to emphasise communication with patients who have varying degrees of motivation to engage in shared decision-making and Choosing Wisely.

Application of Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation Framework to the Development of Polycycstic Ovary Syndrome Guideline: A Case Study on Implementation.

Implementation of healthcare guidelines, a set of recommendations aiming to optimize patient care, can be a complex process which is at risk of poor translation into practice. Failure to adopt new evidence-based healthcare findings can contribute to a large variation in care, potentially affecting outcomes for service users. Designed to avoid this issue, the Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI) knowledge translation framework was created to support the development and future implementation of clinical practice guidelines. The framework is distinguished by a focus on methodological rigor, stakeholder engagement, and partnership, leading to the coproduction of a guideline and research projects. In this article, we use the development of the International Evidence-based Guideline on the Assessment and Management of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (2018) as a case study to articulate the MCHRI knowledge translation framework. Specifically, this article discusses stakeholder engagement; development and codesign of evidence-based recommendations; implementation and knowledge generation; dissemination, translation, and scale up; and refinement/learning from evaluation. This case study demonstrates how hybrid frameworks, models, and theories for implementation, such as the MCHRI implementation framework, have their place in healthcare. The underlying principle that informs the framework is stakeholder engagement, including codesign, empowerment, and partnership.

Examining 'institutional entrepreneurship' in healthcare redesign and improvement through comparative case study research: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare service redesign and improvement has become an important activity that health system leaders and clinicians realise must be nurtured and mastered, if the capacity issues that constrain healthcare delivery are to be solved. However, little is known about the critical success factors that are essential for sustaining and scaling up improvement initiatives. This situation limits the impact of these initiatives and undermines the general standing of redesign and improvement activity within healthcare systems. The conduct of the doctoral research detailed in this study protocol will be nested within a broader parent study that seeks to address this problem by drawing on the theory of 'institutional entrepreneurship'. The doctoral research will apply this idea to understanding the capacities and capabilities required at the organisation level to bring about transformational change in healthcare services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The parent study is predominantly qualitative, is multilevel in nature and has been codesigned with five partner healthcare organisations. The focus is a sector-wide attempt in an Australian state jurisdiction to transfer new redesign and improvement knowledge into the public healthcare system. The doctoral research will focus on the implementation of the sector-wide approach in one healthcare service in the jurisdiction. This research involves interviews with project team members and stakeholders involved in two improvement initiatives undertaken by the health service. It will involve interviews with redesign and improvement leaders and senior managers responsible for the overall health service improvement approach. The methods will also include immersive fieldwork, interviews and focus groups. Appropriate methods for coding and thematic extraction will be applied to the qualitative data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the health service and Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee. Dissemination will be facilitated via academic publication, industry reports and workshops and dissemination events as part of the broader project.

Informing best practice for conducting morbidity and mortality reviews: a literature review.

Objective Preventable hospital mortality is a critical public health issue, particularly when mortalities are associated with events that are preventable. Mortality and morbidity reviews (MMRs) provide a rigorous, systematic, open, collaborative and transparent review process for clinicians to examine areas of improvement. The aim of the present review was to explore the evidence for best practice when conducting MMRs. Methods Searches of published and grey literature from 2009 to February 2016 were conducted. This period was selected to update a previous review. Inclusion and exclusion criteria was established a priori and based on the Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) framework. Specific search terms were generated and used to identify relevant articles, with reference lists and citing articles also screened for inclusions. Titles and abstracts were screened and duplicates removed. Study details regarding setting, study design, reported outcomes, tool type, clinicians present and the timing of MMRs were extracted and summarised. Results After screening, 31 documents were included in the present review: 20 peer-reviewed articles and 11 items from the grey literature. Specific outcomes reported included mortality rates, satisfaction, education, cost and quality of care. The most common features of MMRs included timing, leadership, attendees, case presentation format, terms of reference, agenda and governance. Conclusions MMRs decrease gross mortality rates and are effective in identifying and engaging clinicians in system improvements. MMRs should not focus on the actions of individuals, rather on education and/or quality improvement. MMRs should consist of a multidisciplinary team following a structured presentation format with an analysis of error process including actions to be followed-up. Further, it is possible for a single standardised MMR to be implemented hospital wide. What is known about the topic? MMRs are conducted in a variety of clinical settings to educate clinicians and improve patient care. What does this paper add? This review updates a previous review published in 2009 and summarises current evidence around morbidity and mortality reviews. This review also provides a framework for a standardised MMR to be implemented hospital wide. What are the implications for practitioners? This summary of the evidence can be used to guide the development, formation or conduct of MMRs in any healthcare setting.

Patient satisfaction of telephone or video interpreter services compared with in-person services: a systematic review.

Objective This review was conducted to identify and synthesise the evidence around the use of telephone and video interpreter services compared with in-person services in healthcare. Methods A systematic search of articles published in the English language was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Joanna Briggs, Google Scholar and Google. Search terms included 'interpreter', 'patient satisfaction', 'consumer satisfaction' and 'client satisfaction'. Any study that did not compare in-person interpreter services with either telephone or video interpreter services was excluded from analysis. Studies were screened for inclusion or exclusion by two reviewers, using criteria established a priori. Data were extracted via a custom form and synthesised. Results The database search yielded 196 studies, eight of which were included in the present review. The search using an Internet search engine did not identify any relevant studies. Of the studies included, five used telephone and three used video interpreter services. All studies, except one, compared levels of satisfaction regarding in-person interpretation and telephone or video interpretation. One study compared satisfaction of two versions of video interpretation. There is evidence of higher satisfaction with hospital-trained interpreters compared with ad hoc (friend or family) or telephone interpreters. There is no difference in satisfaction between in-person interpreting, telephone interpreting or interpretation provided by the treating bilingual physician. Video interpreting has the same satisfaction as in-person interpreting, regardless of whether the patient and the physician are in the same room. Higher levels of satisfaction were reported for trained telephone interpreters than for in-person interpreters or an external telephone interpreter service. Conclusions Current evidence does not suggest there is one particular mode of interpreting that is superior to all others. This review is limited in its translational capacity given that most studies were from the US and in a Spanish-speaking cohort. What is known about the topic? Access to interpreters has been shown to positively affect patients who are not proficient in speaking the local language of the health service. What does this paper add? This paper adds to the literature by providing a comprehensive summary of patient satisfaction when engaging several different types of language interpreting services used in healthcare. What are the implications for practitioners? This review provides clear information for health services on the use of language interpreter services and patient satisfaction. The current body of evidence does not indicate a superior interpreting method when patient satisfaction is concerned.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 8: developing, implementing and evaluating an evidence dissemination service in a local healthcare setting.

BACKGROUND: This is the eighth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE Program was a systematic, integrated, evidence-based program for disinvestment within a large Australian health service. One of the aims was to explore methods to deliver existing high quality synthesised evidence directly to decision-makers to drive decision-making proactively. An Evidence Dissemination Service (EDS) was proposed. While this was conceived as a method to identify disinvestment opportunities, it became clear that it could also be a way to review all practices for consistency with current evidence. This paper reports the development, implementation and evaluation of two models of an in-house EDS. METHODS: Frameworks for development of complex interventions, implementation of evidence-based change, and evaluation and explication of processes and outcomes were adapted and/or applied. Mixed methods including a literature review, surveys, interviews, workshops, audits, document analysis and action research were used to capture barriers, enablers and local needs; identify effective strategies; develop and refine proposals; ascertain feedback and measure outcomes. RESULTS: Methods to identify, capture, classify, store, repackage, disseminate and facilitate use of synthesised research evidence were investigated. In Model 1, emails containing links to multiple publications were sent to all self-selected participants who were asked to determine whether they were the relevant decision-maker for any of the topics presented, whether change was required, and to take the relevant action. This voluntary framework did not achieve the aim of ensuring practice was consistent with current evidence. In Model 2, the need for change was established prior to dissemination, then a summary of the evidence was sent to the decision-maker responsible for practice in the relevant area who was required to take appropriate action and report the outcome. This mandatory governance framework was successful. The factors influencing decisions, processes and outcomes were identified. CONCLUSION: An in-house EDS holds promise as a method of identifying disinvestment opportunities and/or reviewing local practice for consistency with current evidence. The resource-intensive nature of delivery of the EDS is a potential barrier. The findings from this study will inform further exploration.

Does the Use of a Pulmonary Artery Catheter Make a Difference During or After Cardiac Surgery?

Pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) were introduced in 1970. Since then, their use has steadily increased. However, there have been questions raised regarding their efficacy for multiple clinical scenarios. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the safety and effectiveness of routine use of PACs post cardiac surgery on mortality, complications, days in intensive care unit, days in hospital, and costs in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, or patients who end up in an intensive care unit. METHODS: Medline, All EBM, EMBASE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were searched using predetermined search terms. Google, British Medical Journal (BMJ) Best Practice, and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) were also searched. All searches were from 2012 to current to update a previous review from 2013. Studies were included if they involved adult cardiac surgery patients, or intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring haemodynamic monitoring. All other surgical patients were excluded. RESULTS: Six articles were included in this review. Of the six articles, five were randomised or observational studies, and one was an expert recommendation. For all cardiac surgery patients and patients having coronary artery bypass grafting, there was no difference in mortality. There was an increase in mortality in high-risk cardiac surgery patients, who had a PAC. For patients following coronary artery bypass grafting, there was no difference in ICU length of stay (LOS) but for patients following cardiac surgery total length of hospital stay >30days was greater in patients with a PAC. For patients following coronary artery bypass grafting, in-hospital costs for the entire hospitalisation were higher in patients with a PAC and, there was no difference in complications between PAC and a central venous catheter use. Overall, PACs were not a predictor of worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: This review revealed that PAC use was associated with a poorer outcome in a small subset of cardiac surgical patients but in the majority of patients PAC use made no difference to outcome. Further studies are required to confirm the true safety and efficacy of PAC use in cardiac surgery.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 7: supporting staff in evidence-based decision-making, implementation and evaluation in a local healthcare setting.

BACKGROUND: This is the seventh in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE Program was a systematic, integrated, evidence-based program for resource allocation within a large Australian health service. It aimed to facilitate proactive use of evidence from research and local data; evidence-based decision-making for resource allocation including disinvestment; and development, implementation and evaluation of disinvestment projects. From the literature and responses of local stakeholders it was clear that provision of expertise and education, training and support of health service staff would be required to achieve these aims. Four support services were proposed. This paper is a detailed case report of the development, implementation and evaluation of a Data Service, Capacity Building Service and Project Support Service. An Evidence Service is reported separately. METHODS: Literature reviews, surveys, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. Existing theoretical frameworks were adapted for evaluation and explication of processes and outcomes. RESULTS: Surveys and interviews identified current practice in use of evidence in decision-making, implementation and evaluation; staff needs for evidence-based practice; nature, type and availability of local health service data; and preferred formats for education and training. The Capacity Building and Project Support Services were successful in achieving short term objectives; but long term outcomes were not evaluated due to reduced funding. The Data Service was not implemented at all. Factors influencing the processes and outcomes are discussed. CONCLUSION: Health service staff need access to education, training, expertise and support to enable evidence-based decision-making and to implement and evaluate the changes arising from those decisions. Three support services were proposed based on research evidence and local findings. Local factors, some unanticipated and some unavoidable, were the main barriers to successful implementation. All three proposed support services hold promise as facilitators of EBP in the local healthcare setting. The findings from this study will inform further exploration.

Metformin versus clomiphene citrate for infertility in non-obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND Recent studies suggest that metformin may be more effective in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who are non-obese. The objective here is to determine and compare the effectiveness of metformin and clomiphene citrate for improving fertility outcomes in women with PCOS and a BMI < 32 kg/m(2) (BMI 32 kg/m(2) was used to allow for international differences in BMI values which determine access to infertility therapy through the public health system). METHODS Databases were searched for English language articles until July 2011. INCLUSION CRITERIA: women of any age, ethnicity and weight with PCOS diagnosed by all current criteria, who are infertile; at least 1000 mg of any type of metformin at any frequency, including slow release and standard release, compared with any type, dose and frequency of clomiphene citrate. OUTCOMES: rates of ovulation, live birth, pregnancy, multiple pregnancies, miscarriage, adverse events, quality of life and cost effectiveness. Data were extracted and risk of bias assessed. A random effects model was used for meta-analyses of data, using risk ratios (relative risk). RESULTS The search returned 4981 articles, 580 articles addressed metformin or clomiphene citrate and four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing metformin with clomiphene citrate were included. Upon meta-analysis of the four RCTs, we were unable to detect a statistically significant difference between the two interventions for any outcome in women with PCOS and a BMI < 32 kg/m(2), owing to significant heterogeneity across the RCTs. CONCLUSIONS Owing to conflicting findings and heterogeneity across the included RCTs, there is insufficient evidence to establish a difference between metformin and clomiphene citrate in terms of ovulation, pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates in women with PCOS and a BMI < 32 kg/m(2). However, a lack of superiority of one treatment is not evidence for equivalence, and further methodologically rigorous trials are required to determine whether there is a difference in effectiveness between metformin and placebo (or no treatment) or between metformin and clomiphene citrate for ovulation induction in women with PCOS who are non-obese. Until then, caution should be exercised when prescribing metformin as first line pharmacological therapy in this group of women.