Moving Past the Loss: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study of Health Care Staff Experiences of Disinvestment.

This longitudinal qualitative study examines staff experience of disinvestment from a service they are accustomed to providing to their patients. It took place alongside a disinvestment trial that measured the impact of the removal of weekend allied health services from acute wards at two hospitals. Data were gathered from repeated interviews and focus groups with 450 health care staff. We developed a grounded theory, which explains changes in staff perceptions over time and the key modifying factors. Staff appeared to experience disinvestment as loss; a key difference to other operational changes. Early staff experiences of disinvestment were primarily negative, but evolved with time and change-management strategies such as the provision of data, clear and persistent communication approaches, and forums where the big picture context of the disinvestment was robustly discussed. These allowed the disinvestment trial to be successfully implemented at two health services, with high compliance with the research protocol.

Mobilisation alarm triggers, response times and utilisation before and after the introduction of policy for alarm reduction or elimination: A descriptive and comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mobilisation alarms are a falls prevention strategy used in hospitals to alert staff when an at risk patient is attempting to mobilise. Mobilisation alarms have an estimated annual cost of $AUD58MIL in Australia. There is growing evidence from randomised controlled trials indicating mobilisation alarms are unlikely to prevent falls. AIM: The primary aim of this study was to describe the rate of mobilisation alarm false triggers and staff response time across different health services. The secondary aim was to compare pre to post mobilisation alarm utilisation following the introduction of policy to reduce or eliminate mobilisation alarms. METHODS: This descriptive and comparative study was conducted through Monash Partners Falls Alliance across six health services in Melbourne, Australia. This study described true and false alarm triggers and trigger response times across three health services and usual care mobilisation alarm utilisation across six health services; and then compared alarm utilisation across two health services following the introduction of policy to reduce (<2.5%) or eliminate (0.0%) mobilisation alarms in the acute and rehabilitation settings. RESULTS: The most frequent observation was a false alarm (n = 74, 52%), followed by a true alarm (n = 67, 47%) and no alarm (n = 3, 2%). Time to respond to the true and false alarms was an average of 37 seconds (SD 92) and this included 61 occasions of 0 seconds as a member of staff was present when the alarm triggered. If the 61 occasions of staff being present when the alarm triggered were removed, the average time to respond was 65 seconds (SD114). Usual care mobilisation alarm utilisation in acute was 7% (n = 171/2,338) and in rehabilitation was 11% (n = 286/2,623). Introducing policy for reduced and eliminated mobilisation alarm conditions was successful with a reduced utilisation rate of 1.8% (n = 11/609) and an eliminated utilisation rate of 0.0% (n = 0/521). CONCLUSION: Half of mobilisation alarm triggers are false and when alarms trigger without staff present, staff take about a minute to respond. While usual care has one in fourteen patients in acute and one in nine patients in rehabilitation using a mobilisation alarm, it is possible to introduce policy which will change practice to reduce or eliminate the use of mobilisation alarms, providing evidence of feasibility for future disinvestment effectiveness studies that it is feasible to disinvest in the alarms.

Health care staff responses to disinvestment-A systematic search and qualitative thematic synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Health care services must deliver high-quality, evidence-based care that represents sound value. Disinvestment is the process of withdrawing resources from any existing health care practices that deliver low gain for their cost and reallocating these toward practices that are more effective, efficient, and cost-effective, thus benefiting patients and the community. PURPOSE: This is the first review to examine the responses of health care staff to disinvestment and investigate the factors that increase the likelihood of these staff accepting disinvestment or reallocation of resources from the health services they provide. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of five electronic databases using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) framework. A critical appraisal process of the quality of the included studies was performed by two authors. We undertook a thematic synthesis of the qualitative data to develop an overarching narrative. RESULTS: Twelve studies were identified for synthesis and all found that the disinvestment process was challenging and controversial for those health care staff involved. Negative staff reactions to disinvestment identified were anxiety, disempowerment, distrust, and feelings of being dismissed and disrespected. Engagement with disinvestment was observed when staff were invited to participate in a process they considered transparent and in the best interests of the community. PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS: Health care staff have a strong professional identity associated with autonomy in their decision making in the provision of health care services. Disinvestment from a service that health care staff can usually choose to provide threatens this identity. Engaging clinical champions to lead change, using rigorous patient outcome data, and transparent decision-making processes may assist health care staff to embrace a new identity as innovators and accept disinvestment in low-value health care.

Understanding Health Professional Responses to Service Disinvestment: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Disinvestment from inefficient health services may be a potential solution to rising healthcare costs, but there has been poor uptake of disinvestment recommendations. This Australian study aims to understand how health professionals react when confronted with a plan to disinvest from a health service they previously provided to their patients. METHODS: This qualitative study took place prior to the disinvestment phase of a trial which removed weekend allied health services from acute hospital wards, to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the service. Observations and focus groups were used to collect data from 156 participants which was analysed thematically. RESULTS: Initial reactions to the disinvestment were almost universally negative, with staff extremely concerned about the impact on the safety and quality of patient care and planning ways to circumvent the trial. Removal of existing services was perceived as a loss and created a direct threat to some clinicians' professional identity. With time, discussion, and understanding of the project's context, some staff moved towards acceptance and perceived the trial as an opportunity, particularly given the service was to be reinstated after the disinvestment. CONCLUSION: Clinicians and health service managers are protective of the services they deliver and can create barriers to disinvestment. Even when services are removed to ascertain their value, health professionals may continue to provide services to their patients. Measuring the impact of the disinvestment may assist staff to accept the removal of a service.

Where are falls prevention resources allocated by hospitals and what do they cost? A cross sectional survey using semi-structured interviews of key informants at six Australian health services.

BACKGROUND: Falls are a major problem for patients and hospitals, resulting in death, disability and increased costs of healthcare. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate the resource allocation across a partnership of large health services, in an attempt to understand the amount and variability of resource allocation to various falls prevention activities. DESIGN: A cross sectional survey using semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Six tertiary health services in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A collaboration of six health services, spanning twenty-eight hospitals, was formed to investigate falls prevention resource allocation. We interviewed 186 health service staff who were involved in falls prevention activities, such as projects, audits and risk management, clinical and operational managers responsible for falls prevention resource allocation and clinical staff on targeted acute, subacute and mental health wards. METHODS: This study used a mixed methods, cross sectional, observational design. To collect data, we used key informant interviews with a purposive and snowball sampled group of people working in the included health services. During interviews, study participants were asked where and how falls prevention resources and equipment were utilised and to estimate the time allocated to performing falls prevention activities. The opportunity cost of each activity was estimated. All costs were reported in Australian dollars. RESULTS: We estimate the annual opportunity cost of health service attempts to prevent in-hospital falls across the six health services to be AU$46,478,014. If we extrapolate this to a national level, health services would be consuming AU$590 million per year in resources trying to prevent falls in hospital. The areas of greatest resource consumption were physiotherapy (18%), continuous patient observers (14%), falls assessments (12%) and screens (8%), and falls prevention alarms (11%). Falls prevention alarms and falls risk assessment screening tools were also used only for falls prevention, and are potentially ineffective falls prevention strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Health services are investing considerable amounts of resource in attempting to prevent falls. However much of this resource is consumed in activities with weak or little evidence of effectiveness. Health services may be better served by considering tighter targeting, reduction or disinvestment in this area. This may release time and resources which could be used to provide interventions with a stronger evidence base, such as patient education using a structured patient education program or in other areas of practice where evidence of benefit exist.

Impact of disinvestment from weekend allied health services across acute medical and surgical wards: 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Disinvestment (removal, reduction, or reallocation) of routinely provided health services can be difficult when there is little published evidence examining whether the services are effective or not. Evidence is required to understand if removing these services produces outcomes that are inferior to keeping such services in place. However, organisational imperatives, such as budget cuts, may force healthcare providers to disinvest from these services before the required evidence becomes available. There are presently no experimental studies examining the effectiveness of allied health services (e.g., physical therapy, occupational therapy, and social work) provided on weekends across acute medical and surgical hospital wards, despite these services being routinely provided internationally. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of removing weekend allied health services from acute medical and surgical wards using a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority research design. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials between 1 February 2014 and 30 April 2015 among patients on 12 acute medical or surgical hospital wards spread across 2 hospitals. The hospitals involved were 2 metropolitan teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Data from n = 14,834 patients were collected for inclusion in Trial 1, and n = 12,674 in Trial 2. Trial 1 was a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority stepped-wedge trial where the 'current' weekend allied health service was incrementally removed from participating wards each calendar month, in a random order, while Trial 2 used a conventional non-inferiority stepped-wedge design, where a 'newly developed' service was incrementally reinstated on the same wards as in Trial 1. Primary outcome measures were patient length of stay (proportion staying longer than expected and mean length of stay), the proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event, and the proportion with an unplanned readmission within 28 days of discharge. The 'no weekend allied health service' condition was considered to be not inferior if the 95% CIs of the differences between this condition and the condition with weekend allied health service delivery were below a 2% increase in the proportion of patients who stayed in hospital longer than expected, a 2% increase in the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days, a 2% increase in the proportion who had any adverse event, and a 1-day increase in the mean length of stay. The current weekend allied health service included physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work, and allied health assistant services in line with usual care at the participating sites. The newly developed weekend allied health service allowed managers at each site to reprioritise tasks being performed and the balance of hours provided by each professional group and on which days they were provided. Analyses conducted on an intention-to-treat basis demonstrated that there was no estimated effect size difference between groups in the proportion of patients staying longer than expected (weekend versus no weekend; estimated effect size difference [95% CI], p-value) in Trial 1 (0.40 versus 0.38; estimated effect size difference 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.31, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but the proportion staying longer than expected was greater with the newly developed service compared to its no weekend service control condition (0.39 versus 0.40; estimated effect size difference 0.02 [0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.04, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin) in Trial 2. Trial 1 and 2 findings were discordant for the mean length of stay outcome (Trial 1: 5.5 versus 6.3 days; estimated effect size difference 1.3 days [0.9 to 1.8], p < 0.001, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: 5.9 versus 5.0 days; estimated effect size difference -1.6 days [-2.0 to -1.1], p < 0.001, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions for the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days in either trial (Trial 1: 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.18, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: -0.01 [-0.02 to 0.01], p = 0.62, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions in the proportion of patients who experienced any adverse event in Trial 1 (0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.33, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but a lower proportion of patients had an adverse event in Trial 2 when exposed to the no weekend allied health condition (-0.03 [-0.05 to -0.004], p = 0.02, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). Limitations of this research were that 1 of the trial wards was closed by the healthcare provider after Trial 1 and could not be included in Trial 2, and that both withdrawing the current weekend allied health service model and installing a new one may have led to an accommodation period for staff to adapt to the new service settings. Stepped-wedge trials are potentially susceptible to bias from naturally occurring change over time at the service level; however, this was adjusted for in our analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In Trial 1, criteria to say that the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to current weekend allied health condition were not met, while neither the no weekend nor current weekend allied health condition demonstrated superiority. In Trial 2, the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to the newly developed weekend allied health condition across all primary outcomes, and superior for the outcomes proportion of patients staying longer than expected, proportion experiencing any adverse event, and mean length of stay. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001231730 and ACTRN12613001361796.

Positive and negative assessment center feedback in relation to development self-efficacy, feedback seeking, and promotion.

In this field study we examined both positive and negative developmental feedback given in managerial assessment centers in relation to employees' self-efficacy for their ability to improve their relevant skills assessed in the centers, the extent to which they sought subsequent feedback from others at work, and the career outcome of being promoted to a higher level position within the organization. We found that feedback was related to self-efficacy for improvement which was in turn positively related to feedback seeking, which was positively linked to the career outcome of promotion (e.g., feedback leads to self-efficacy for improvement leads to feedback seeking leads to promotion). In addition, we tested boundary variables for the effects of feedback in this model. Both social support for development and implicit theory of ability moderated the effects of negative feedback on self-efficacy. Having more support and believing that abilities can be improved buffered the detrimental impact of negative feedback on self-efficacy. We discuss implications for theory, future research and practical implications drawing upon literature on assessment centers, feedback and feedback seeking, employee development and career success. (PsycINFO Database Record

What makes weekend allied health services effective and cost-effective (or not) in acute medical and surgical wards? Perceptions of medical, nursing, and allied health workers.

BACKGROUND: There is strong public support for acute hospital services to move to genuine 7-day models, including access to multidisciplinary team assessment. This study aimed to identify factors that might enable an effective and cost-effective weekend allied health services on acute hospital wards. METHODS: This qualitative study included 22 focus groups within acute wards with a weekend allied health service and 11 telephone interviews with weekend service providers. Data were collected from 210 hospital team members, including 17 medical, 97 nursing, and 96 allied health professionals from two Australian tertiary public hospitals. All were recorded and imported into nVivo 10 for analysis. Thematic analysis methods were used to develop a coding framework from the data and to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: Key themes identified were separated into issues perceived as being enablers or barriers to the effective or cost-effective delivery of weekend allied health services. Perceived enablers of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness included prioritizing interventions that prevent decline, the right person delivering the right service, improved access to the patient's family, and ability to impact patient flow. Perceived barriers were employment of inexperienced weekend staff, insufficient investment to see tangible benefit, inefficiencies related to double-handling, unnecessary interventions and/or inappropriate referrals, and difficulty recruiting and retaining skilled staff. CONCLUSIONS: Suggestions for ensuring effective and cost effective weekend allied health care models include minimization of task duplication and targeting interventions so that the right patients receive the right interventions at the right time. Further research into the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of these services should factor in hidden costs, including those associated with managing the service.

Challenges, uncertainties and perceived benefits of providing weekend allied health services-a managers' perspective.

BACKGROUND: Health services that operate 7 days per week are under pressure to show the increased cost of providing weekend services can be measured in improved patient outcomes. The evidence for weekend allied health services in acute medical and surgical wards is weak and there is wide variation between the services offered at different hospitals. METHODS: This qualitative study was undertaken during a multi-site stepped wedge randomised controlled trial involving twelve acute medical and surgical wards from two Australian hospitals, in which weekend allied health services were removed before being reinstated with a stakeholder driven model. In-depth interviews were conducted with twenty-two staff responsible for managing weekend services at the involved hospitals. Participants were asked about their perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of providing a weekend allied health service. RESULTS: Managers perceive the services improve patient flow and quality of care and reduce adverse incidents, such as falls and intensive care admissions. They also highlighted the challenges involved in planning, staffing and managing these services and the uncertainties about how to provide it most effectively. CONCLUSIONS: Rising healthcare costs provide opportunity for public and professional debate about the most effective way of providing weekend allied health care services, particularly when health services provide limited other weekend services. Some managers perceived weekend allied health services to improve patient quality of care, but without studies which show these services on acute medical and surgical wards clearly change patient outcomes or provide health economic gains, these resources may need to be redirected. The resources may be better spent in areas with clear evidence to show the addition of weekend allied health services improves patient outcomes, such as on acute assess units and rehabilitation wards.

Do daily ward interviews improve measurement of hospital quality and safety indicators? A prospective observational study.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if the addition of daily ward interview data improves the capture of hospital quality and safety indicators compared with incident reporting systems alone. An additional aim was to determine the potential characteristics influencing under-reporting of hospital quality and safety indicators in incident reporting systems. METHODS: A prospective, observational study was performed at two tertiary metropolitan public hospitals. Research assistants from allied health backgrounds met daily with the nurse in charge of the ward and discussed the occurrence of any falls, pressure injuries and rapid response medical team calls. Data were collected from four general medical wards, four surgical wards, an orthopaedic, neurosciences, plastics, respiratory, renal, sub-acute and acute medical assessment unit. RESULTS: An estimated total of 303 falls, 221 pressure injuries and 884 rapid response medical team calls occurred between 15 wards across two hospitals, over a period of 6 months. Hospital incident reporting systems underestimated falls by 30.0%, pressure injuries by 59.3% and rapid response medical team calls by 17.0%. The use of ward interview data collection in addition to hospital incident reporting systems improved data capture of falls by 23.8% (n = 72), pressure injuries by 21.7% (n = 48) and rapid response medical team calls by 12.7% (n = 112). Falls events were significantly less likely to be reported if they occurred on a Monday (P = 0.04) and pressure injuries significantly more likely to be reported if they occurred on a Wednesday (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital quality and safety indicators (falls, pressure injuries and rapid response medical team calls) were under-reported in incident reporting systems, with variability in under-reporting between wards and the day of event occurrence. The use of ward interview data collection in addition to hospital incident reporting systems improved reporting of hospital quality and safety indicators.

Study protocol for two randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness and safety of current weekend allied health services and a new stakeholder-driven model for acute medical/surgical patients versus no weekend allied health services.

BACKGROUND: Disinvestment from inefficient or ineffective health services is a growing priority for health care systems. Provision of allied health services over the weekend is now commonplace despite a relative paucity of evidence supporting their provision. The relatively high cost of providing this service combined with the paucity of evidence supporting its provision makes this a potential candidate for disinvestment so that resources consumed can be used in other areas. This study aims to determine the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of the current model of weekend allied health service and a new stakeholder-driven model of weekend allied health service delivery on acute medical and surgical wards compared to having no weekend allied health service. METHODS/DESIGN: Two stepped wedge, cluster randomised trials of weekend allied health services will be conducted in six acute medical/surgical wards across two public metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne (Australia). Wards have been chosen to participate by management teams at each hospital. The allied health services to be investigated will include physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work and allied health assistants. At baseline, all wards will be receiving weekend allied health services. Study 1 intervention will be the sequential disinvestment (roll-in) of the current weekend allied health service model from each participating ward in monthly intervals and study 2 will be the roll-out of a new stakeholder-driven model of weekend allied health service delivery. The order in which weekend allied health services will be rolled in and out amongst participating wards will be determined randomly. This trial will be conducted in each of the two participating hospitals at a different time interval. Primary outcomes will be length of stay, rate of unplanned hospital readmission within 28 days and rate of adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be number of complaints and compliments, staff absenteeism, and patient discharge destination, satisfaction, and functional independence at discharge. DISCUSSION: This is the world's first application of the recently described non-inferiority (roll-in) stepped wedge trial design, and the largest investigation of the effectiveness of weekend allied health services on acute medical surgical wards to date. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613001231730 (first study) and ACTRN12613001361796 (second study). Was this trial prospectively registered?: Yes. Date registered: 8 November 2013 (first study), 12 December 2013 (second study). Anticipated completion: June 2015. Protocol version: 1. Role of trial sponsor: KP and DL are directly employed by one of the trial sponsors, their roles were: KP assisted with overall development of research design and assisted with overall project management; DL contributed to project management, administration and communications strategy.

A novel research design can aid disinvestment from existing health technologies with uncertain effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and/or safety.

OBJECTIVES: Disinvestment is critical for ensuring the long-term sustainability of health-care services. Key barriers to disinvestment are heterogeneity between research and clinical settings, absence of evidence of effectiveness of some health technologies, and exposure of patients and organizations to risks and poor outcomes. We aimed to develop a feasible research design that can evaluate disinvestment in health technologies of uncertain effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This article (1) establishes the need for disinvestment methodologies, (2) identifies the ethical concerns and feasibility constraints of conventional research designs for this issue, (3) describes the planning, implementation, and analytical framework for a novel disinvestment-specific study design, and (4) describes potential limitations in application of this design. RESULTS: The stepped-wedge, roll-in cluster randomized controlled trial can facilitate the disinvestment process, whereas generating evidence to determine whether the decision to disinvest was sound in the clinical environment. A noninferiority research paradigm may be applied to this methodology to demonstrate that the removal of a health technology does not adversely affect outcomes. CONCLUSION: This research design can be applied across multiple fields and will assist determination of whether specific health technologies are clinically effective, cost-effective, and safe.