Co-design of an intervention to improve patient participation in discharge medication communication.

Patients can experience medication-related harm and hospital readmission because they do not understand or adhere to post-hospital medication instructions. Increasing patient medication literacy and, in turn, participation in medication conversations could be a solution. The purposes of this study were to co-design and test an intervention to enhance patient participation in hospital discharge medication communication. In terms of methods, co-design, a collaborative approach where stakeholders design solutions to problems, was used to develop a prototype medication communication intervention. First, our consumer and healthcare professional stakeholders generated intervention ideas. Next, inpatients, opinion leaders, and academic researchers collaborated to determine the most pertinent and feasible intervention ideas. Finally, the prototype intervention was shown to six intended end-users (i.e. hospital patients) who underwent usability interviews and completed the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability questionnaire. The final intervention comprised of a suite of three websites: (i) a medication search engine; (ii) resources to help patients manage their medications once home; and (iii) a question builder tool. The intervention has been tested with intended end-users and results of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability questionnaire have shown that the intervention is acceptable. Identified usability issues have been addressed. In conclusion, this co-designed intervention provides patients with trustworthy resources that can help them to understand medication information and ask medication-related questions, thus promoting medication literacy and patient participation. In turn, this intervention could enhance patients' medication self-efficacy and healthcare utilization. Using a co-design approach ensured authentic consumer and other stakeholder engagement, while allowing opinion leaders and researchers to ensure that a feasible intervention was developed.

The impact of COVID-19 on emergency department presentations for mental health disorders in Queensland, Australia: A time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with detrimental effects on mental health and psychological well-being. Although multiple studies have shown decreases in mental health-related Emergency Department (ED) presentations early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the medium-term effects on mental health-related ED presentations have remained less clear. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the pandemic on mental health ED presentations by comparing observed presentation numbers to predictions from pre-pandemic data. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study tallied weekly ED presentations associated with mental health disorders from a state-wide minimum dataset. Three time periods were identified: Pre-Pandemic (January 1, 2018-March 8, 2020), Statewide Lockdown (March 9, 2020-June 28, 2020), and Restrictions Easing (June 29, 2020-June 27, 2021). Time series analysis was used to generate weekly presentation forecasts using pre-pandemic data. Observed presentation numbers were compared to these forecasts. RESULTS: Weekly presentation numbers were lower than predicted in 11 out of 16 weeks in the Statewide Lockdown period and 52 out of 52 weeks in the Restrictions Easing period. The largest decrease was seen for anxiety disorders (Statewide Lockdown: 76.8% of forecast; Restrictions Easing: 36.4% of forecast), while an increase was seen in presentations for eating disorders (Statewide Lockdown: 139.5% of forecast; Restrictions Easing: 194.4% of forecast). CONCLUSIONS: Overall weekly mental health-related presentations across Queensland public EDs were lower than expected for the first 16 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings underline the limitations of emergency department provision of mental health care and the importance of alternate care modalities in the pandemic context.

End-of-life decision-making in the emergency department and intensive care unit: Health professionals' perspectives on and knowledge of the law in Queensland.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate ED and intensive care unit healthcare professionals' perspectives and knowledge of the law that underpins end-of-life decision-making in Queensland, Australia. METHODS: An online survey with questions about perspectives, perceived, and actual, knowledge of the law was distributed by the professional organisations of medical practitioners, nurses and social workers who work in Queensland EDs and intensive care units. RESULTS: The survey responses of 126 healthcare professionals were included in the final analysis. Most respondents agreed that the law was relevant to end-of-life decision-making, but that clinician and family consensus mattered more than following the law. Generally, doctors' legal knowledge was higher than nurses'; however, there were significant gaps in the knowledge of all respondents about the operation of advance health directives in Queensland. CONCLUSIONS: The legal framework that supports end-of-life decision-making for adults who lack decision-making capacity has been in place for more than two decades. Despite frequently being involved in making or enacting these decisions, gaps in the legal knowledge of healthcare professionals who work in EDs and intensive care units in Queensland are evident. Further research to better understand how to improve knowledge and application of the law is warranted.

The role of law in end-of-life decision-making in emergency departments and intensive care units: a retrospective review of current practice in a Queensland health service.

Objective There is limited evidence about how legal frameworks that underpin end-of-life decisions are applied in practice. This study aimed to identify how end-of-life decisions are made and documented in emergency departments and intensive care units. The secondary aim was to explore the extent to which the legal processes featured in these decisions. Methods A retrospective chart audit of 85 adult patients who died in the emergency departments and intensive care units of a Queensland health service was undertaken. Quantitative data were analysed and reported using descriptive statistics. Qualitative textual data were analysed using inductive content analysis. Results Nearly all admissions were unplanned (97.6%), and most patients (74.1%) were admitted from home. Only one patient had an advance health directive, although all had an eligible substitute decision-maker. The qualitative analysis revealed two main concepts - 'healthcare professionals choreograph the end of life' and 'patients and families are carried on an unplanned journey'. Conclusions There was limited documentation related to the application of the legal framework in these decisions. Healthcare professionals relied on their clinical judgment about what was in the best interest of the patient. It was common for there to be a substantial effort to achieve consensus in decision-making which coincidently complied with the law.

Early mobility and family partnerships in the intensive care unit: A scoping review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness significantly impacts the well-being of patients and families. Previous studies show that family members are willing to participate in patient care. Involving families in early mobility interventions may contribute to improved recovery and positive outcomes for patients and families. AIM: In this scoping review, we investigated early mobility interventions for critically ill patients evaluated in randomized controlled trials and the extent to which family engagement in those interventions are reported in the literature. STUDY DESIGN: In this scoping review of reviews, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed and Cochrane Central databases were searched in October 2019 and updated in February 2022. Systematic reviews were included and assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. Data were synthesized using a narrative approach. PRISMA-ScR guidelines were adhered to for reporting. RESULTS: Thirty-three reviews were included which described a range of early mobility interventions for critically ill patients; none explicitly mentioned family engagement. Almost half of the reviews were of low or critically low quality. Insufficient detail of early mobility interventions prompted information to be extracted from the primary studies. CONCLUSIONS: There are a range of early mobility interventions for critically ill patients but few involve families. Given the positive outcomes of family participation, and family willingness to participate in care, there is a need to explore the feasibility and acceptability of family participation in early mobility interventions. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Family engagement in early mobility interventions for critically ill patients should be encouraged and supported. How to best support family members and clinicians in enacting family involvement in early mobility requires further investigation.

Nutrition delivery across hospitalisation in critically ill patients with COVID-19: An observational study of the Australian experience.

BACKGROUND: Data on nutrition delivery over the whole hospital admission in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are scarce, particularly in the Australian setting. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe nutrition delivery in critically ill patients admitted to Australian intensive care units (ICUs) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with a focus on post-ICU nutrition practices. METHODS: A multicentre observational study conducted at nine sites included adult patients with a positive COVID-19 diagnosis admitted to the ICU for >24 h and discharged to an acute ward over a 12-month recruitment period from 1 March 2020. Data were extracted on baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes. Nutrition practice data from the ICU and weekly in the post-ICU ward (up to week four) included route of feeding, presence of nutrition-impacting symptoms, and nutrition support received. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were included (71% male, age: 58 ± 14 years, body mass index: 30±7 kg/m2), of whom 41.7% (n = 43) received mechanical ventilation within 14 days of ICU admission. While oral nutrition was received by more patients at any time point in the ICU (n = 93, 91.2% of patients) than enteral nutrition (EN) (n = 43, 42.2%) or parenteral nutrition (PN) (n = 2, 2.0%), EN was delivered for a greater duration of time (69.6% feeding days) than oral and PN (29.7% and 0.7%, respectively). More patients received oral intake than the other modes in the post-ICU ward (n = 95, 95.0%), and 40.0% (n = 38/95) of patients were receiving oral nutrition supplements. In the week after ICU discharge, 51.0% of patients (n = 51) had at least one nutrition-impacting symptom, most commonly a reduced appetite (n = 25; 24.5%) or dysphagia (n = 16; 15.7%). CONCLUSION: Critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia were more likely to receive oral nutrition than artificial nutrition support at any time point both in the ICU and in the post-ICU ward, whereas EN was provided for a greater duration when it was prescribed. Nutrition-impacting symptoms were common.

A randomised controlled trial of a nutrition and a decision support intervention to enable partnerships with families of critically ill patients.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of supporting family members to partner with health professionals on nutrition intakes and decision-making and to evaluate intervention and study feasibility. BACKGROUND: Family partnerships can improve outcomes for critically ill patients and family members. Interventions that support families to engage with health professionals require evaluation. DESIGN: A multi-centre, randomised, parallel group superiority Phase II randomised controlled trial. METHODS: In nine intensive care units (ICUs) across three countries, critically ill patients ≥60 years, or those 55-59 years with advanced chronic diseases and expected ICU length of stay >72 h and their family member were enrolled between 9 May 2017 and 31 March 2020. Participants were randomised (1:1:1) to either a decision support or nutrition optimisation family-centred intervention, or usual care. Primary outcomes included protein and energy intake during ICU and hospital stay (nutrition intervention) and family satisfaction (decision support). Study feasibility was assessed as a composite of consent rate, intervention adherence, contamination and physician awareness of intervention assignment. RESULTS: We randomised 135 patients/family members (consent rate 51.7%). The average rate of randomisation was 0.5 (0.13-1.53) per month. Unavailability (staff/family) was the major contributor to families not being approached for consent. Declined consent was attributed to families feeling overwhelmed (58/126, 46%). Pandemic visitor restrictions contributed to early study cessation. Intervention adherence for the decision support intervention was 76.9%-100.0% and for the nutrition intervention was 44.8%-100.0%. Nutritional adequacy, decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision-making and overall family satisfaction with ICU were similar for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Active partnerships between family members and health professionals are important but can be challenging to achieve in critical care contexts. We were unable to demonstrate the efficacy of either intervention. Feasibility outcomes suggest further refinement of interventions and study protocol may be warranted. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Interventions to promote family partnerships in critical illness are needed but require a greater understanding of the extent to which families want and are able to engage and the activities in which they have most impact. REPORTING METHOD: This study has been reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers were engaged in and contributed to the development and subsequent iterations of the two family-centred interventions use in this study. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial registration. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, ID: NCT02920086. Registered on 30 September 2016. First patient enrolled on 9 May 2017 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT02920086&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=.

Healthcare professionals perspectives on feasibility and acceptability of family engagement in early mobilisation for adult critically ill patients: A descriptive qualitative study.

AIMS: To explore healthcare professionals' perceptions of the feasibility and acceptability of family engagement in early mobilisation for adult critically ill patients. BACKGROUND: Early mobilisation is beneficial to minimise intensive care unit acquired-weakness in critically ill patients and family engagement can help with meeting early mobilisation goals, but it is not widely practiced. Understanding healthcare professionals' perceptions of feasibility and acceptability of family engagement in early mobilisation of adult critically ill patients is required to inform future implementation strategies to promote early mobilisation. DESIGN: A descriptive qualitative study. METHODS: Face-to-face, individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted between August 2021 and March 2022 with healthcare professionals working in two intensive care units in Australia. The interviews were analysed using the inductive content analysis, and descriptive statistics were used to summarise participant characteristics. The COREQ checklist was followed when reporting this study. RESULTS: Eleven ICU nurses, five physiotherapists and four physicians participated in the interviews. Three main categories were identified: (i) healthcare professionals' readiness, (ii) mediators of engagement and (iii) foundations for successful implementation. Most participants demonstrated a positive attitude towards an implementation of family engagement in early mobilisation for adult critically ill patients; however, capability and capacity of healthcare professionals, family members' willingness, availability and readiness and the care context were considered factors that could influence the successful implementation. CONCLUSION: From the perspectives of healthcare professionals, family engagement in early mobilisation is feasible and acceptable to enact but implementation is influenced by contextual factors including, healthcare professionals' capability and capacity and family members' willingness, availability and readiness. Collaborative teamwork and preparing family members and healthcare professionals are needed to support this practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings provide important information to further identify potential strategies of family engagement in early mobilisation and to help and mitigate factors that impede implementation.

Nutrition care processes across hospitalisation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Australia: A multicentre prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted major challenges with usual nutrition care processes, leading to reports of malnutrition and nutrition-related issues in these patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe nutrition-related service delivery practices across hospitalisation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to Australian intensive care units (ICUs) in the initial pandemic phase. METHODS: This was a multicentre (nine site) observational study in Australia, linked with a national registry of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Adult patients with COVID-19 who were discharged to an acute ward following ICU admission were included over a 12-month period. Data are presented as n (%), median (interquartile range [IQR]), and odds ratio (OR [95% confidence interval {CI}]). RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were included. Oral nutrition was the most common mode of nutrition (93 [93%]). In the ICU, there were 53 (52%) patients seen by a dietitian (median 4 [2-8] occasions) and malnutrition screening occurred in 51 (50%) patients most commonly with the malnutrition screening tool (50 [98%]). The odds of receiving a higher malnutrition screening tool score increased by 36% for every screening in the ICU (1st to 4th, OR: 1.39 [95% CI: 1.05-1.77] p = 0.018) (indicating increasing risk of malnutrition). On the ward, 51 (50.5%) patients were seen by a dietitian (median time to consult: 44 [22.5-75] hours post ICU discharge). The odds of dietetic consult increased by 39% every week while on the ward (OR: 1.39 [1.03-1.89], p = 0.034). Patients who received mechanical ventilation (MV) were more likely to receive dietetic input than those who never received MV. CONCLUSIONS: During the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, approximately half of the patients included were seen by a dietitian. An increased number of malnutrition screens were associated with a higher risk score in the ICU and likelihood of dietetic consult increased if patients received MV and as length of ward stay increased.

Emergency department and intensive care unit health professionals' knowledge and application of the law that applies to end-of-life decision-making for adults: A scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Laws that regulate healthcare practice at the end of life reflect the values of the society where they apply. Traditionally, healthcare professionals rely on their clinical knowledge to inform treatment decisions, but the extent to which the law also informs health professionals' decision-making at the end of life is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe what healthcare professionals working in emergency departments and intensive care units know about the law that relates to end-of-life decision-making for hospitalised adults and what affects its application. REVIEW METHOD: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. DATA SOURCES: Data were sourced by searching the following databases: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL [via EBSCOhost]), Nursing and Allied Health and Health and Medical Collection (via ProQuest Central), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (Embase), PubMed, PsycINFO, and HeinOnline. RESULTS: Systematic screening of the search results and application of inclusion criteria resulted in the identification of 18 quantitative and three qualitative articles that were reviewed, summarised, and reported. Ten of the quantitative studies assessed knowledge and attitudes to law or end-of-life decision-making using hypothetical scenarios or vignettes. Qualitative studies focussed on how the law was applied when end-of-life decisions were made. End-of-life decision-making is mostly based on the clinical needs of the patient, with the law having a secondary role. CONCLUSION: Around the world, there are significant gaps in healthcare professionals' legal knowledge. Clinical factors are considered more important to end-of-life decision-making than legal factors. End-of-life decision-making is perceived to carry legal risk, and this results in the provision of nonbeneficial end-of-life care. Further qualitative research is needed to ascertain the clinician-related factors that affect the integration of law with end-of-life decision-making.

Implementing and sustaining Point of Care ROTEM® into a trauma activation protocol for the management of patients with traumatic injury: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Up to 40% of patients with traumatic injury experience critical bleeding, many requiring transfusion of blood products. International transfusion guidelines recommend the use of viscoelastic testing to guide blood product replacement. We implemented a Point of Care ROTEM® blood test for trauma patients who present and initiate a trauma activation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to undertake an evaluation of the implementation data to identify factors which helped and hindered this new practice. METHODS: A sequential mixed-methods design was conducted to evaluate intervention implementation. The intervention was designed with interprofessional collaboration and incorporated education and skills training supplemented with a decision aide. Patients aged ≥ 18 years who met the trauma activation criteria were included. Data collection occurred throughout the 21-month implementation period inclusive of initial roll out, maintenance and sustainability and include the number of ROTEM® blood tests taken and clinical characteristics of patients. Individual interviews were conducted with health professionals with experience of the intervention after the implementation period was complete. RESULTS: A total of 1570 eligible patients were included. The number of patients who had a ROTEM® blood test taken increased over time to 63%. The proportion of patients having a ROTEM® blood test obtained was higher for major trauma patients (n=162, 66.9%) who were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. Regression analysis found trauma service presence on arrival and the sustainability phase of implementation increased the likelihood of having a ROTEM® taken. Qualitative data suggest that a more tailored approach to intervention implementation would assist with adoption. CONCLUSION: Implementation of new practice requires careful planning and should be undertaken with input from end-users. Continuous evaluation is necessary to support ongoing implementation and sustainability. To ensure effective implementation occurs, complex interventions need to be made workable and integrated in everyday health care practice.

Patient-mediated interventions in hospital: A systematic review.

AIMS: To describe the characteristics of hospital-based, patient-mediated interventions and their impact on patient, clinician and organization outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Health literature databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE) were searched in August 2021. Backward and forward citation searching was conducted. REVIEW METHODS: Studies investigating patient-mediated interventions, targeted at adult hospitalized patients were eligible. Data were extracted related to study and intervention characteristics. Narrative synthesis was used to understand intervention impact on patient, clinician and organization outcomes (as per a framework). Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies, reporting 18 interventions, were included. Twelve interventions prompted patients to report health information about their own health/needs/concerns and six interventions encouraged patients to provide feedback about clinical practice. Across all interventions, there was evidence that patients used patient-mediated interventions and that they may improve patient communication. Healthcare professional outcomes were mixed for actual/intended use, acceptability and usefulness of interventions; yet there was some evidence of healthcare professional behaviour change. Interventions that encouraged patients to report health information about their own health/needs/concerns appeared more successful than other types of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that hospital-based patient-mediated interventions may influence patient communication and healthcare professional behaviour. Patient-mediated interventions that encourage patients to report patient data before a clinical encounter may be more impactful than interventions that encourage patient feedback during or post-encounter. IMPACT: To date, most patient-mediated intervention research has been conducted in primary care settings; we uncovered the types of patient-mediated interventions that have been trialled in hospitals. We found that patient communication and healthcare professional behaviour may be influenced by these patient-mediated interventions. Future researchers could explore the suitability and effectiveness of a wider range of hospital-based patient-mediated interventions. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: There was no funding to remunerate a patient/member of the public for this review.

Development and psychometric testing of the patient participation in bedside handover survey.

INTRODUCTION: When handover is conducted at the patient's bedside, active patient participation can be encouraged, which may improve the safety and quality of care. There is a need for valid and reliable tools to measure patient perceptions of participation in bedside handover, to ensure the rising number of implementation and improvement efforts are consistently and effectively evaluated. The aim of this study is to systematically develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a self-report survey to measure patients' perceptions of participation in bedside handover. METHODS: In Phase 1, our team developed a conceptual framework and item pool (n = 130). In Phase 2, content validity was assessed with four health consumers, four nurses and four researchers. Next, 10 current hospital inpatients tested the survey for end-user satisfaction. In Phase 3, 326 inpatients completed the survey, allowing exploratory factor analysis, reliability analyses and convergent/divergent validity analyses to occur. RESULTS: Phase 1 and 2 resulted in a 42-item survey. In Phase 3, 321 surveys were available for analysis. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a three-factor solution, with 24 items, which matched our conceptual framework. The three factors were: 'Conditions for patient participation in bedside handover', 'Level of patient participation in bedside handover' and 'Evaluation of patient participation in bedside handover'. There was strong evidence for factor reliability and validity. Additionally, the correlation between factors was strong. CONCLUSION: This study furthers our conceptual understanding by showing that nurse facilitating behaviours are a strong precursor for patient participation and perceived handover outcomes, justifying the need for nursing training. A robust survey has been developed to measure patient perceptions of participation in bedside handover, which can effectively evaluate this approach to care. Engaging consumers and nurses as research team members was invaluable in ensuring that the survey is acceptable for end-users. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A health consumer and nurse partnered as members of the research team from study inception to dissemination.

Methodological Rigor and Transparency in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Nutrition Care in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review Using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX Tools.

Background: To evaluate the methodological quality of (1) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that inform nutrition care in critically ill adults using the AGREE II tool and (2) CPG recommendations for determining energy expenditure using the AGREE-REX tool. Methods: CPGs by a professional society or academic group, intended to guide nutrition care in critically ill adults, that used a systematic literature search and rated the evidence were included. Four databases and grey literature were searched from January 2011 to 19 January 2022. Five investigators assessed the methodological quality of CPGs and recommendations specific to energy expenditure determination. Scaled domain scores were calculated for AGREE II and a scaled total score for AGREE-REX. Data are presented as medians (interquartile range). Results: Eleven CPGs were included. Highest scoring domains for AGREE II were clarity of presentation (82% [76-87%]) and scope and purpose (78% [66-83%]). Lowest scoring domains were applicability (37% [32-42%]) and stakeholder involvement (46% [33-51%]). Eight (73%) CPGs provided recommendations relating to energy expenditure determination; scores were low overall (37% [36-40%]) and across individual domains. Conclusions: Nutrition CPGs for critically ill patients are developed using systematic methods but lack engagement with key stakeholders and guidance to support application. The quality of energy expenditure determination recommendations is low.

An interprofessional team approach to early mobilisation of critically Ill adults: An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Early mobilisation is beneficial to minimise complications and promote the recovery and physical function of critically ill adult patients. An interprofessional team approach may assist in early mobilisation of these patients; however, adopting this approach may be challenging and optimal strategies to support early mobilisation are unknown. Understanding specific implementation strategies is required to effectively support its implementation in the critically ill adult patient population. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise and critically analyse the literature on interprofessional team approaches to early mobilisation in critically ill adult patients. DESIGN: An integrative review METHODS: The methodology of this integrative review was guided by Whittemore and Knafl's approach. A literature search of online databases including Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Excerpta Medica database, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and PubMed was conducted on 13 April 2020 and updated on 2 August 2021. No date limits were applied. Backward citation searching of included articles was used to identify additional articles. Articles were screened by title and abstract following pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then by full text using the same criteria. Data describing an interprofessional team approach to early mobilisation were extracted into a specifically designed form. Quality appraisal was undertaken using the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set for quality improvement studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tools was used for cohort studies, retrospective studies, and randomised controlled trials. A narrative synthesis was conducted to integrate and summarise the findings. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included. All studies described team compositions, roles, and responsibilities. Multiple strategies were used to support the implementation of a team approach to early mobilisation, most of which included the use of instruction tools, team meetings/team rounds, staff education, and knowledge sharing, and safety criteria. Improving patient's readiness to perform early mobilisation using clinical interventions was also described in 17 studies. Crucial factors that can help or hinder the implementation of an interprofessional team approach to early mobilisation were identified including organisational structure, staff attitudes and staff abilities. CONCLUSIONS: An interprofessional team approach to early mobilisation may be a useful strategy to improve early mobilisation practice; however, team compositions, roles, and responsibilities to support its implementation in individual setting is recommended. Multiple strategies and clinical interventions should be used to overcome barriers for implementing an interprofessional team approach to early mobilisation in critically ill adult patients. REGISTRATION NUMBER: This review was registered into PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic review (CRD42020179943). TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Use of an interprofessional team approach to improve early mobilisation practice in adult critically ill patients.

Registered nurses' approach to pressure injury prevention: A descriptive qualitative study.

AIMS: To explore Registered Nurses' approaches to pressure injury prevention, including how they perceive their roles, how they prioritize pressure injury prevention and factors influencing prevention in the Chinese context. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive study. METHODS: Audio-recorded, face-to-face, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with Registered Nurses in a large tertiary hospital in China from August to December 2020. Using the System Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety Model, the interview guide was developed to describe the work system, processes and outcomes (three domains) associated with nurses' pressure injury prevention practices. Deductive and inductive content analyses were used. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven nurses participated in the interviews. Four themes related to two domains of the model emerged: Work system: (i) Nurses lead and coordinate pressure injury prevention; Work processes: (ii) Individualized pressure injury prevention is founded on comprehensive patient assessment; (iii) Collaborating ensures patients receive appropriate pressure injury prevention; and (iv) Competing factors influence the delivery of appropriate pressure injury prevention. One category emerged about work outcome: Nurses strive to do their best in pressure injury prevention but hold major concerns when pressure injuries occur. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses play a leading role in pressure injury prevention delivery but require appropriate resources and assistance and support from other healthcare personnel, patients and carers. Understaffing, lack of resources, complex reporting and poor patient compliance challenge nurses in their delivery of pressure injury prevention. IMPACT: Pressure injury prevention is primarily a nursing responsibility therefore nurses' approaches to prevention were explored. Nurses rely on collaboration with others and access to various resources to provide pressure injury prevention. They recognize the patients' and carers' roles and acknowledge the importance of accessing guidance and support from nursing leaders and wound experts. Acknowledging nurses leading role in prevention and ensuring they have adequate resources are important for quality care.

Scoping review of the literature to ascertain how follow-up care is provided to major trauma patients post discharge from acute care.

OBJECTIVES: Survival following traumatic injury has increased, requiring ongoing patient follow-up. While longitudinal outcomes of trauma patients are reported, little is known about optimal delivery of follow-up service for this group. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and describe the structure, process and outcomes of postdischarge follow-up services for patients who sustained major trauma. EVIDENCE REVIEW: This scoping review was conducted by searching CINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Articles were screened by three independent reviewers. The data of selected articles were organised in the categories of the Donabedian quality framework: structure, processes and outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles were included after screening by title/abstract then full text against the inclusion/exclusion criteria; 92% (n=24) were from the USA.Follow-up services were provided by designated trauma centres and delivered by a mixture of health disciplines. Delivery of follow-up was multimodal (in person/telehealth). Protocols and guidelines helped to deliver follow-up care for non-physician led services.Ongoing health issues including missed injuries, pain and infection were identified. No standardised criteria were established to determine recipients, the timing or frequency of follow-up was identified. Patients who engaged with follow-up services were more likely to participate in other health services. Patients reported satisfaction with follow-up care. CONCLUSION: There are wide variations in how follow-up services for major trauma patients are provided. Further evaluation should focus on patient, family and organisational outcomes. Identifying who is most likely to benefit, when and how follow-up care is delivered are important next steps in improving outcomes.