Providing reviews of evidence to COPD patients: controlled prospective 12-month trial.

The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel patient-held manual designed to reduce the evidence-practice gap in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The intervention manual contained summaries of research evidence. It was developed using current best practice for patient information materials and designed to cause discussion of evidence between patient and doctor. A controlled before-and-after study was employed in two similar but geographically separate regions of metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia. Participants had moderate to severe COPD, with 249 included at baseline and 201 completing the study. Evidence-based COPD management was measured using an indicator with three components: rates of influenza vaccination, bone density testing, and pulmonary rehabilitation. A survey of behavioral steps leading to practice change was conducted with the trial. Analysis, by median split of socioeconomic disadvantage, showed significant difference between study arms for only one component of the indicator of evidence-based practice, enrollment in pulmonary rehabilitation and only for the most socioeconomically disadvantaged stratum. For both socioeconomic strata, more intervention participants than control participants reported remembering being given the information material, reading part or all, and finding it very or quite helpful. Other significant differences were restricted to the stratum of greatest socioeconomic disadvantage: reading all of the material, learning from it, referring back, and talking to a doctor about a topic from the material. Above 90% of all participants who received the manual reported reading from it, 42% reported discussing topics with a doctor, but only 10% reported treatment change attributable to the manual. We have found that people with COPD will read an evidence manual developed using current best practice. However, the study demonstrated improvement for only one of the three components of an indicator of evidence-based disease management for only the most socioeconomically disadvantaged stratum of participants. Future interventions should be designed to better translate reading uptake into evidence-based disease management.

Providing patients with reviews of evidence about COPD treatments: a controlled trial of outcomes.

Studies in many countries have identified gaps between what is known from research evidence and what is done in clinical practice. Merely making research evidence available to practitioners does not cause much change in their behaviour, and researchers are now looking for more effective ways to improve the implementation of evidence. We report outcomes at three months of a parallel group trial of an evidence based patient manual designed to improve implementation of evidence by the patient's doctors. The patient manual was produced with extensive patient and professional input. It contained summaries of the evidence for treatments used in COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and prompted discussion of evidence with doctors. Participants in the intervention arm of the trial (n = 125) were supplied with the manual and participants in the control arm (n = 124) were supplied with a pamphlet about COPD produced by the Australian Lung Foundation. The primary outcome measure (rates of current influenza vaccination and bone density testing) was an indicator of evidence based management of COPD. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (mastery component), satisfaction with information, communication with usual doctor, and anxiety. At three months no pattern of benefit in outcome measures was found for either group. Process measures showed high levels of personal use of the manual but progression to conversations with doctors for fewer than half of participants, and little treatment change. The findings highlight the difficulties of promoting changes in health behaviour and show that even when all stakeholders are consulted success is not guaranteed. Further research is required to identify those patients most likely to use manuals such as the one reported here, and how to make patient mediated interventions more effective for a greater proportion of the target population.

Attitudes and barriers to incident reporting: a collaborative hospital study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess awareness and use of the current incident reporting system and to identify factors inhibiting reporting of incidents in hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Anonymous survey of 186 doctors and 587 nurses from diverse clinical settings in six South Australian hospitals (response rate = 70.7% and 73.6%, respectively). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge and use of the current reporting system; barriers to incident reporting. RESULTS: Most doctors and nurses (98.3%) were aware that their hospital had an incident reporting system. Nurses were more likely than doctors to know how to access a report (88.3% v 43.0%; relative risk (RR) 2.05, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.63), to have ever completed a report (89.2% v 64.4%; RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.61), and to know what to do with the completed report (81.9% v 49.7%; RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.13). Staff were more likely to report incidents which are habitually reported, often witnessed, and usually associated with immediate outcomes such as patient falls and medication errors requiring corrective treatment. Near misses and incidents which occur over time such as pressure ulcers and DVT due to inadequate prophylaxis were least likely to be reported. The most frequently stated barrier to reporting for doctors and nurses was lack of feedback (57.7% and 61.8% agreeing, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both doctors and nurses believe they should report most incidents, but nurses do so more frequently than doctors. To improve incident reporting, especially among doctors, clarification is needed of which incidents should be reported, the process needs to be simplified, and feedback given to reporters.

Towards the eradication of head lice: literature review and research agenda.

Head lice infestation is a public health issue. In the effort to compile an evidence-base about the physiology, detection, treatment, effects and management strategies of head lice infestations we reviewed current literature. This literature signalled significant evidence gaps and these gaps provide incentives for further research. Our conclusions from the literature are that parents of children are responsible for head lice detection and treatment but have varying access to advice about how best to treat this condition. Concern is exacerbated by misconceptions surrounding the circumstances of infestation. Head lice are a low priority for health professionals in Australia, whereas parents and teachers believe the problem necessitates greater attention. It is important to provide a unified evidence-based approach to good information. It is timely for health care professionals to re-examine and prioritize this public health issue. They should research and work collaboratively towards the eradication of head lice.

Evidence-based practice: tap water cleansing of leg ulcers in the community.

To establish and encourage wound management practices based on evidence, a Community Nursing Organization in metropolitan Adelaide began a series of research initiatives in 1997. Based on the results of a wound management survey, and through the processes of participatory action research with clinicians, many wound management practice changes were instigated throughout the Community Nursing Organization. One question remains unanswered: What is the evidence for the use of sterile saline or clean tap water for cleansing of leg ulcers in the community? In this paper we describe a project where we applied the three principles of planning, action and evaluation. Application of these principles enabled clinicians to collaborate in the search for evidence to support or refute tap water cleansing of leg ulcers. To conclude, we report on a pilot research project undertaken to obtain further evidence either to support or refute the use of tap water cleansing for leg ulcers in the community.