Suchergebnisse

Complete, accurate and timely hospital discharge summaries are important for continuity of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an electronic discharge summary system in improving the medication information provided compared to the information in paper discharge summaries. We conducted a retrospective audit of 199 paper and 200 electronic discharge summaries from a 350-bed teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia. The completeness of medication information, and whether medication changes during the admission were explained, were assessed. Further, the likelihood of any incomplete information having an impact on continuity of care was assessed. There were 1352 and 1771 medication orders assessed in paper and electronic discharge summaries, respectively. Of these, 90.9% and 93.4% were complete in paper and electronic discharge summaries, respectively. The dose (OR 25.24, 95%CI: 3.41–186.9) and route (OR 8.65, 95%CI: 3.46–21.59) fields of medication orders, were more likely to be complete in electronic as compared with paper discharge summaries. There was no difference for drug frequency (OR 1.09, 95%CI: 0.77–1.55). There was no significant improvement in the proportion of incomplete medication orders rated as unclear and likely to impede continuity of care in paper compared with electronic discharge summaries (7.3% vs. 6.5%). Of changes to medication regimen, only medication additions were more likely to be explained in the electronic (n=253, 37.2%) compared to paper (n=104, 14.3%) discharge summaries (OR 3.14; 95%CI: 2.20–4.18). In summary, electronic discharge summaries offer some improvements over paper discharge summaries in terms of the quality of medication information documented. However, explanations of changes to medication regimens remained low, despite this being crucial information. Future efforts should focus on including the rationale for changes to medication regimens in discharge summaries.

Abstract Background The study objective was to identify and describe the process, resources and expertise required for the revision of accreditation standards, and report outcomes arising from such activities. Methods Secondary document analysis of materials from an accreditation standards development agency. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners' (RACGP) documents, minutes and reports related to the revision of the accreditation standards were examined. Results The RACGP revision of the accreditation standards was conducted over a 12 month period and comprised six phases with multiple tasks, including: review methodology planning; review of the evidence base and each standard; new material development; constructing field trial methodology; drafting, trialling and refining new standards; and production of new standards. Over 100 individuals participated, with an additional 30 providing periodic input and feedback. Participants were drawn from healthcare professional associations, primary healthcare services, accreditation agencies, government agencies and public health organisations. Their expertise spanned: project management; standards development and writing; primary healthcare practice; quality and safety improvement methodologies; accreditation implementation and surveying; and research. The review and development process was shaped by five issues: project expectations; resource and time requirements; a collaborative approach; stakeholder engagement; and the product produced. The RACGP evaluation was that participants were positive about their experience, the standards produced and considered them relevant for the sector. Conclusions The revision of accreditation standards requires considerable resources and expertise, drawn from a broad range of stakeholders. Collaborative, inclusive processes that engage key stakeholders helps promote greater industry acceptance of the standards.

This project aimed to assess the impact of electronic ordering systems, on the quality use of pathology services across six hospital sites and different pathology departments, for the following areas:- the legibility and completeness of laboratory test orders and the impact on Central Specimen Reception work processes (Quality of test orders). - the volume and mix of tests ordered examined by such factors as Diagnosis-related Groups (DRGs), adjusted for clinical activity where appropriate, and the prevalence of add-on and repeat testing (Effectiveness). - the timeliness of the pathology laboratory process (Turnaround time). - the impact of pathology performance (e.g., laboratory test turnaround times) on the duration of patient stay in the emergency department (Patient outcome).The project also produced a benefits realisation framework, made up of performance indicators, that can be used to guide the assessment of electronic ordering in a pathology service and to monitor what works (or doesn't work), where, and in what circumstances. The project was funded by an Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, Quality Use of Pathology Program grant.

Networks are everywhere. Health systems and public health settings are experimenting with multifarious forms. Governments and providers are heavily investing in networks with an expectation that they will facilitate the delivery of better services and improve health outcomes. Yet, we lack a suitable conceptual framework to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of clinical and health networks. This paper aims to present such a framework to assist with rigorous research and policy analysis. The framework was designed as part of a project to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of health networks. We drew on systematic reviews of the literature on networks and communities of practice in health care, and on theoretical and evidence-based studies of the evaluation of health and non-health networks. Using brainstorming and mind-mapping techniques in expert advisory group sessions, we assessed existing network evaluation frameworks and considered their application to extant health networks. Feedback from stakeholders in network studies that we conducted was incorporated. The framework encompasses network goals, characteristics and relationships at member, network and community levels, and then looks at network outcomes, taking into account intervening variables. Finally, the short-term, medium-term and long-term effectiveness of the network needs to be assessed. The framework provides an overarching contribution to network evaluation. It is sufficiently comprehensive to account for many theoretical and evidence-based contributions to the literature on how networks operate and is sufficiently flexible to assess different kinds of health networks across their life-cycle at community, network and member levels. We outline the merits and limitations of the framework and discuss how it might be further tested.

BACKGROUND: The impact of severe second lockdown measures on older adults' wellbeing is unknown. We aimed to (i) identify the impact of the second lockdown that resulted from the second wave of COVID-19 cases on older Australians' quality of life; (ii) compare the impact of second wave lockdowns in Victoria, Australia's second most populous State, to those in other States and Territories not in lockdown. METHODS: A national cross-sectional study of community-dwelling older adults completed online questionnaires for quality of life, social networks, healthcare access, and perceived impact of COVID-19 between July to September 2020. Tobit regression was used to measure the relationships of healthcare service access and social networks with quality of life of older adults in Victoria compared to those in the rest of Australia. RESULTS: A total of 2,990 respondents (mean [SD] age, 67.3 [7.0]; 66.8 % female) participated. At time of data collection, Victoria's second COVID-19 lockdown had been in force for an average 51.7 days. Median quality of life scores were significantly higher in Victoria compared to the rest of Australia (t(2,827)=2.25 p = 0.025). Being female (95 % CI, -0.051–0.020), having lower educational attainment (95 % CI, -0.089–-0.018), receiving government benefits (95 % CI, -0.054–-0.024), having small social networks (95 % CI, 0.006–0.009) and self-reported physical chronic health conditions were all independent predictors of lower quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Longer-term studies are required to provide more robust evidence of the impact as restrictions lift and normal social conventions return. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-021-02352-1.

Background: The impact of severe second lockdown measures on older adults' wellbeing is unknown. We aimed to (i) identify the impact of the second lockdown that resulted from the second wave of COVID-19 cases on older Australians' quality of life; (ii) compare the impact of second wave lockdowns in Victoria, Australia's second most populous State, to those in other States and Territories not in lockdown. Methods: A national cross-sectional study of community-dwelling older adults completed online questionnaires for quality of life, social networks, healthcare access, and perceived impact of COVID-19 between July to September 2020. Tobit regression was used to measure the relationships of healthcare service access and social networks with quality of life of older adults in Victoria compared to those in the rest of Australia. Results: A total of 2,990 respondents (mean [SD] age, 67.3 [7.0]; 66.8% female) participated. At time of data collection, Victoria's second COVID-19 lockdown had been in force for an average 51.7 days. Median quality of life scores were significantly higher in Victoria compared to the rest of Australia (t(2,827)=2.25 p=0.025). Being female (95% CI, -0.051-0.020), having lower educational attainment (95% CI, -0.089--0.018), receiving government benefits (95% CI, -0.054--0.024), having small social networks (95% CI, 0.006-0.009) and self-reported physical chronic health conditions were all independent predictors of lower quality of life. Conclusions: Longer-term studies are required to provide more robust evidence of the impact as restrictions lift and normal social conventions return.

Introduction In Australia, general practitioners usually are the first point of contact for patients with non-urgent medical conditions. Appropriate and efficient utilisation of pathology tests by general practitioners forms a key part of diagnosis and monitoring. However overutilisationand underutilisation of pathology tests have been reported across several tests and conditions, despite evidence-based guidelines outlining best practice in pathology testing. There are a limited number of studies evaluating the impact of these guidelines on pathology testing in general practice. The aim of our quantitative observational study is to define how pathology tests are used in general practice and investigate how test ordering practices align with evidence-based pathology guidelines. Methods and analysis Access to non-identifiable patient data will be obtained through electronic health records from general practices across three primary health networks in Victoria, Australia. Numbers and characteristics of patients, general practices, encounters, pathology tests and problems managed over time will be described. Overall rates of encounters and tests, alongside more detailed investigation between subcategories (encounter year, patient's age, gender, and location and general practice size), will also be undertaken. To evaluate how general practitioner test ordering coincides with evidence-based guidelines, five key candidate indicators will be investigated: Full blood counts for patients on clozapine medication; international normalised ratio measurements for patients on warfarin medication; glycated haemoglobin testing for monitoring patients with diabetes; vitamin D testing; and thyroid function testing. Ethics and dissemination Ethics clearance to collect data from general practice facilities has been obtained by the data provider from the RACGP National Research and Evaluation Ethics Committee (NREEC 17-008). Approval for the research group to use these data has been obtained from Macquarie University (5201700872). This study is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health Quality Use of Pathology Program (Agreement ID: 4-2QFVW4M). Findings will be reported to the Department of Health and disseminated in peer-reviewed academic journals and presentations (national and international conferences, industry forums). ; Full Text

Background Many countries adopt eHealth applications to support patient-centered care. Through information exchange, these eHealth applications may overcome institutional data silos and support holistic and ubiquitous (regional or national) information logistics. Available eHealth indicators mostly describe usage and acceptance of eHealth in a country. The eHealth indicators focusing on the cross-institutional availability of patient-related information for health care professionals, patients, and care givers are rare. Objectives This study aims to present eHealth indicators on cross-institutional availability of relevant patient data for health care professionals, as well as for patients and their caregivers across 14 countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong as a special administrative region of China, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States) to compare our indicators and the resulting data for the examined countries with other eHealth benchmarks and to extend and explore changes to a comparable survey in 2017. We defined "availability of patient data" as the ability to access data in and to add data to the patient record in the respective country. Methods The invited experts from each of the 14 countries provided the indicator data for their country to reflect the situation on August 1, 2019, as date of reference. Overall, 60 items were aggregated to six eHealth indicators. Results Availability of patient-related information varies strongly by country. Health care professionals can access patients most relevant cross-institutional health record data fully in only four countries. Patients and their caregivers can access their health record data fully in only two countries. Patients are able to fully add relevant data only in one country. Finland showed the best outcome of all eHealth indicators, followed by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden. Conclusion Advancement in eHealth depends on contextual factors such as health care organization, national health politics, privacy laws, and health care financing. Improvements in eHealth indicators are thus often slow. However, our survey shows that some countries were able to improve on at least some indicators between 2017 and 2019. We anticipate further improvements in the future.