Conectar
This study aimed to explore perceptions of the Paediatric Improvement Collaborative’s (PIC’s) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) among clinicians, with a focus on awareness, frequency of use, applicability and areas for improvement.
Cross-sectional online survey and semi-structured interviews.
Clinicians working in all Australian states and territories. Recruitment was via non-probability convenience sampling. Invitations to participate in the online survey were posted on national- and state-level paediatric organisations, networks and groups. Survey participants could express interest in taking part in a follow-up online interview.
A total of 466 clinicians, including consultants/specialists (46.1%), specialists in training (residents/registrars: 20.4%), nurses (17.8%), allied health professionals (4.7%) and general practitioners (3.6%) participated in the survey. Findings indicated a high level of usage, with two-thirds of participants (63.9%) using the guidelines weekly. Most participants (91.8%) deemed the CPGs highly applicable to their practice settings, and over half (57.9%) had referred to more than 10 different PIC CPGs in the past month. Patterns of use reflected experience, seniority and scope of practice, with utilisation significantly higher among specialists in training, those working in emergency settings and those with less practising experience. Ten clinicians were interviewed to gain deeper insights, reinforcing that PIC CPGs serve multiple purposes, such as to check practice and for self-learning, for teaching more junior staff, and to reinforce treatment decisions with parents and patients. The guidelines were noted as being useful for all members of the multidisciplinary team in providing consistent language and uniform care. Key areas for improvement included enhancing accessibility in time-pressured environments, such as incorporating human factors-based navigation features and standardised layouts, and integrating additional tools and localised referral information.
PIC CPGs are viewed as a source of credible, evidence-based information that was valued across medical, nursing and allied health professionals.
To identify and understand the different approaches to local consensus discussions that have been used to implement perioperative pathways for common elective surgeries.
Systematic review.
Five databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library) were searched electronically for literature published between 1 January 2000 and 6 April 2023.
Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and assessed quality. Data were extracted using a structured extraction tool. A narrative synthesis was undertaken to identify and categorise the core elements of local consensus discussions reported. Data were synthesised into process models for undertaking local consensus discussions.
The initial search returned 1159 articles after duplicates were removed. Following title and abstract screening, 135 articles underwent full-text review. A total of 63 articles met the inclusion criteria. Reporting of local consensus discussions varied substantially across the included studies. Four elements were consistently reported, which together define a structured process for undertaking local consensus discussions.
Local consensus discussions are a common implementation strategy used to reduce unwarranted clinical variation in surgical care. Several models for undertaking local consensus discussions and their implementation are presented.
Advancing our understanding of consensus building processes in perioperative pathway development could be significantly improved by refining reporting standards to include criteria for achieving consensus and assessing implementation fidelity, alongside advocating for a systematic approach to employing consensus discussions in hospitals.
These findings contribute to recognised gaps in the literature, including how decisions are commonly made in the design and implementation of perioperative pathways, furthering our understanding of the meaning of consensus processes that can be used by clinicians undertaking improvement initiatives.
This review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
No patient or public contribution.
Trial Registration: CRD42023413817
FreshRSS 