Conectar
The ‘To Dip or Not to Dip’ (TDONTD) intervention aims to reduce antibiotic prescribing for urinary tract infection (UTI) by reducing low-value dipstick testing. The aims of this study were to use a qualitative approach to (1) evaluate potential influences on the delivery of the TDONTD intervention in Australian residential aged care homes (RACHs) by identifying perceived barriers and enablers to delivery and acceptance; and (2) propose intervention strategies to address barriers and enhance enablers.
A qualitative before–after process evaluation of a multisite implementation study using interviews with nurse and pharmacist implementers.
This study was conducted in 12 Australian RACHs.
Participants included 17 on-site nurse champions and 4 pharmacists (existing contracted providers).
Resources from England’s TDONTD intervention were adapted for an Australian context. Key resources delivered were case-based education, staff training video, clinical pathway and an audit tool.
Key barriers to TDONTD were beliefs about nursing capabilities in diagnosing infection, beliefs about consequences (fear of missing infection) and social influences (pressure from family, doctors and hospitals). Key enablers were perceived increased nurse and carer knowledge (around UTI and asymptomatic bacteriuria), resources from a credible source, empowerment of nurse champions to apply knowledge and skills in delivering operational change initiatives, pharmacist-delivered education and organisational policy or process change. Of TDONTD’s key components, the clinical pathway substituted dipstick testing in diagnosing UTI, delivery of case-based education was enhanced by their attendance and support of the intervention and the antibiotic audit tool generated feedback that champions shared with staff.
Our study confirms the core components of TDONTD and strategies to enhance delivery and overcome barriers. To further reduce barriers to TDONTD, broader advocacy work is required to raise awareness of dipstick testing as a low-value test in older persons and by linking it to healthcare professionals and consumer education.
by Georgina Gnan, Zara Asif, Sanchika Campbell, Jacqui Dyer, Anna Ehsan, Katrin Hoffmann, Hanna Kienzler, Shabbir Mellick, Nathaniel Martin, Cheryl Osei, Abreen Rebello, Imade Remouche, Rebecca Rhead, Denise Richards, Ibrahim Sabra, Sara Sabra, Pippa Sterk, Charlotte Woodhead, Stephani Hatch
Understanding how different Black and other racially minoritised communities thrive is an emerging priority area in mental health promotion. Literature demonstrates health benefits of social capital (social resources embedded within social networks). However, its effects are not always positive, particularly for certain subpopulations who are already disadvantaged.The CONtributions of social NEtworks to Community Thriving (CONNECT) study will use Participatory Action Research (PAR) to investigate social capital as a resource that benefits (or hinders) racially minoritised communities and their mental health. The CONNECT study was designed within a partnership with community organisations and responds to local policy in two South-East London Boroughs, thereby providing potential channels for the action component of PAR. Taking an anti-racism lens, we acknowledge the underpinning role of racism in creating health inequities. We apply an intersectional framework to be considerate of overlapping forms of oppression such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation as an essential part of developing effective strategies to tackle health inequities. Key components of this mixed methods PAR study include (1) involving racialised minority community members as peer researchers in the team (2) collecting and analysing primary qualitative data via interviews, photovoice, and community mapping workshops, (3) developing relevant research questions guided by peer researchers and collaborating organisations and analysing secondary quantitative data accordingly, (4) integrating qualitative and quantitative phases, and (5) working closely with community and policy partners to act on our findings and use our research for social change.The PAR approach will allow us to engage community (voluntary sector and government) and academic partners in decision making and help address imbalances in power and resource allocation. Knowledge generated through this collaborative approach will contribute to existing community initiatives, policies, and council strategies. This will ensure the views and experiences of racially minoritised communities drive the changes we are collaboratively committed to achieving.Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly developing field in healthcare, with tools being developed across various specialties to support healthcare professionals and reduce workloads. It is important to understand the experiences of professionals working in healthcare to ensure that future AI tools are acceptable and effectively implemented. The aim of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences and perceptions of UK healthcare workers and other key stakeholders about the use of AI in the National Health Service (NHS).
A qualitative study using semistructured interviews conducted remotely via MS Teams. Thematic analysis was carried out.
NHS and UK higher education institutes.
Thirteen participants were recruited, including clinical and non-clinical participants working for the NHS and researchers working to develop AI tools for healthcare settings.
Four core themes were identified: positive perceptions of AI; potential barriers to using AI in healthcare; concerns regarding AI use and steps needed to ensure the acceptability of future AI tools. Overall, we found that those working in healthcare were generally open to the use of AI and expected it to have many benefits for patients and facilitate access to care. However, concerns were raised regarding the security of patient data, the potential for misdiagnosis and that AI could increase the burden on already strained healthcare staff.
This study found that healthcare staff are willing to engage with AI research and incorporate AI tools into care pathways. Going forward, the NHS and AI developers will need to collaborate closely to ensure that future tools are suitable for their intended use and do not negatively impact workloads or patient trust. Future AI studies should continue to incorporate the views of key stakeholders to improve tool acceptability.
NCT05028179;
FreshRSS 