Conectar
This protocol describes the myTBI study which aims to: (1) develop an online psychoeducation platform for people with traumatic brain injury (TBI), their family members/caregivers, and healthcare staff to improve psychosocial adjustment to TBI across different phases of injury (acute, postacute, and chronic), and (2) undertake an evaluation of efficacy, acceptability, and feasibility.
A three-stage mixed-methods research design will be used. The study will be undertaken across four postacute community-based neurorehabilitation and disability support services in Western Australia. Stage 1 (interviews and surveys) will use consumer-driven qualitative methodology to: (1) understand the recovery experiences and psychosocial challenges of people with TBI over key stages (acute, postacute, and chronic), and (2) identify required areas of psychosocial support to inform the psychoeducation platform development. Stage 2 (development) will use a Delphi expert consensus method to: (1) determine the final psychoeducation modules, and (2) perform acceptance testing of the myTBI platform. Finally, stage 3 (evaluation) will be a randomised stepped-wedge trial to evaluate efficacy, acceptability, and feasibility. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, postintervention, follow-up, and at final discharge from services. Change in outcomes will be analysed using multilevel mixed-effects modelling. Follow-up surveys will be conducted to evaluate acceptability and feasibility.
Ethics approval was granted by North Metropolitan Health Service Mental Health Research Ethics and Governance Office (RGS0000005877). Study findings will be relevant to clinicians, researchers, and organisations who are seeking a cost-effective solution to deliver ongoing psychoeducation and support to individuals with TBI across the recovery journey.
ACTRN12623000990628.
To assess agreement of pressure injury risk level and differences in preventative intervention prescription between nurses using a structured risk assessment tool compared with clinical judgement.
Interrater agreement study.
Data were collected from November 2019 to December 2022. Paired nurse-assessors were allocated randomly to independently assess pressure injury risk using a structured tool (incorporating the Waterlow Score), or clinical judgement; then prescribe preventative interventions. Assessments were conducted on 150 acute patient participants in a general tertiary hospital. Agreement of risk level was analysed using absolute agreement proportions, weighted kappa and prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa.
Ninety-four nurse assessors participated. Absolute agreement of not-at-risk versus at-risk-any-level was substantial, but absolute agreement of risk-level was only fair. Clinical judgement assessors tended to underestimate risk. Where risk level was agreed, prescribed intervention frequencies were similar, although structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions mandated by standard care, while clinical judgement assessors prescribed more additional/optional interventions. Structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions targeted at lower-risk patients, whereas assessors using clinical judgement prescribed more interventions targeted at higher-risk patients.
There were clear differences in pressure injury risk-level assessment between nurses using the two methods, with important differences in intervention prescription frequencies found. Further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk, with emphasis on the impact of risk assessments on subsequent preventative intervention implementation.
The results of this study are important for clinical practice as they demonstrate the influence of using a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. Whilst further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk and prescribe interventions, our findings do not support a change in practice that would exclude the use of a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool.
This study adhered to the GRRAS reporting guideline.
No patient or public involvement in this study.
Educators and researchers can use the findings to guide teaching about pressure injury risk assessment and preventative intervention and to direct future studies. For clinical nurses and patients, a change in clinical practice that would exclude the use of a structured risk assessment tool is not recommended and further work is needed to validate the role of clinical judgement to assess risk and its impact on preventative intervention.
FreshRSS 