In rural areas, work-integrated learning in the form of health student placements has several potential benefits, including contributing to student learning, enhancing rural health service capacity and attracting future rural health workforce. Understanding what constitutes a high-quality rural placement experience is important for enhancing these outcomes. There is no current standardised definition of quality in the context of rural health placements, nor is there understanding of how this can be achieved across different rural contexts. This study is guided by one broad research question: what do university staff believe are the determinants of high-quality health professions student placements in regional, rural and remote Australia?
This study will adopt a convergent mixed-method design with two components. Component A will use explanatory sequential mixed methods. The first phase of component A will use a survey to explore determinants that contribute to the development of high-quality health student placements from the perspective of university staff who are not employed in University Departments of Rural Health and are involved in the delivery of health student education. The second phase will use semistructured interviews with the same stakeholder group (non-University Department of Rural Health university staff) to identify the determinants of high-quality health student placements. Component B will use a case study Employing COnceptUal schema for policy and Translation Engagement in Research mind mapping method to capture determinants that contribute to the development of high-quality health student placements from the perspective of University Department of Rural Health university staff.
The University of Melbourne Human Ethics Committee approved the study (2022-23201-33373-5). Following this, seven other Australian university human research ethics committees provided external approval to conduct the study. The results of the study will be presented in several peer-review publications and summary reports to key stakeholder groups.
Bronchiolitis is the most common viral lower respiratory tract infection in children under 2 years of age. Respiratory support with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is increasingly used in this patient population with limited understanding of the patients most likely to benefit and considerable practice variability of use. This study aims to understand the factors associated with failure of HFNC support among patients with bronchiolitis and to describe the current practice variations of HFNC use in patients with bronchiolitis in Canadian hospitals including fluid management and parameters to initiate, escalate and discontinue HFNC support.
This is a multicentre retrospective cohort study including hospitalised patients aged 0–24 months with bronchiolitis requiring support with HFNC between January 2017 and December 2021. Clinical data will be collected from patient medical records from Canadian hospitals (n=12), including academic and community centres. HFNC failure will be defined as the need for escalation to non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation. Factors associated with HFNC failure will be analysed using logistic regression. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe practice variations of HFNC utilisation and management.
Approval from the Research Ethics Boards (REBs) has been obtained for each participating study site prior to onset of data collection including Clinical Trials Ontario for all Ontario hospital sites and REBs from British Columbia Children’s Hospital, Stollery Children’s Hospital, Montreal Children’s Hospital and CHU Sainte-Justine. Study results will be disseminated through presentation at national/international conferences and publication in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals.
To gather and understand the experience of hospital mealtimes from the perspectives of those receiving and delivering mealtime care (older inpatients, caregivers and staff) using photovoice methods to identify touchpoints and themes to inform the co-design of new mealtime interventions.
This study was undertaken on acute care wards within a single metropolitan hospital in Brisbane, Australia in 2019. Photovoice methods involved a researcher accompanying 21 participants (10 older patients, 5 caregivers, 4 nurses and 2 food service officers) during a mealtime and documenting meaningful elements using photographs and field notes. Photo-elicitation interviews were then undertaken with participants to gain insight into their experience. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis, involving a multidisciplinary research team including a consumer.
Themes were identified across the three touchpoints: (1) preparing for the meal (the juggle, the anticipation), (2) delivering/receiving the meal (the rush, the clutter and the wait) and (3) experiencing the meal (the ideal, pulled away and acceptance). Despite a shared understanding of the importance of meals and shared vision of ‘the ideal’ mealtime, generally this was a time of tension, missed cares and dissatisfaction for staff, patients and caregivers. There was stark contrast in some aspects of mealtime experience, with simultaneous experiences of ‘the rush’ (staff) and ‘the wait’ (patients and caregivers). There was an overwhelming sense of acceptance and lack of control over change from all.
This study identified themes during hospital mealtimes which have largely gone unaddressed in the design of mealtime interventions to date. This research may provide a framework to inform the future co-design of mealtime interventions involving patients, caregivers and multidisciplinary staff, centred around these key touchpoints.
Mealtimes are experienced differently by patients, caregivers, nurses and food service officers across three key touchpoints: preparing for, delivering/receiving and experiencing the meal. Improving mealtime experiences therefore necessitates a collaborative approach, with co-designed mealtime improvement programs that include specific interventions focusing each touchpoint. Our data suggest that improvements could focus on reducing clutter, clarifying mealtime roles and workflows and supporting caregiver involvement.
Mealtimes are the central mechanism to meet patients' nutritional needs in hospital; however, research consistently shows that many patients do not eat enough to meet their nutritional requirements and that they often do not receive the mealtime assistance they require. Interventions to improve hospital mealtimes have, at best, shown only modest improvements in nutritional intake and mealtime care practices. Gaining deeper insight into the mealtime experience from multiple perspectives may identify new opportunities for improvement.
Patients, caregivers and staff have shared ideals of comfort, autonomy and conviviality at mealtimes, but challenges of complex teamwork and re-prioritisation of mealtimes in the face of prevailing power hierarchies make it difficult to achieve this ideal. There are three discrete touchpoints (preparing for, delivering/receiving and experiencing the meal) that require different approaches to improvement. Our data suggests a need to focus improvement on reducing clutter, clarifying mealtime roles and workflows and supporting caregivers.
The research provides a framework for multidisciplinary teams to begin co-designing improvements to mealtime care to benefit patients, caregivers and staff, while also providing a method for researchers to understand other complex care situations in hospital.
This manuscript is written in adherence with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.
Patients and caregivers were involved in the conception and design of the study through their membership of the hospital mealtime reference group. A consumer researcher (GP) was involved in the team to advise on study conduct (i.e. recruitment methods and information), data analysis (i.e. coding transcripts), data interpretation (i.e. review and refinement of themes) and manuscript writing (i.e. review and approval of final manuscript).
Head-to-head clinical trials are common in psoriasis, but scarce in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), making treatment comparisons between therapeutic classes difficult. This study describes the relative effectiveness of targeted synthetic (ts) and biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through network meta-analysis (NMA).
A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in January 2020. Bayesian NMAs were conducted to compare treatments on Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 36-item Short Form (SF-36) Health Survey including Mental Component Summary (MCS) and Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores.
Ovid MEDLINE (including Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily),Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
Phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating patients with PsA receiving tsDMARDS, bDMARDs or placebo were included in the SLR; there was no restriction on outcomes.
Two independent researchers reviewed all citations. Data for studies meeting all inclusion criteria were extracted into a standardised Excel-based form by one reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. A third reviewer was consulted to resolve any discrepancies, as necessary. Risk of bias was assessed using the The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical effectiveness quality assessment checklist.
In total, 26 RCTs were included. For HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS and SF-36 MCS scores, intravenous tumour necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors generally ranked higher than most other classes of therapies available to treat patients with PsA. For almost all outcomes, several interleukin (IL)-23, IL-17A, subcutaneous TNF and IL-12/23 agents offered comparable improvement, while cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4, phosphodiesterase-4 and Janus kinase inhibitors often had the lowest efficacy.
While intravenous TNFs may provide some improvements in PROs relative to several other tsDMARDs and bDMARDs for the treatment of patients with PsA, differences between classes of therapies across outcomes were small.