暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

In healthcare settings, workplace learning is often supported by clinicians who strive to combine service provision and educator roles. We evaluated an international 12-month programme that supports widely distributed critical care health professional educators (HPEs) through a virtual community of practice (vCoP). Specifically, we evaluate if and how the vCoP approach affects learning experiences using an innovative evaluation framework in medical education-the value-creation framework (VCF). We used a mixed-methods approach to evaluation, including an anonymous survey and semistructured interviews. Themes from data sources were identified using the VCF as the common thread. Themes discussed by at least two-thirds of interview participants were analysed using narrative inquiry. 27 of 66 participants responded to the survey, and 15 participated in interviews. Positive and negative indicators of value creation were extracted and organised according to the framework\'s eight value cycles. Framework analysis made value-creation and potential flow-on effects in one value-creation cycle to another visible, offering insight into relationships. Themes from narrative inquiry elaborated on the results of the framework analysis. Using the VCF to evaluate the Incubator programme brings to bear the complexity of boundary-crossing HPE faculty development for critical care educators. The framework can be a valuable tool for evaluating a vCoP associated with faculty development programmes.

There is an expanding workforce gap in the NHS. Alongside national programmes to train, recruit and retain staff, efforts are needed on a local level. Clinical placements can make up to a third of healthcare student\'s time while at university thus placement experience is an important factor to reducing attrition rates at universities and increase conversion rates from student to qualified professional. This quality improvement project aimed to increase reported rates of students\' satisfaction to 100% for each item of the student experience survey by March 2024 within Berkshire Healthcare National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust.To gain a deeper understanding of the experience and problems within healthcare student clinical placements interviews of students and staff were conducted alongside a literature review, which revealed six key themes around student placement experience: belonging and acceptance, familiarity and continuity, confidence and competence, preparation and preparedness, supervision and support, feeling overwhelmed/stress/impact on social and emotional health. These themes were translated into a student experience survey to achieve baseline and subsequent measurements.Changes were introduced to improve student satisfaction with clinical placements based on the baseline data of student satisfaction reported in the first student experience survey. Changes included introducing student inductions, better access to IT, student induction packs and newsletters. While the quantitative measurements of the items on the student experience survey remained positive, the nature of the qualitative feedback reflected the impact of the changes. Additionally, the improved communication and collaboration across teams because of the process highlighted the need for clear streamlined administrative processes. Regular review of student feedback has enabled timely feedback processes to placements and visible follow-up for students, highlighting the investment in them as the future workforce.

Potentially inappropriate medicine prescriptions and low-value diagnostic testing pose risks to patient safety and increases in health system costs. The aim of the Clinical and Healthcare Improvement through My Health Record usage and Education in General Practice study was to evaluate a scalable online quality improvement intervention, integrating online education regarding a national shared electronic health record and rational prescribing, pathology and imaging ordering by Australian general practitioners (GPs).
The study was a parallel three-arm randomised trial comprising a prescribing education arm, a pathology education arm and an imaging education arm. Currently practising GPs in Australia were eligible to participate and randomised on a 1:1:1 basis to the study arms after consenting. The response to the intervention in reducing potentially unnecessary medicine prescriptions and tests in each arm was assessed using the other two arms as controls. The primary outcome was the cost per 100 consultations of predefined medication prescriptions, pathology and radiology test ordering 6 months following the intervention, compared with 6 months prior. Outcomes were assessed on intention-to-treat and post hoc per-protocol bases using multilevel regression models, with the analysts blinded to allocation.
In total, 106 GPs were enrolled and randomised (prescribing n=35, pathology n=36, imaging n=35). Data were available for 97 GPs at the end of trial (prescribing n=33, pathology n=32, imaging n=32) with 44 fully completing the intervention. In intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant differences in the rates of change in costs across the three arms. Per protocol, there was a statistically significant difference in the rate of change in pathology costs (p=0.03). In the pathology arm, the rate of increase in pathology costs was significantly lower by $A187 (95% CI -$A340, -$A33) than the prescribing arm, and non-significantly $A9 (95% CI -$A128, $A110) lower than the imaging arm.
This study provides some evidence for reductions in costs for low-value pathology test ordering in those that completed the relevant online education. The study experienced slow uptake and low completion of the education intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes were not significant for the primary endpoint, which included all participants. Improving completion rates and combining real-time feedback on prescribing or test ordering may increase the overall effectiveness of the intervention. Given the purely online delivery of the education, there is scope for upscaling the intervention, which may provide cost-effectiveness benefits.
ACTRN12620000010998.

Internationally, healthcare systems face challenges from population demographics and rising care costs. Systematic methods of quality improvement (QI) are considered key to delivering needed transformation and change. Large-scale training in QI skills is required.Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are an inexpensive strategy for QI training across large regions and countries. The Lean Fundamentals MOOC was developed in the English NHS to train health and care staff in Lean QI methods. It supported participants to learn and apply process improvement skills through a free-to-access, practical, learning-in-action approach.
Lean Fundamentals\' cost-effectiveness and its impact on participants\' knowledge and confidence to apply Lean to improve processes were assessed. Using the Kirkpatrick framework, participant reaction, knowledge and confidence change, results and overall return-on-investment (ROI) were evaluated. Quantitative data were collected via pre and postcourse surveys to analyse participants\' knowledge and confidence change using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Qualitative learning platform and postcourse survey data demonstrated participants\' results from application.
Over 18 months, Lean Fundamentals attracted 6617 enrolments and supported 3462 active participants. 97.6% (n=829) of participants completing the postcourse survey indicated Lean Fundamentals met their expectations and 97.2% (n=823) indicated they would recommend it. Self-reported changes in knowledge and confidence to apply Lean showed significant differences (p<0.001). Learning was applied to operational healthcare priorities (such as post-COVID recovery of services) and participants shared 511 project improvement reports.
Lean Fundamentals helped large numbers of participants to develop Lean process improvement skills-avoiding costs associated with commercial Lean training in the range £1.7 m to £3.4 m and generating ROI of between £11 and £23 per every pound spent on delivery. This demonstrates that massive online is an effective and efficient method for building improvement knowledge and skills at scale.

The opioid epidemic is a serious social, economic and public health problem. This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of individual institutional opioid prescriber training on prescriber adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC\'s) guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing practices to treat acute pain.
Opioid prescribing data were collected from an academic medical centre and its associated outpatient clinics. A baseline for opioid prescribing practices was collected for 2 years and 2 months prior to the planned intervention. Departments responsible for 5% or more of the total institutional opioid prescriptions were chosen to study in detail. A number of opioid prescriptions per department per day and their compliance with the maximum daily dose (MDD) recommendations put out by the CDC were determined.
The hospital administration implemented a mandatory opioid prescriber training as part of their standard annual provider education for all medical staff, who were all required to attest having read it and pass a quiz by 30 September 2019, which was chosen as the end date for the pre-intervention data. Data were analysed preintervention and postintervention to assess the effect of this intervention on opioid prescribing.
Overall opioid prescribing rates decreased by 18.3% and there were significant decreases in opioid prescribing rate in five out of the seven departments/divisions. Overall, there was a statistically significant decrease in the compliance with MDD before (71.3%) and after (67.3%) the intervention (4%, 95% CI 3.13% to 4.87% difference, p<0.001). Additionally, there were statistically significant increases in compliance with CDC guidelines in three departments/divisions. However, there was a statistically significant decrease in compliance with CDC guidelines after intervention in two departments.
The results of this study were largely encouraging for the effectiveness of this institutional mandatory prescriber training.

Low-value use of laboratory tests is a global challenge. Our objective was to evaluate an intervention bundle to reduce repetitive use of routine laboratory testing in hospitalised patients.
We used a stepped-wedge design to implement an intervention bundle across eight medical units. Our intervention included educational tools and social comparison reports followed by peer-facilitated report discussion sessions. The study spanned October 2020-June 2021, divided into control, feasibility testing, intervention and a follow-up period. The primary outcomes were the number and costs of routine laboratory tests ordered per patient-day. We used generalised linear mixed models, and analyses were by intention to treat.
We included a total of 125 854 patient-days. Patient groups were similar in age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index and length of stay during the control, intervention and follow-up periods. From the control to the follow-up period, there was a 14% (incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92) overall reduction in ordering of routine tests with the intervention, along with a 14% (β coefficient=-0.14, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.21) reduction in costs of routine testing. This amounted to a total cost savings of $C1.15 per patient-day. There was also a 15% (IRR=0.85, 95% CI 0.79, 0.92) reduction in ordering of all common tests with the intervention and a 20% (IRR=1.20, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.30) increase in routine test-free patient-days. No worsening was noted in patient safety endpoints with the intervention.
A multifaceted intervention bundle using education and facilitated multilevel social comparison was associated with a safe and effective reduction in use of routine daily laboratory testing in hospitals. Further research is needed to understand how system-level interventions may increase this effect and which intervention elements are necessary to sustain results.

Research in the quality and safety field often necessitates an approach that supports the development of an in-depth understanding of how a complex phenomenon occurs, or how an intervention works. Realist review is an increasingly popular form of evidence synthesis that provides a theory-driven, interpretive approach to secondary research. Realist reviews offer quality and safety researchers the opportunity to draw on diverse types of evidence to develop explanatory theory about how, when and for whom interventions \'work\' or outcomes occur. The approach is flexible, iterative and practical, typically drawing on the experience of policymakers, practitioners and patients throughout the review. With the increasing use of realist reviews, some common misconceptions about the approach have become evident in the literature. This paper introduces what is involved when planning and conducting a realist review, and where the approach can offer most value, as well as outlining common challenges that researchers may face when adopting the approach, and recommended solutions. Our aim is to support researchers who are considering conducting a realist review to understand the key principles and concepts involved, and how they can go about producing high-quality work.