Communication at the bedside to enhance patient care: A survey of nurses' experience and perspective of handoverStrategies to support continuity of care and improve patient safety during clinical handover have been developed. The aims of this study were to identify the strengths and limitations in current practice of nursing clinical handover and implement a new bedside handover process. A total of 259 nurses completed a cross-sectional survey at change of shift on 1 day, which was followed by an audit of the pilot implementation of bedside handover. The survey results showed great variation in the duration, location and method of handover with significant differences in the experience of nurses employed part-time compared with full-time. Following implementation of standardized bedside handover on two wards, the audit revealed significant improvement in the involvement of patients, use of Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation, active patient checks and checking of documentation. These findings suggest the use of standardized protocols and communication tools for bedside handover improve continuity of patient care.

We evaluated the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary, primary care-based model of care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in 43 general practices in Australia. Adults with a history of smoking and/or COPD, aged ≥40 years with two or more clinic visits in the previous year were enrolled following spirometric confirmation of COPD. The model of care comprised smoking cessation support, home medicines review (HMR) and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (HomeBase). Main outcomes included changes in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), dyspnoea, smoking abstinence and lung function at 6 and 12 months.We identified 272 participants with COPD (157 intervention, 115 usual care); 49 (31%) out of 157 completed both HMR and HomeBase. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no statistically significant difference in change in SGRQ at 6 months (adjusted between-group difference 2.45 favouring intervention, 95% CI –0.89–5.79). Per protocol analyses showed clinically and statistically significant improvements in SGRQ in those receiving the full intervention compared to usual care (difference 5.22, 95% CI 0.19–10.25). No statistically significant differences were observed in change in CAT, dyspnoea, smoking abstinence or lung function.No significant evidence was found for the effectiveness of this interdisciplinary model of care for COPD in primary care over usual care. Low uptake was a limitation.

No abstract

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614001155684.

The substantially different factor structure identified suggests that this scale requires further refinement and testing. This case study highlights the importance of a systematic and comprehensive approach to determining construct validity of scales, thus enabling researchers to determine their suitability as data collection instruments.

IntroductionUp to half of all smokers develop clinically significant chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Gaps exist in the implementation and uptake of evidence-based guidelines for managing COPD in primary care. We describe the methodology of a cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) evaluating the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an interdisciplinary model of care aimed at reducing the burden of smoking and COPD in Australian primary care settings.Methods and analysisA cRCT is being undertaken to evaluate an interdisciplinary model of care (RADICALS — Review of Airway Dysfunction and Interdisciplinary Community-based care of Adult Long-term Smokers). General practice clinics across Melbourne, Australia, are identified and randomised to the intervention group (RADICALS) or usual care. Patients who are current or ex-smokers, of at least 10 pack years, including those with an existing diagnosis of COPD, are being recruited to identify 280 participants with a spirometry-confirmed diagnosis of COPD. Handheld lung function devices are being used to facilitate case-finding. RADICALS includes individualised smoking cessation support, home-based pulmonary rehabilitation and home medicines review. Patients at control group sites receive usual care and Quitline referral, as appropriate. Follow-ups occur at 6 and 12 months from baseline to assess changes in quality of life, abstinence rates, health resource utilisation, symptom severity and lung function. The primary outcome is change in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score of patients with COPD at 6 months from baseline.Ethics and disseminationThis project has been approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee and La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (CF14/1018 – 2014000433). Results of the study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and research conferences. If the intervention is successful, the RADICALS programme could potentially be integrated into general practices across Australia and sustained over time.Trial registration numberACTRN12614001155684; Pre-results.

The impact and value of this support in the registration and adoption process was explored in an online survey and found to be the key factor in practice engagement and success. ML support was seen as instrumental in improving adoption and was more effective than other activities. This article highlights the role of local support, in this case, MLs, in the effective implementation of eHealth programmes across a range of stakeholder groups, in particular, general practice, and the potential for the lessons learned from the engagement model of such an entity to be more generally applied.

No abstract