METHODS: Prospective, mixed-methods process evaluation to answer the following: (1) how was the collaborative delivered by the faculty and received, understood and enacted by the participants; (2) what influenced teams' ability to improve care for patients requiring emergency cholecystectomy? We collected and analysed a range of data including field notes, ethnographic observations of meetings, and project documentation. Analysis was based on the framework approach, informed by Normalisation Process Theory, and involved the creation of comparative case studies based on hospital performance during the project.
RESULTS: Chole-QuIC was delivered as planned and was well received and understood by participants. Four hospitals were identified as highly successful, based upon a substantial increase in the number of patients having surgery in line with national guidance. Conversely, four hospitals were identified as challenged, achieving no significant improvement. The comparative analysis indicate that six inter-related influences appeared most associated with improvement: (1) achieving clarity of purpose amongst site leads and key stakeholders; (2) capacity to lead and effective project support; (3) ideas to action; (4) learning from own and others' experience; (5) creating additional capacity to do emergency cholecystectomies; and (6) coordinating/managing the patient pathway.
CONCLUSION: Collaborative-based quality improvement is a viable strategy for emergency surgery but success requires the deployment of effective clinical strategies in conjunction with improvement strategies. In particular, achieving clarity of purpose about proposed changes amongst key stakeholders was a vital precursor to improvement, enabling the creation of additional surgical capacity and new pathways to be implemented effectively. Protected time, testing ideas, and the ability to learn quickly from data and experience were associated with greater impact within this cohort.
Methods: In Phase 1, a multidisciplinary team identified domains for measurement, operationalized impairment levels, and reviewed visual languages for the scale. In Phase 2, feedback was sought from health professionals and the general public. In Phase 3, 366 participants completed preliminary testing on the revised draft, including 162 UK paramedics, and rated the scale on feasibility and usability. In Phase 4, following translation into Malay, the final prototype was tested in 95 participants in Peninsular Malaysia and Borneo.
Results: The final scale incorporated 14 domains, each conceptualized with 3-6 response levels. All domains were rated as "understood well" by most participants (range 64-94%). Percentage agreement with positive statements regarding appearance, feasibility, and usefulness ranged from 66% to 95%. Overall feedback from health-care professionals supported its content validity.
Conclusions: The PFFS is comprehensive, feasible, and appears generalizable across countries, and has face and content validity. Investigation into the reliability and predictive validity of the scale is currently underway.
METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: The group convened and discussed evidence-based recommendations and clinical experiences in the management of malnutrition in hospitalized and community-dwelling adults, and the relevance of oral nutritional supplements in clinical practice. Supported by a literature search from January 2007-September 2017, consensus statements on key aspects of malnutrition management were developed.
RESULTS: Malnutrition management should be considered as an integral part of patient care and managed by a multidisciplinary team. Hospitalized patients and outpatients should be screened for risk of malnutrition with validated tools. Nutrition intervention, including oral, enteral, or parenteral nutrition, should be accessible and individualized to all patients who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. Education on nutrition care is imperative for healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers.
CONCLUSION: These consensus recommendations provide practical guidance to improve nutrition practice within healthcare in Southeast Asia. With collaborative efforts from the clinical community, professional societies and policy makers, this regional effort may also facilitate change in the nutrition practice at the institutional and national level.