METHODS: A cross-sectional design was used to evaluate interrater reliability where the HOME FAST was used simultaneously in the homes of older people by 2 raters and a prospective design was used to evaluate test-retest reliability with a separate group of older people at different times in their homes. Both studies took place in an urban area of Kuala Lumpur.
RESULTS: Professionals from 9 professional backgrounds participated as raters in this study, and a group of 51 community older people were recruited for the interrater reliability study and another group of 30 for the test-retest reliability study. The overall agreement was moderate for interrater reliability and good for test-retest reliability. The HOME FAST was consistently rated by different professionals, and no bias was found among the multiple raters.
CONCLUSION: The HOME FAST can be used with confidence by a variety of professionals across different settings. The HOME FAST can become a universal tool to screen for home hazards related to falls.
METHODS: Eleven databases were searched without date or language restrictions for systematic reviews of public and patient involvement (PPI) in clinical trials design. This systematic overview of PPI included 27 reviews from which areas of good and bad practice were identified. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of PPI were explored through use of meta-narrative analysis.
RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 27 reviews ranging in quality from high (n = 7), medium (n = 14) to low (n = 6) reviews. Reviews were assessed using CERQUAL NICE, CASP for qualitative research and CASP for systematic reviews. Four reviews report risk of bias. Public involvement roles were primarily in agenda setting, steering committees, ethical review, protocol development, and piloting. Research summaries, follow-up, and dissemination contained PPI, with lesser involvement in data collection, analysis, or manuscript authoring. Trialists report difficulty in finding, retaining, and reimbursing volunteers. Respectful inclusion, role recognition, mutual flexibility, advance planning, and sound methods were reported as facilitating public involvement in research. Public involvement was reported to have increased the quantity and quality of patient relevant priorities and outcomes, enrollment, funding, design, implementation, and dissemination. Challenges identified include lack of clarity within common language, roles, and research boundaries, while logistical needs include extra time, training, and funding. Researchers report struggling to report involvement and avoid tokenism.
CONCLUSIONS: Involving patients and the public in clinical trials design can be beneficial but requires resources, preparation, training, flexibility, and time. Issues to address include reporting deficits for risk of bias, study quality, and conflicts of interests. We need to address these tensions and improve dissemination strategies to increase PPI and health literacy.
METHODS: The study was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire. Knowledge of PIMs was assessed using 10 clinical vignettes based on the 2015 Beers Criteria. Practice behaviour towards older customers was assessed using 10 items with a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: A total of 277 community pharmacists participated in the study. Only 27.1% of the pharmacists were aware of Beers Criteria, and of these, only 37.3% were aware of the latest 2015 update. The respondents demonstrated moderate knowledge of PIMs with a mean total score of 5.46 ± 1.89 out of a maximum of 10. Pharmacists who were aware of Beers Criteria had significantly higher scores (6.31 vs 5.14, P
OBJECTIVES: This review focuses on identifying the indicators used to evaluate ACS care pathways and their effect on the care process and clinical outcomes.
METHODS: This review follows the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The systematic research was conducted using five research databases. Two groups were created by dividing the studies according to their year of publication. The first group included those studies published from 1997 to 2007 ("Group 1"), while the second included those published from 2008 to 2018 ("Group 2"). Selected studies were screened using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in this review. One study was a randomized controlled trial, 14 were predesigns and postdesigns, and two were longitudinal observational designs. The Group 1 studies demonstrated that ACS care pathways had a positive effect on reducing the length of the hospital stay and the door-to-balloon times. Similar effects were observed for the Group 2 studies.
CONCLUSION: Implementing ACS care pathway helps to organize care processes and decrease treatment delays as well as improve the patient outcomes without adverse consequences for patients or additional resources and costs. While the current level of evidence is inadequate to warrant a formal recommendation, there is a need for more studies with an emphasis on well-designed randomization to measure patient outcomes.