Jane O'Connell

Using the Donabedian framework to examine the quality and safety of nursing service innovation

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES To evaluate the safety and quality of nurse practitioner service using the audit framework of Structure, Process and Outcome. BACKGROUND Health service and workforce reform are on the agenda of governments and other service providers seeking to contain healthcare costs whilst providing safe and effective health care to communities. The nurse practitioner service is one health workforce innovation that has been adopted globally to improve timely access to clinical care, but there is scant literature reporting evaluation of the quality of this service innovation. DESIGN A mixed-methods design within the Donabedian evaluation framework was used. METHODS The Donabedian framework was used to evaluate the Structure, Process and Outcome of nurse practitioner service. A range of data collection approaches was used, including stakeholder survey (n = 36), in-depth interviews (11 patients and 13 nurse practitioners) and health records data on service processes. RESULTS The study identified that adequate and detailed preparation of Structure and Process is essential for the successful implementation of a service innovation. The multidisciplinary team was accepting of the addition of nurse practitioner service, and nurse practitioner clinical care was shown to be effective, satisfactory and safe from the perspective of the clinician stakeholders and patients. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that the Donabedian framework of Structure, Process and Outcome evaluation is a valuable and validated approach to examine the safety and quality of a service innovation. Furthermore, in this study, specific Structure elements were shown to influence the quality of service processes further validating the framework and the interdependence of the Structure, Process and Outcome components. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE Understanding the Structure and Process requirements for establishing nursing service innovation lays the foundation for safe, effective and patient-centred clinical care.

Mapping workforce configuration and operational models in Australian emergency departments: a national survey

Objective Hospital emergency departments (ED) in Australia and internationally have been experiencing increased demand, resulting in reduced hospital quality, impaired access and adverse health outcomes. Effective evaluation of new ED service models and their effect on outcomes is reliant on baseline measures of the staffing configuration and organisational characteristics of the EDs being studied. The aim of the present study was to comprehensively measure these variables in Australian EDs. Methods Australian hospital EDs with 24-h medical and nursing cover were identified and invited to participate in the study. Telephone interviews were conducted with nursing or medical department managers to collect data related to hospital characteristics, ED workforce and training and ED service and operational models. Results Surveys were completed in 87% of the population sample (n=135). Metropolitan EDs were significantly more likely to retain higher full-time equivalents (FTEs) in several medical (staff specialist, registrar, resident and intern) and nursing (nurse practitioner (NP), nurse educator, nurse unit manager and registered nurse) positions. NPs were employed by 52% of Australian EDs overall, but this ranged from 40% to 75% depending on jurisdiction. The most commonly used operational models were FastTrack teams (72% of EDs), short-stay/observational unit (59%) and patient liaison models for aged care (84%) and mental health (61%). EDs that employed NPs were significantly more likely to use FastTrack (P=0.002). Allied health services most frequently available within these EDs were radiology (60%), social work (69%), physiotherapy (70%) and pharmacy (65%). Conclusions The present study has established a baseline measure of the staffing configuration and organisational characteristics of Australian EDs. What is known about the topic? EDs are overcrowded due, in part, to the combined effect of increased service demand and access block. Innovative service and workforce models have been implemented by health departments aiming to improve service and performance. National uptake of these service and workforce innovations is unknown. What does this paper add? The present study is the most comprehensive to date profiling Australian EDs covering hospital characteristics, workforce configuration, operational models and NP service patterns and practice. What are the implications for practitioners? Information from the present study will assist health service planners to evaluate workforce and service reform models, and to monitor trends in emergency service development.

Review article: Diagnostic accuracy of risk stratification tools for patients with chest pain in the rural emergency department: A systematic review.

Risk stratification tools for patients presenting to rural EDs with undifferentiated chest pain enable early definitive treatment in high‐risk patients. This systematic review compares the most commonly used risk stratification tools used to predict the risk of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) for patients presenting to rural EDs with chest pain. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and Embase for studies published between January 2011 and January 2015 was undertaken. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS‐2 criteria and the PRISMA guidelines.Eleven studies using eight risk stratification tools met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of MACE in the patients stratified as suitable for discharge, and the percentage of patients whose scores would have recommended admission that did not experience a MACE event were used as comparisons. Using the findings of a survey of emergency physicians that found a 1% MACE rate acceptable in discharged patients, the EDACS‐ADP was considered the best performer. EDACS‐ADP had one of the lowest rates of MACE in those discharged (3/1148, 0.3%) and discharged one of the highest percentage of patients (44.5%). Only the GRACE tool discharged more patients (69% – all patients with scores <100) but had a MACE rate of 0.3% in discharged patients. The HFA/CSANZ guidelines achieved zero cases of MACE but discharged only 1.3% of patients.EDACS‐ADP can potentially increase diagnostic efficiency of patients presenting at ED with chest pain. Further assessment of tool in a rural context is recommended.