Mitchell N. Sarkies
Monash University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Mitchell N. Sarkies.
Trials | 2015
Terry P. Haines; Lisa O’Brien; Deb Mitchell; Kelly-Ann Bowles; Romi Haas; Donna Markham; Samantha Plumb; Timothy Chiu; Kerry May; Kathleen Philip; David Lescai; Fiona McDermott; Mitchell N. Sarkies; Marcelle Ghaly; Leonie Shaw; Genevieve Juj; Elizabeth H. Skinner
BackgroundDisinvestment from inefficient or ineffective health services is a growing priority for health care systems. Provision of allied health services over the weekend is now commonplace despite a relative paucity of evidence supporting their provision. The relatively high cost of providing this service combined with the paucity of evidence supporting its provision makes this a potential candidate for disinvestment so that resources consumed can be used in other areas.This study aims to determine the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of the current model of weekend allied health service and a new stakeholder-driven model of weekend allied health service delivery on acute medical and surgical wards compared to having no weekend allied health service.Methods/DesignTwo stepped wedge, cluster randomised trials of weekend allied health services will be conducted in six acute medical/surgical wards across two public metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne (Australia). Wards have been chosen to participate by management teams at each hospital. The allied health services to be investigated will include physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work and allied health assistants. At baseline, all wards will be receiving weekend allied health services. Study 1 intervention will be the sequential disinvestment (roll-in) of the current weekend allied health service model from each participating ward in monthly intervals and study 2 will be the roll-out of a new stakeholder-driven model of weekend allied health service delivery. The order in which weekend allied health services will be rolled in and out amongst participating wards will be determined randomly. This trial will be conducted in each of the two participating hospitals at a different time interval. Primary outcomes will be length of stay, rate of unplanned hospital readmission within 28 days and rate of adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be number of complaints and compliments, staff absenteeism, and patient discharge destination, satisfaction, and functional independence at discharge.DiscussionThis is the world’s first application of the recently described non-inferiority (roll-in) stepped wedge trial design, and the largest investigation of the effectiveness of weekend allied health services on acute medical surgical wards to date.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.Registration number: ACTRN12613001231730 (first study) and ACTRN12613001361796 (second study).Was this trial prospectively registered?: Yes.Date registered: 8 November 2013 (first study), 12 December 2013 (second study).Anticipated completion: June 2015.Protocol version: 1.Role of trial sponsor: KP and DL are directly employed by one of the trial sponsors, their roles were: KP assisted with overall development of research design and assisted with overall project management; DL contributed to project management, administration and communications strategy.
Applied Clinical Informatics | 2015
Mitchell N. Sarkies; Kelly-Ann Bowles; Elizabeth H. Skinner; Deb Mitchell; Romi Haas; M. Ho; K. Salter; Kerry May; Donna Markham; L. O'Brian; Samantha Plumb; Terry P. Haines
BACKGROUND Hospital length of stay and discharge destination are important outcome measures in evaluating effectiveness and efficiency of health services. Although hospital administrative data are readily used as a data collection source in health services research, no research has assessed this data collection method against other commonly used methods. OBJECTIVE Determine if administrative data from electronic patient management programs are an effective data collection method for key hospital outcome measures when compared with alternative hospital data collection methods. METHOD Prospective observational study comparing the completeness of data capture and level of agreement between three data collection methods; manual data collection from ward-based sources, administrative data from an electronic patient management program (i.PM), and inpatient medical record review (gold standard) for hospital length of stay and discharge destination. RESULTS Manual data collection from ward-based sources captured only 376 (69%) of the 542 inpatient episodes captured from the hospital administrative electronic patient management program. Administrative data from the electronic patient management program had the highest levels of agreement with inpatient medical record review for both length of stay (93.4%) and discharge destination (91%) data. CONCLUSION This is the first paper to demonstrate differences between data collection methods for hospital length of stay and discharge destination. Administrative data from an electronic patient management program showed the highest level of completeness of capture and level of agreement with the gold standard of inpatient medical record review for both length of stay and discharge destination, and therefore may be an acceptable data collection method for these measures.
Social Science & Medicine | 2017
Haylee Lane; Mitchell N. Sarkies; Jennifer Martin; Terry P. Haines
OBJECTIVE To identify elements of endorsed definitions of equity in healthcare and classify domains of these definitions so that policy makers, managers, clinicians, and politicians can form an operational definition of equity that reflects the values and preferences of the society they serve. DESIGN Systematic review where verbatim text describing explicit and implicit definitions of equity were extracted and subjected to a thematic analysis. DATA SOURCES The full holdings of the AMED, CINAHL plus, OVID Medline, Scopus, PsychInfo and ProQuest (ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, ProQuest Social Science Journals) were individually searched in April 2015. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES Studies were included if they provided an original, explicit or implicit definition of equity in regards to healthcare resource allocation decision making. Papers that only cited earlier definitions of equity and provided no new information or extensions to this definition were excluded. RESULTS The search strategy yielded 74 papers appropriate for this review; 60 of these provided an explicit definition of equity, with a further 14 papers discussing implicit elements of equity that the authors endorsed in regards to healthcare resource allocation decision making. FIVE KEY THEMES EMERGED: i) Equalisation across the health service supply/access/outcome chain, ii) Need or potential to benefit, iii) Groupings of equalisation, iv) Caveats to equalisation, and v) Close enough is good enough. CONCLUSIONS There is great inconsistency in definitions of equity endorsed by different authors. Operational definitions of equity need to be more explicit in addressing these five thematic areas before they can be directly applied to healthcare resource allocation decisions.
PLOS Medicine | 2017
Terry P. Haines; Kelly-Ann Bowles; Deb Mitchell; Lisa O’Brien; Donna Markham; Samantha Plumb; Kerry May; Kathleen Philip; Romi Haas; Mitchell N. Sarkies; Marcelle Ghaly; Melina Shackell; Timothy Chiu; Steven M. McPhail; Fiona McDermott; Elizabeth H. Skinner
Background Disinvestment (removal, reduction, or reallocation) of routinely provided health services can be difficult when there is little published evidence examining whether the services are effective or not. Evidence is required to understand if removing these services produces outcomes that are inferior to keeping such services in place. However, organisational imperatives, such as budget cuts, may force healthcare providers to disinvest from these services before the required evidence becomes available. There are presently no experimental studies examining the effectiveness of allied health services (e.g., physical therapy, occupational therapy, and social work) provided on weekends across acute medical and surgical hospital wards, despite these services being routinely provided internationally. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of removing weekend allied health services from acute medical and surgical wards using a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority research design. Methods and findings We conducted 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials between 1 February 2014 and 30 April 2015 among patients on 12 acute medical or surgical hospital wards spread across 2 hospitals. The hospitals involved were 2 metropolitan teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Data from n = 14,834 patients were collected for inclusion in Trial 1, and n = 12,674 in Trial 2. Trial 1 was a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority stepped-wedge trial where the ‘current’ weekend allied health service was incrementally removed from participating wards each calendar month, in a random order, while Trial 2 used a conventional non-inferiority stepped-wedge design, where a ‘newly developed’ service was incrementally reinstated on the same wards as in Trial 1. Primary outcome measures were patient length of stay (proportion staying longer than expected and mean length of stay), the proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event, and the proportion with an unplanned readmission within 28 days of discharge. The ‘no weekend allied health service’ condition was considered to be not inferior if the 95% CIs of the differences between this condition and the condition with weekend allied health service delivery were below a 2% increase in the proportion of patients who stayed in hospital longer than expected, a 2% increase in the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days, a 2% increase in the proportion who had any adverse event, and a 1-day increase in the mean length of stay. The current weekend allied health service included physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work, and allied health assistant services in line with usual care at the participating sites. The newly developed weekend allied health service allowed managers at each site to reprioritise tasks being performed and the balance of hours provided by each professional group and on which days they were provided. Analyses conducted on an intention-to-treat basis demonstrated that there was no estimated effect size difference between groups in the proportion of patients staying longer than expected (weekend versus no weekend; estimated effect size difference [95% CI], p-value) in Trial 1 (0.40 versus 0.38; estimated effect size difference 0.01 [−0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.31, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but the proportion staying longer than expected was greater with the newly developed service compared to its no weekend service control condition (0.39 versus 0.40; estimated effect size difference 0.02 [0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.04, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin) in Trial 2. Trial 1 and 2 findings were discordant for the mean length of stay outcome (Trial 1: 5.5 versus 6.3 days; estimated effect size difference 1.3 days [0.9 to 1.8], p < 0.001, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: 5.9 versus 5.0 days; estimated effect size difference −1.6 days [−2.0 to −1.1], p < 0.001, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions for the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days in either trial (Trial 1: 0.01 [−0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.18, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: −0.01 [−0.02 to 0.01], p = 0.62, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions in the proportion of patients who experienced any adverse event in Trial 1 (0.01 [−0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.33, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but a lower proportion of patients had an adverse event in Trial 2 when exposed to the no weekend allied health condition (−0.03 [−0.05 to −0.004], p = 0.02, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). Limitations of this research were that 1 of the trial wards was closed by the healthcare provider after Trial 1 and could not be included in Trial 2, and that both withdrawing the current weekend allied health service model and installing a new one may have led to an accommodation period for staff to adapt to the new service settings. Stepped-wedge trials are potentially susceptible to bias from naturally occurring change over time at the service level; however, this was adjusted for in our analyses. Conclusions In Trial 1, criteria to say that the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to current weekend allied health condition were not met, while neither the no weekend nor current weekend allied health condition demonstrated superiority. In Trial 2, the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to the newly developed weekend allied health condition across all primary outcomes, and superior for the outcomes proportion of patients staying longer than expected, proportion experiencing any adverse event, and mean length of stay. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001231730 and ACTRN12613001361796
Implementation Science | 2017
Mitchell N. Sarkies; Kelly-Ann Bowles; Elizabeth H. Skinner; Romi Haas; Haylee Lane; Terry P. Haines
BackgroundIt is widely acknowledged that health policy and management decisions rarely reflect research evidence. Therefore, it is important to determine how to improve evidence-informed decision-making. The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of research implementation strategies for promoting evidence-informed policy and management decisions in healthcare. The secondary aim of the review was to describe factors perceived to be associated with effective strategies and the inter-relationship between these factors.MethodsAn electronic search was developed to identify studies published between January 01, 2000, and February 02, 2016. This was supplemented by checking the reference list of included articles, systematic reviews, and hand-searching publication lists from prominent authors. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data.ResultsAfter duplicate removal, the search strategy identified 3830 titles. Following title and abstract screening, 96 full-text articles were reviewed, of which 19 studies (21 articles) met all inclusion criteria. Three studies were included in the narrative synthesis, finding policy briefs including expert opinion might affect intended actions, and intentions persisting to actions for public health policy in developing nations. Workshops, ongoing technical assistance, and distribution of instructional digital materials may improve knowledge and skills around evidence-informed decision-making in US public health departments. Tailored, targeted messages were more effective in increasing public health policies and programs in Canadian public health departments compared to messages and a knowledge broker. Sixteen studies (18 articles) were included in the thematic synthesis, leading to a conceptualisation of inter-relating factors perceived to be associated with effective research implementation strategies. A unidirectional, hierarchal flow was described from (1) establishing an imperative for practice change, (2) building trust between implementation stakeholders and (3) developing a shared vision, to (4) actioning change mechanisms. This was underpinned by the (5) employment of effective communication strategies and (6) provision of resources to support change.ConclusionsEvidence is developing to support the use of research implementation strategies for promoting evidence-informed policy and management decisions in healthcare. The design of future implementation strategies should be based on the inter-relating factors perceived to be associated with effective strategies.Trial registrationThis systematic review was registered with Prospero (record number: 42016032947).
Injury-international Journal of The Care of The Injured | 2016
Luke Robinson; Mitchell N. Sarkies; Ted Brown; Lisa O’Brien
BACKGROUND Injuries sustained to the hand and wrist are common, accounting for 20% of all emergency presentations. The economic burden of these injuries, comprised of direct (medical expenses incurred), indirect (value of lost productivity) and intangible costs, can be extensive and rise sharply with the increase of severity. OBJECTIVE This paper systematically reviews cost-of-illness studies and health economic evaluations of acute hand and wrist injuries with a particular focus on direct, indirect and intangible costs. It aims to provide economic cost estimates of burden and discuss the cost components used in international literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS A search of cost-of-illness studies and health economic evaluations of acute hand and wrist injuries in various databases was conducted. Data extracted for each included study were: design, population, intervention, and estimates and measurement methodologies of direct, indirect and intangible costs. Reported costs were converted into US-dollars using historical exchange rates and then adjusted into 2015 US-dollars using an inflation calculator RESULTS: The search yielded 764 studies, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies were cost-of-illness studies, and seven were health economic evaluations. The methodology used to derive direct, indirect and intangible costs differed markedly across all studies. Indirect costs represented a large portion of total cost in both cost-of-illness studies [64.5% (IQR 50.75-88.25)] and health economic evaluations [68% (IQR 49.25-73.5)]. The median total cost per case of all injury types was US
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice | 2016
Mitchell N. Sarkies; Kelly-Ann Bowles; Elizabeth H. Skinner; Romi Haas; Deb Mitchell; Lisa O'Brien; Kerry May; Marcelle Ghaly; Melissa Ho; Terry P. Haines
6951 (IQR
Journal of Physiotherapy | 2018
Mitchell N. Sarkies; Jennifer White; Kate Henderson; Romi Haas; John Bowles
3357-
Implementation Science | 2018
Mitchell N. Sarkies; Jennifer White; Meg E. Morris; Nicholas F. Taylor; Cylie Williams; Lisa O’Brien; Jenny Martin; Anne Bardoel; Anne E. Holland; Leeanne M. Carey; Elizabeth H. Skinner; Kelly-Ann Bowles; Kellie Grant; Kathleen Philip; Terry P. Haines
22,274) for cost-of-illness studies and US
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage | 2016
Romi Haas; Mitchell N. Sarkies; Kelly-Ann Bowles; Lisa O'Brien; Terrence Peter Haines
8297 (IQR