Purpose This review aimed to synthesise some of the extant work on the use of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for postgraduate physicians, to assess the quality of the work and provide direction for future research and practice. Method Systematic searches were conducted within five electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO and CINAHL) in September 2018. Reference lists, Google Scholar and Google were also searched. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). Results In total, 49 studies were included, classified as Development of EPAs (n = 37; 76% of total included), Implementation and/or assessment of EPAs (n = 10; 20%), or both (n = 2; 4%). EPAs were described for numerous specialties, including internal medicine (n = 14; 36%), paediatrics (n = 8; 21%) and psychiatry (n = 4; 10%). Of the development studies, 92% utilised more than one method to generate EPAs. The two most commonly used methods were developing initial EPAs in a working group, (n = 27; 69%) and revising through deliberation (n = 21; 54%). Development papers were of variable quality (mean QATSDD score = 20, range 6–41). Implementation and assessment studies utilised methods that included observing trainee performance (n = 6; 50%) and enrolling trainees in competency‐based curricula, which included EPAs (n = 4; 33%). The methodological quality of these implementation studies varied (mean QATSDD score = 19.5, range = 6–32). Conclusions This review highlighted a need for: (i) consideration of best practice guidelines for EPA development; (ii) focus on the methodological quality of research on EPA development and of EPAs, and (iii) further work investigating the implementation of EPAs in the curriculum.
BackgroundPhysiological track and trigger systems (PTTSs) regulate the monitoring of patients’ vital signs and facilitate the detection and treatment of deteriorating patients. These systems are widely used, although compliance with protocol is often poor.ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine the perceptions of a national PTTS among nurses and doctors and to identify the variables that impact on intention to comply with protocol.MethodsA mixed-methods research design was employed. During the initial qualitative phase, 30 hospital-based nurses and doctors participated in a series of semistructured interviews. During the subsequent quantitative phase, 215 nurses and doctors (24.1% response rate) responded to a questionnaire designed to assess attitudes towards the PTTS and factors that influence adherence to protocol.ResultsInterview data revealed largely positive attitudes towards the PTTS but highlighted a number of barriers to its implementation and indicated that it is sometimes a source of tension between doctors and nurses. Quantitative data confirmed the validity of these findings, although nurses appeared to have more positive attitudes towards, and to perceive fewer barriers to, the usage of PTTS than were reported by the participating doctors.ConclusionsThese findings reveal that non-compliance with PTTS protocol is unlikely to be attributable to negative perceptions of PTTSs. Instead, there are a number of barriers to the implementation of the system. These findings suggest that interprofessional training in PTTSs is essential while increased support for PTTS implementation among senior doctors would also yield improved adherence to protocol.
This review aimed to synthesise the literature describing interventions to improve resilience among physicians, to evaluate the quality of this research and to outline the type and efficacy of interventions implemented. Searches were conducted in April 2017 using five electronic databases. Reference lists of included studies and existing review papers were screened. English language, peer-reviewed studies evaluating interventions to improve physician resilience were included. Data were extracted on setting, design, participant and intervention characteristics and outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist. Twenty-two studies were included. Methodological quality was low to moderate. The most frequently employed interventional strategies were psychosocial skills training and mindfulness training. Effect sizes were heterogeneous. Methodologically rigorous research is required to establish best practice in improving resilience among physicians and to better consider how healthcare settings should be considered within interventions.
Objectives: To synthesize the literature describing compliance with WHO hand hygiene (HH) guidelines in Intensive Care Units (ICUs), to evaluate the quality of extant research, and to examine differences in compliance rates across geographical regions, ICU types, and healthcare worker groups, observation methods, and Moments (indications) of HH. Data sources: Electronic searches were conducted in August 2018 using Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. Reference lists of included studies and related review articles were also screened. Study selection: English-language, peer-reviewed studies measuring HH compliance by healthcare workers in an ICU setting using direct observation guided by the WHO's 'Five Moments of Hand Hygiene', published since 2009, were included. Data extraction: Information was extracted on study location, research design, type of ICU, healthcare workers, measurement procedures, and compliance rates. Data synthesis: Sixty-one studies were included. Most were conducted in high-income countries (60.7%) and in adult ICUs (85.2%). Mean HH compliance was 59.6%. Compliance rates appeared to differ by geographic region (high-income countries 64.5%, low-income countries 9.1%), type of ICU (neonatal 67.0%, pediatric 41.2%, adult 58.2%), and type of healthcare worker (nursing staff 43.4%, physicians 32.6%, other staff 53.8%). Conclusions: Mean HH compliance appears notably lower than international targets. The data collated may offer useful benchmarks for those evaluating, and seeking to improve, hand hygiene compliance in ICUs internationally.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.