Academic literature on the topic 'Nurse and patient Research Victoria Melbourne'

Background A number of studies have shown promising performance of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for diagnosis of lesions in skin cancer. To date, none of these have assessed algorithm performance in the real-world setting. Objective The aim of this project is to evaluate practical issues of implementing a convolutional neural network developed by MoleMap Ltd and Monash University eResearch in the clinical setting. Methods Participants were recruited from the Alfred Hospital and Skin Health Institute, Melbourne, Australia, from November 1, 2019, to May 30, 2021. Any skin lesions of concern and at least two additional lesions were imaged using a proprietary dermoscopic camera. Images were uploaded directly to the study database by the research nurse via a custom interface installed on a clinic laptop. Doctors recorded their diagnosis and management plan for each lesion in real time. A pre-post study design was used. In the preintervention period, participating doctors were blinded to AI lesion assessment. An interim safety analysis for AI accuracy was then performed. In the postintervention period, the AI algorithm classified lesions as benign, malignant, or uncertain after the doctors’ initial assessment had been made. Doctors then had the opportunity to record an updated diagnosis and management plan. After discussing the AI diagnosis with the patient, a final management plan was agreed upon. Results Participants at both sites were high risk (for example, having a history of melanoma or being transplant recipients). 743 lesions were imaged in 214 participants. In total, 28 dermatology trainees and 17 consultant dermatologists provided diagnoses and management decisions, and 3 experienced teledermatologists provided remote assessments. A dedicated research nurse was essential to oversee study processes, maintain study documents, and assist with clinical workflow. In cases where AI algorithm and consultant dermatologist diagnoses were discordant, participant anxiety was an important factor in the final agreed management plan to biopsy or not. Conclusions Although AI algorithms are likely to be of most use in the primary care setting, higher event rates in specialist settings are important for the initial assessment of algorithm safety and accuracy. This study highlighted the importance of considering workflow issues and doctor-patient-AI interactions prior to larger-scale trials in community-based practices. Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Victorian Medical Research Acceleration Fund, with 1:1 contribution from MoleMap Ltd. VM is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship. CF is supported by the Monash University Research Training Program Scholarship. Conflicts of Interest SM is head of clinical research and regulatory affairs at Kahu.ai Ltd, a subsidiary of MoleMap Ltd. MH was the chief medical officer and a director of MoleMap Ltd, and holds shares in MoleMap Ltd. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04040114; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04040114

IntroductionAs cancer treatments may impact on fertility, a high priority for young patients with breast cancer is access to evidence-based, personalised information for them and their healthcare providers to guide treatment and fertility-related decisions prior to cancer treatment. Current tools to predict fertility outcomes after breast cancer treatments are imprecise and do not offer individualised prediction. To address the gap, we are developing a novel personalised infertility risk prediction tool (FoRECAsT) for premenopausal patients with breast cancer that considers current reproductive status, planned chemotherapy and adjuvant endocrine therapy to determine likely post-treatment infertility. The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility of implementing this FoRECAsT tool into clinical practice by exploring the barriers and facilitators of its use among patients and healthcare providers.Methods and analysisA cross-sectional exploratory study is being conducted using semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with 15–20 participants each from the following groups: (1) premenopausal patients with breast cancer younger than 40, diagnosed within last 5 years, (2) breast surgeons, (3) breast medical oncologists, (4) breast care nurses (5) fertility specialists and (6) fertility preservation nurses. Patients with breast cancer are being recruited from the joint Breast Service of three affiliated institutions of Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia—Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital and Royal Women’s Hospital, and clinicians are being recruited from across Australia. Interviews are being audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and imported into qualitative data analysis software to facilitate data management and analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved by Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee, Australia (HREC number: 2017.163). Confidentiality and privacy are maintained at every stage of the study. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific journals, national and international conference presentations, social media, broadcast media, print media, internet and various community/stakeholder engagement activities.

Introduction. To consider the use of medical chaperones during certain clinical examinations is important whether one practises as a specialist, nurse, medical student, or generalist. Chaperones have been used by doctors conducting intimate examinations for many years but their true extent remains largely unknown. Until recently, there was no national guidance in Australia. Aim. To explore the attitudes and practices of general practitioners (GP) regarding their use of chaperones in urban Melbourne, Australia. Method. Qualitative two focus groups involving seventeen GPs from two locations. Discussions were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed. Results. Common themes and subthemes emerged which were grouped into three main areas: (a) practitioner-related, (b) patient-related and (c) practice related. Discussion. This is the first study from an Australian primary care perspective to gauge the attitudes and experiences of GPs on their use of chaperones. It will provide vital information to inform the next step of extending this research to a national GP audience. From an international perspective, this study provides an excellent template for other primary care clinicians to conduct research in this important field of doctor-patient relationship.

Since April 1997, in Melbourne, Australia, speech pathologists have collaborated to establish a prospective database of functional outcomes of speech, swallowing and voice for patients undergoing head and neck cancer treatments.Staff at eight acute care hospitals, all of which offer speech pathology for head and neck cancer services in Victoria, are contributing data, collated centrally, in an agreed pro forma.Early results are given (after 12 months’ data collection). The implications for clinically-based research, and the future potential for benchmarking outcomes – by expansion of the rehabilitation database beyond the current participating sites – is discussed.This paper outlines the rationale of establishing the database is multicentred, and explores some of the complexities involved, including the challenges inherent in long-term accurate data collection in the head and neck cancer patient population. This work represents the development of an appropriate, usable tool for data collection on functional outcomes.

Research utilising de-identified patient health information extracted from electronic medical records (EMRs) from general practices has steadily grown in recent years in response to calls to increase use of health data for research and other secondary purposes in Australia. Little is known about the views of key primary care personnel on this issue, which are important, as they may influence whether practices agree to provide EMR data for research. This exploratory qualitative study investigated the attitudes and beliefs of general practitioners (GPs), practice managers (PMs) and practice nurses (PNs) around sharing de-identified EMR patient health information with researchers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 participants (6 GPs, 3 PMs and 2 PNs) recruited via purposive sampling from general practices in Victoria, Australia. Transcripts were coded and thematically analysed. Participants were generally enthusiastic about research utilising de-identified health information extracted from EMRs for altruistic reasons, including: positive effects on primary care research, clinical practice and population health outcomes. Concerns raised included patient privacy and data breaches, third-party use of extracted data and patient consent. These findings can provide guidance to researchers and policymakers in designing and implementing projects involving de-identified health information extracted from EMRs.

290 Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) is a common, often fatal disease where 1/4 of cases are due to hereditary syndromes. Genetic screening of OC patients provides access to targeted treatments and screening recommendations. Patients are currently referred to a virtual, group, pre-counseling seminar, delivered by a Nurse Practitioner, where consent for germline genetic testing is obtained and results are delivered later by a Genetic Counsellor (GC). Previously, we found group pre-counseling to be an effective method to decrease wait times from diagnosis to test results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient seminar experience using the previously validated, Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS-24). BC Cancer- Victoria is a satellite of BC Cancer, providing tertiary cancer care to a population of ̃1.2 million. Methods: We completed a REB approved, prospective study recruiting patients referred to the group pre-counseling consenting seminar. The GCOS-24 was delivered electronically both pre (1) and post (2) attendance at the seminar, and 4 weeks post genetic counselling visit (3). Inclusion criteria included OC patients referred for germline BRCA testing between Jan 1, 2021, to Feb 28, 2022, > 18 years old who attended the group consenting seminar. Patients who could not communicate in English were excluded. Data was stored electronically via REDCap, a secure web-based platform. Results: Thirty-eight patients attended the seminar and 28 consented to participate and completed the first questionnaire. Twenty-five patients completed the second questionnaire and 21 completed the third. The average age was 67, with 80% high grade serous, 11% low grade, 6% clear cell and 3% endometrioid OC subtypes. Forty- nine percent of participants were from Victoria area, and 11% were 225+ km away. The average GCOS-24 score for pre seminar participants was 111, post seminar 121 and post GC’s appointment 124. Twelve (52%) patients scored minimum clinically important difference (MCID) increase between questionnaires 1 and 2, and 14 (67%) patients scored MCID increase between questionnaires 1 and 3. The questions reflecting the most improvement in average scores between questionnaires 1 and 3 were exploring knowledge and emotions. Conclusions: Virtual group pre-counseling sessions for OC patients are feasible and allow germline genetic testing access to a geographically diverse group of eligible patients. Mean GCO-24 score almost reached MCID between pre seminar and post seminar visit and did reach MCID between pre counselling and post GC visit. There was a general trend to improved scores as patients moved from counselling naïve to pre-counseling to completed GC appointment. Virtual pre-counseling seminars should be considered as high impact, resource light method of improving access to germline genetic counselling for OC patients.

Clinical Registries are established to provide a clinically credible means for monitoring and benchmarking healthcare processes and outcomes, to identify areas for improvement, and drive strategies for improving patient care. Clinical Registries are used to assess changes in clinical practice, appropriateness of care and health outcomes over time. The American Heart Association Policy Statement in April 2011 called for expanding the application for existing and future Clinical Registries, with well-designed Clinical Registry programs. Concurrently, in Australia, and similarly within the United States and United Kingdom, there has been an increased focus on performance measurement for quality and patient safety. Within Victoria, the Victorian Clinical Governance Policy Framework outlines clinical effectiveness as one of the four domains of Clinical Governance As Clinical Registries evaluate effectiveness and safety of patient care by measuring patient outcomes compared with peers, the use of Clinical Registries data to improve a health service’s quality of care seems intuitive. A mixed methods approach was utilised, involving (1) semi-structured interviews and (2) documentation audit in this study conducted at Austin Health, a major tertiary teaching hospital in North-Eastern metropolitan Melbourne, affiliated with the University of Melbourne and various research institutes within Austin LifeSciences. Although many studies have highlighted the benefits of data collected via individual Clinical Registries, [5,6] the level of voluntary medical staff participation in Clinical Registries at a health service level is yet to be established. The aim of this study was to document the level of medical staff involvement for Clinical Registries within a major tertiary teaching hospital, and the level of reporting into Quality Committees within the organisation. This study demonstrates that along with a very high level of medical staff participation in Clinical Registries, there is a lack of systematic reporting of Registries data into quality committees beyond unit level, and utilisation of such data to reflect upon practice and drive quality improvement. Abbreviations: CREPS – Centre for Excellence in Patient Safety; CSU – Clinical Services Unit; HOU – Heads of Unit; VASM – Victorian Audit of Surgical Mortality.

IntroductionPoor patient assessment results in undetected clinical deterioration. Yet, there is no standardised assessment framework for >29 000 Australian emergency nurses. To reduce clinical variation and increase safety and quality of initial emergency nursing care, the evidence-based emergency nursing framework HIRAID (History, Identify Red flags, Assessment, Interventions, Diagnostics, communication and reassessment) was developed and piloted. This paper presents the rationale and protocol for a multicentre clinical trial of HIRAID.Methods and analysisUsing an effectiveness-implementation hybrid design, the study incorporates a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial of HIRAID at 31 emergency departments (EDs) in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. The primary outcomes are incidence of inpatient deterioration related to ED care, time to analgesia, patient satisfaction and medical satisfaction with nursing clinical handover (effectiveness). Strategies that optimise HIRAID uptake (implementation) and implementation fidelity will be determined to assess if HIRAID was implemented as intended at all sites.Ethics and disseminationEthics has been approved for NSW sites through Greater Western Human Research Ethics Committee (2020/ETH02164), and for Victoria and Queensland sites through Royal Brisbane & Woman’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (2021/QRBW/80026). The final phase of the study will integrate the findings in a toolkit for national rollout. A dissemination, communications (variety of platforms) and upscaling strategy will be designed and actioned with the organisations that influence state and national level health policy and emergency nurse education, including the Australian Commission for Quality and Safety in Health Care. Scaling up of findings could be achieved by embedding HIRAID into national transition to nursing programmes, ‘business as usual’ ED training schedules and university curricula.Trial registration numberACTRN12621001456842.

Background: Trust has been identified as a vital value in the nurse–patient relationship. Although increasingly the subject of empirical inquiries, the specific processes used by nurses to foster trust in nurse–patient relationships with older immigrants of non-English speaking backgrounds hospitalised for end-of-life care have not been investigated. Aims: To explore and describe the specific processes that nurses use to foster trust and overcome possible cultural mistrust when caring for older immigrants of non-English speaking backgrounds hospitalised for end-of-life care. Research design: A qualitative descriptive approach was used. Twenty-two registered nurses were recruited from four metropolitan health services in Melbourne, Australia. Ethical considerations: Research approval was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committees of the host institution and four participating health services. Findings: Thematic analysis revealed that fostering trust encompassed the following three commensurate stages: establishing trust, strengthening trust and sustaining trust. Underpinning the successful achievement of these stages was the nurses’ moral commitment (reflected in their intentional, conscious and conscientious approach) to fostering trust as an essential ingredient of quality end-of-life care. Discussion: This study has shown that while professional competencies are important to providing quality end-of-life care to older immigrant patients of non-English speaking backgrounds, it is a nurse’s moral commitment to fostering trust that may ultimately lay the foundations for a trusting quality care relationship to be established and sustained. Conclusion: This study has captured the processes used by nurses to foster trust as an essential element of quality end-of-life care in older immigrants. The characteristics of trust and the different factors influencing its expression in diverse cultural contexts are, however, under-researched. Accordingly, gaps remain in the knowledge and understanding of the specific cultural nuances and manifestations of trust across and within different cultures. This is an area that is germane to further cross-cultural and international collaborative scholarly inquiry and research.

This article seeks to review the Australian healthcare system and compare it to similar systems in other countries to highlight the main issues and problems. A literature search for articles relating to the Australian and other developed countries’ healthcare systems was conducted by using Google and the library of Victoria University, Melbourne. Data from the websites of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Australian Productivity Commission, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank have also been used. Although care within the Australian healthcare system is among the best in the world, there is a need to change the paradigm currently being used to measure the outcomes and allocate resources. The Australian healthcare system is potentially dealing with two main problems: (a) resource allocation, and (b) performance and patient outcomes improvements. An interdisciplinary research approach in the areas of performance measurement, quality and patient outcomes improvement could be adopted to discover new insights, by using the policy implementation error/efficiency and bureaucratic capacity. Hospital managers, executives and healthcare management practitioners could use an interdisciplinary approach to design new performance measurement models, in which financial performance, quality, healthcare and patient outcomes are blended in, for resource allocation and performance improvement. This article recommends that public policy implementation error and the bureaucratic capacity models be applied to healthcare to optimise the outcomes for the healthcare system in Australia. In addition, it highlights the need for evaluation of the current reimbursement method, freedom of choice to patients and a regular scrutiny of the appropriateness of care.