http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Index en-au 5 http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:16717 20% of observations), whereas the Curran, Lanbeck and Rickard scales were the most restrictive (≤2% phlebitis). Only tenderness and the Catney (one of pain, tenderness, erythema or palpable cord) and Rittenberg scales (one of erythema, swelling, tenderness or pain) had acceptable (more than two-thirds, 66.7%) levels of inter-rater agreement. Conclusions: Inter-rater agreement for phlebitis assessment signs/symptoms and scales is low. This likely contributes to the high degree of variability in phlebitis rates in literature. We recommend further research into assessment of infrequent signs/symptoms and the Catney or Rittenberg scales. New approaches to evaluating vein irritation that are valid, reliable and based on their ability to predict complications need exploration.]]> Wed 29 Jun 2016 08:28:48 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:18468 Wed 28 Sep 2016 10:40:39 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:24795 Wed 26 Sep 2018 14:18:24 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:24794 Wed 26 Sep 2018 14:18:24 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:11861 65 years; mean = 74.6 years) and 104 working-aged (18-65 years; mean = 50.3 years) community-dwelling Australian women with self-reported UI. They had experienced UI for an average of 5 years and a majority rated their UI severity as moderate to severe. INSTRUMENT: Based on a comprehensive literature review, a 93-item author-developed questionnaire was developed and pilot tested to identify the type and frequency of strategies used by participants to manage UI. Items were developed that queried demographic and lower urinary symptom characteristics (type, severity, duration). METHODS: Participants were recruited via public and privately funded continence clinics and an advertisement in a local newspaper, with a 66% retention rate following recruitment. Questionnaires were posted to participants with a reply paid envelope for return. RESULTS: The women used a range of strategies to manage UI in their daily lives. A large proportion of women from both groups chose to (1) go to the toilet immediately after urge (older 94%; working-aged 92%); (2) integrate urine loss management a normal part of everyday life (older 81%; working-aged 78%); (3) stopping activities that make them leak (older 85%; working-aged 83%); and (4) using pads and aids for urinary containment (older 87%; working-aged 73%). Older women were more likely to use most of the strategies identified in the questionnaire. These strategies included the following: stop drinking in the evening (older 64%; working-aged 43%; P = .003); organize their bedroom close to the toilet (older 61%; working-aged 36%; P = .001); limit travel (older 45%; working-aged 18%; P = less than .001); limit socializing (older 30%; working-aged 11%; P = .001); and limit new relationships (older 25%; working-aged 11%; P = .01). Respondents engaged in a variety of hygiene measures such as washing (older 86%; working-aged 60%; P = .001), changing pads frequently (older 76%; working-aged 58%; P = .008), and using deodorisers (older 68%; working-aged 50%; P = .008). Working-aged women were more likely to modify (older 17%; working-aged 70%; P less than .001) or avoid (older 8%; working-aged 32%; P = .001) sexual activity. CONCLUSION: Both older and younger women aimed to normalize UI in their daily lives, using strategies designed to keep the bladder empty, maintain secrecy, and preserve social continence. Knowledge of these strategies and the difference between older and working-aged women will enable health care professionals to initiate more targeted support and advice for women with UI.]]> Wed 25 Nov 2015 15:25:19 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:16184 Wed 23 May 2018 12:04:50 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:8517 Wed 19 Aug 2015 23:10:39 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:22067 Wed 14 Mar 2018 12:58:42 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:22825 Wed 13 Jun 2018 11:50:48 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:23357 Wed 13 Dec 2017 11:11:59 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:22442 Wed 13 Dec 2017 10:57:56 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:17828 Wed 07 Dec 2016 13:17:40 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:11863 Wed 03 Jun 2015 16:54:41 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:20034 Wed 01 Mar 2017 10:15:28 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:26348 Wed 01 Aug 2018 14:09:19 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:26146 Tue 26 Jun 2018 10:11:18 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9833 Tue 21 Jul 2015 11:49:44 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9832 Tue 21 Jul 2015 11:49:43 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9830 Tue 21 Jul 2015 11:49:42 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9831 Tue 21 Jul 2015 11:49:37 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9826 Tue 21 Jul 2015 11:42:41 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9827 Tue 21 Jul 2015 11:42:38 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:22460 Tue 20 Mar 2018 11:18:41 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:25702 Tue 19 Jun 2018 13:28:06 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:7346 Tue 18 Aug 2015 19:45:37 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:25802 Tue 16 Oct 2018 11:08:50 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:26571 Tue 14 Aug 2018 13:48:21 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:27861 Tue 11 Dec 2018 11:47:00 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:24796 Tue 03 Jul 2018 08:11:47 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:20233 Tue 02 Aug 2016 10:56:25 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9790 Thu 26 May 2016 11:39:53 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:20553 Thu 25 Aug 2016 15:41:29 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:20755 200 beds each in three Australian states. Participants: 1600 patients (200/hospital) were recruited. Patients were eligible if they were: ≥18 years old; at risk of pressure ulcer because of limited mobility; expected to stay in hospital ≥48 h and able to read English. Methods: Hospitals (clusters) were stratified in two groups by recent pressure ulcer rates and randomised within strata to either a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle or standard care. The care bundle was theoretically and empirically based on patient participation and clinical practice guidelines. It was multi-component, with three messages for patients’ participation in pressure ulcer prevention care: keep moving; look after your skin; and eat a healthy diet. Training aids for patients included a DVD, brochure and poster. Nurses in intervention hospitals were trained in partnering with patients in their pressure ulcer prevention care. The statistician, recruiters, and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation and interventionists blinded to the study hypotheses, tested at both the cluster and patient level. The primary outcome, incidence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers, which applied to both the cluster and individual participant level, was measured by daily skin inspection. Results: Four clusters were randomised to each group and 799 patients per group analysed. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.035. After adjusting for clustering and pre-specified covariates (age, pressure ulcer present at baseline, body mass index, reason for admission, residence and number of comorbidities on admission), the hazard ratio for new pressure ulcers developed (pressure ulcer prevention care bundle relative to standard care) was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.25, 1.33; p = 0.198). No adverse events or harms were reported. Conclusions: Although the pressure ulcer prevention care bundle was associated with a large reduction in the hazard of ulceration, there was a high degree of uncertainty around this estimate and the difference was not statistically significant. Possible explanations for this non-significant finding include that the pressure ulcer prevention care bundle was effective but the sample size too small to detect this.]]> Thu 21 Jun 2018 12:27:48 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:8855 Thu 20 Aug 2015 00:13:48 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:23189 Thu 17 Aug 2017 21:08:08 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:17503 Thu 16 Nov 2017 14:45:45 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:21879 Thu 15 Mar 2018 09:44:43 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:14905 Thu 13 Jul 2017 09:42:52 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9834 Thu 10 Nov 2016 11:15:31 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9841 Thu 08 Sep 2016 14:57:04 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:20985 Mon 30 Oct 2017 12:37:01 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:22483 Mon 26 Mar 2018 09:45:39 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:23186 Mon 26 Mar 2018 09:38:39 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:26352 Mon 25 Feb 2019 11:26:43 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:25475 65 years; the administration of a functional and/or cognition assessment instrument whilst the older adult is in any part of the ED; interventions resulting from the administration of the instrument; and a measured outcome post ED visit. A revised scoping review methodology was applied to chart study data and to identify key differences. Results: Ten research studies were identified that met the criteria for review. There are a variety of assessments, aimed at different age groups, for several purposes and used at different times in the ED journey. Assessments are not being used in conjunction with routine medical assessment early in the ED patient journey. Conclusion: This scoping review identified no consistent suite of tools being administered in the ED to influence the disposition decision with measurable outcomes. Further research is required to identify a suite of assessment instruments suitable for use in the ED setting aimed at improving disposition decision making in the complex elderly person.]]> Mon 23 Apr 2018 16:30:54 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9799 Mon 20 Jul 2015 16:55:37 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9798 Mon 20 Jul 2015 16:55:37 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:11862 Mon 20 Jul 2015 14:35:39 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:26281 Mon 16 Jul 2018 09:12:47 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:12404 Mon 16 Feb 2015 09:33:14 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:17504 Mon 14 Dec 2015 15:00:12 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:21535 200 beds in three Australian states. Patients were eligible if they were: ≥18 years old; at risk of PU because of limited mobility; expected to stay in hospital ≥48 hours and able to read English. Hospitals (clusters) were stratified in two groups by recent HAPU rates and randomised within strata. The PUPCB was multi-component, and was aimed at the patient and nurse. There were three messages for patients’ participation in PUP care: keep moving; look after your skin; and eat a healthy diet. These messages were delivered as one-to-one patient education using a DVD, poster and brochure as resources. Nurses in intervention hospitals were trained in partnering with patients in their PUP care. The statistician, recruiters, and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation and interventionists blinded to the study hypothesis (tested at both the cluster and patient level). The primary endpoint, incidence of HAPU, was detected by daily skin inspection. Data collection occurred from June, 2014 to May, 2015. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (registration number ACTRN12613001343796). Results: A total of eight hospitals and 200 patients per hospital were recruited and 799 patients per group analysed. The mean (±SD) time spent delivering the intervention to each patient was 9.5 ± 5.4 minutes. Cluster adjusted, patient level analysis controlled for potential confounders yielded an adjusted hazard ratio of 0·58 (95% CI: 0·25, 1·33; p = 0·198) in the PUPCB group. At the cluster level, the HAPU incidence rate in the PUPCB group was 9·6 per 1000 days and in the control group it was 20·1 per 1000 days, with an incidence rate ratio of 0·48 (95% CI: 0·33, 0·69; p < 0·0001). Conclusion: The evidence indicating effectiveness of our intervention is unclear with the patient level analysis showing a 42% average reduction in HAPU rate in the PUPCB group, however, confidence intervals indicate that there may be a reduction of 75% or an increase of 33% in HAPU rates. The PUPCB is simple to implement and based on current clinical practice guidelines.]]> Mon 09 Jan 2017 14:00:48 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:26572 Mon 06 Aug 2018 12:57:28 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:26215 Mon 02 Jul 2018 11:05:26 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:25388 Fri 22 Feb 2019 10:45:44 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:25080 Fri 22 Feb 2019 09:35:45 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9931 Fri 17 Jun 2016 16:28:47 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9845 Fri 15 May 2015 10:36:44 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9818 Fri 15 May 2015 10:29:59 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9809 Fri 15 May 2015 10:29:59 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9819 Fri 15 May 2015 10:29:58 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9805 Fri 15 May 2015 10:29:50 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9842 Fri 15 May 2015 10:29:49 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9823 Fri 15 May 2015 10:29:48 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9808 Fri 15 May 2015 10:29:44 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9814 Fri 15 May 2015 10:29:38 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9822 Fri 15 May 2015 10:29:37 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9778 Fri 15 May 2015 10:22:43 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9775 Fri 09 Sep 2016 11:57:01 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:22269 Fri 09 Mar 2018 16:39:38 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:14515 Fri 08 Apr 2016 09:46:22 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:11988 Fri 08 Apr 2016 09:37:34 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9800 Fri 08 Apr 2016 09:27:29 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9825 Fri 08 Apr 2016 09:25:36 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9860 Fri 08 Apr 2016 09:23:39 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9817 Fri 08 Apr 2016 09:10:50 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:11965 Fri 08 Apr 2016 09:04:04 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9811 Fri 08 Apr 2016 08:53:22 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9829 Fri 08 Apr 2016 08:46:35 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:13195 Fri 08 Apr 2016 08:15:13 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9792 Fri 08 Apr 2016 08:03:20 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9859 Fri 08 Apr 2016 07:54:38 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9785 Fri 08 Apr 2016 07:53:53 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9791 Fri 08 Apr 2016 07:49:47 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:16010 30 min with those who were not delayed; and (ii) identify predictors of an ED length of stay ( LOS) of >4 h for ambulance-arriving patients. Methods A retrospective, multi-site cohort study was undertaken in Australia using 12 months of linked health data ( September 2007-2008). Outcomes of AOT delayed and non-delayed presentations were compared. Logistic regression analysis was undertaken to identify predictors of an ED LOS of >4 h. Results Of the 40 783 linked, analysable ambulance presentations, AOT delay of >30 min was experienced by 15%, and 63% had an ED LOS of >4 h. Patients with an AOT <30 min had better outcomes for: time to triage; ambulance time at hospital; time to see healthcare professional; proportion seen within recommended triage time frame; and ED LOS for both admitted and non-admitted patients. In-hospital mortality did not differ. Strong predictors of an ED LOS >4 h included: hospital admission, older age, triage category, and offload delay >30 min. Conclusion Patients arriving to the ED via ambulance and offloaded within 30 min experience better outcomes than those delayed. Given that offload delay is a modifiable predictor of an ED LOS of >4 h, targeted improvements in the ED arrival process for ambulance patients might be useful.]]> Fri 08 Apr 2016 07:48:44 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9794 Fri 08 Apr 2016 07:35:20 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9781 Fri 08 Apr 2016 07:29:20 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9836 Fri 08 Apr 2016 07:24:56 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9843 Fri 08 Apr 2016 07:18:09 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9840 Fri 08 Apr 2016 07:11:47 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:14317 Fri 08 Apr 2016 07:06:52 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9807 Fri 08 Apr 2016 07:04:15 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9784 Fri 08 Apr 2016 06:56:06 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:12821 Fri 07 Nov 2014 13:42:18 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9923 Fri 07 Nov 2014 12:33:51 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9922 Fri 07 Nov 2014 12:28:41 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:10605 Fri 07 Nov 2014 12:23:46 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9921 Fri 07 Nov 2014 11:59:23 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:9861 Fri 07 Nov 2014 11:26:59 AEST ]]> http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:21146 Fri 03 Feb 2017 10:46:33 AEST ]]>