JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports
-
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep · Mar 2015
ReviewPreventing nipple trauma in lactating women in the University Hospital of the University of Sao Paulo: a best practice implementation project.
Nipple trauma in lactating women is an important issue in facilitating successful breastfeeding. Evidence suggests that early postnatal education on the positioning and attachment technique, early observation of mothers and correcting breastfeeding techniques at an early stage may reduce nipple trauma. ⋯ This implementation project had great impact on both nursing staff as well as lactating women's knowledge of preventing and managing nipple trauma. It also enhanced women's satisfaction with breastfeeding and exclusive breastfeeding rates. Further research is required into other aspects involved with the onset of nipple trauma.
-
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep · Jan 2015
Review Meta AnalysisEffectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy/closed incision management in the prevention of post-surgical wound complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
The treatment of post-surgical wound complications, such as surgical site infections and surgical wound dehiscence, generates a significant burden for patients and healthcare systems. The effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy has been under investigation but to date no systematic review has been published in relation to its effectiveness in the prevention of surgical wound complications. ⋯ The focus of further research on this topic should be level one studies (randomized controlled trials) on patients identified as 'at risk' in the preoperative period.
-
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep · Jan 2015
ReviewThe effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol.
The objective of this systematic review is to identify, appraise and synthesize the best available evidence for the effectiveness of internet-based e-learning programs on health care professional behavior and patient outcomes. ⋯ Technological innovation has not only impacted social change in recent years but has been the prime driver of educational transformation.The newest consumers of post-secondary education, the so-called 'digital natives', have come to expect education to be delivered in a way that offers increased usability and convenience. Health care professionals (HCPs) in the clinical setting, particularly those in rural and remote communities, are no different. Today's health workforce has a professional responsibility to maintain competency in practice through achieving a minimum number of hours of continuing professional development. Consequently, HCPs seeking professional development opportunities are reliant on sourcing these independently according to individual learning needs. However, difficulties exist in some health professionals' access to ongoing professional development opportunities, particularly those with limited access face-to-face educationdue to geographical isolation or for those not enrolled in a formal program of study.These issues challenge traditional methods of teaching delivery; electronic learning (e-learning) is at the nexus of overcoming these challenges.The term e-learning originated in the mid-1990s as the internet began to gather momentum.Electronic learning can be broadly defined as any type of educational media that is delivered in an electronic form.Terms such as computer-assisted learning, online learning, web-based learning and e-learning are often used synonymously but all reflect knowledge transfer via an electronic device. This broad definition allows for a gamut of multimedia to be used for the purpose of constructing and assessing knowledge. Multimedia typically used in e-learning range from the now archaic Compact Disc Read-Only Memory (CD-ROMs), to the simple Microsoft PowerPoint, or the more advanced and complex virtual worlds such a second life. Electronic learning can be delivered in asynchronous or synchronous formats, with the latter (for example interactive online lectures via platforms such as BlackboardCollaborate or WebEx) more commonly used in formal educational settings according to set timetables of study.Person-to-person interactivity is an important enabler of knowledge generation and while functionalities such as web 1.0 (discussion board and email) and more recently web 2.0 (Wikis and blogs) allow for this to occur both synchronously and asynchronously, it is usually utilized in formal educational contexts only. However, the economy of formal education does not allow for free access to courses which proves challenging for HCPs seeking quality educational opportunities who choose not to undergo a formal program of study or are just looking to meet a specific learning need. Alternatively, asynchronous e-learning is a more learner-centred approach that affords the opportunity to engage in learning at a time and location that is convenient and enables the learner to balance professional development with personal and work commitments.These learning opportunities are self-directed and do not require a human to facilitate learning, rather, technology officiates/facilitates the learning process and, in the asynchronous e-learning context, the learner negotiates meaning independently.Health-related e-learning research has focused on several domains including media comparative designs, self-efficacy, user satisfaction, instructional design, knowledge outcomes, clinical skills development, and facilitators/barriers to its use.The benefits of e-learning are well documented in terms of increased accessibility to education, efficacy, cost effectiveness, learner flexibility and interactivity.However, some fundamental methodological and philosophical flaws exist in e-learning research, not least the use of comparative design studies. Comparison between e-learning and traditional teaching methods are illogical and methodologically flawed because comparison groups are heterogeneous, lack uniformity and have multiple confounders that cannot be adjusted for.As early as 1994, researchersin computer-assisted learning were citing these limitations and called for a fresh research agenda in this area. Cookrepeated this call in 2005 and again in 2009 and noted a paucity of research related to patient or clinical practice outcomes. Electronic learning is not an educational panacea and research needs to progress from pre- and post-interventional and comparative designs that evaluate knowledge increases and user satisfaction. It is time to move towards determining whether improved self-efficacy or knowledge gained through e-learning improves patient outcomes or influences clinical behavior change and whether these changes are sustained. In order to develop the empirical evidence base in e-learning, research needs to be guided by established theoretical frameworks and use validated instruments to move from assessing knowledge generation towards improving our understanding of whether e-learning improves HCP behavior and more importantly, patient outcomes.One suitable framework that is congruent with e-learning research is Kirkpatrick'sfour levels of evaluation. Kirkpatrick's model is hierarchically based with level one relating to student reaction and how well the learner is satisfied with the education program. Level two pertains to learning and the evaluation of knowledge, level three expands on this and considers whether the education has influenced behavior. In the context of this review, behavior change is any practice that is intrinsically linked with the outcomes of the e-learning program undertaken. Finally, level four evaluates the impact on outcomes such as cost benefit or quality improvements.The majority of e-learning research has focused on participant experience and knowledge acquisition, outcomes that correspond with the first two levels of Kirkpatrick's model.To date, few studies have examined the effectiveness of internet-based e-learning programs on HCP behavior, which aligns with Level 3 of Kirkpatrick's model.Studies exist that use self-reported measures of intention to change behavior, however self-reported intention to change does not necessarily translate into actual behavior change. Studies that have not used self-reported measures of behavior change have used objectively measured evaluation criteria including objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) using various methods including simulation task trainers and clinical simulations using standardized patients scored by a panel of experts using standardized assessment tools. Carney et al. used a national reporting and data system to measure the impact of a single one hour e-learning program undertaken by radiologists (n=31) aimed at reducing unnecessary recall during mammography screening. Carney et al. reported a null effect and attributed this to the complexities of behavior change, suggesting that longer term reinforcement of principles relating to mammography recall was required to effect behavior change. These findings also suggest that a multi-modal intervention may be required in order to reduce excessive recall rates in this area, rather than a single intervention. Contrary to Carney et al., Pape-Koehler et al. and Smeekins et al. reported positive findings using randomized controlled designs to test the efficacy of e-learning interventions on individual's surgical performance and the detection of child abuse, respectively. Pape-Koehler et al. used a 2x2 factorial design to demonstrate that an e-learning intervention significantly improved novice surgeon (n=70) surgical performance of a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (change between pre-post test OSATS p 0.001) when used in isolation or in combination with a practical training session compared to practical training alone. Smeekins et al. demonstrated that a 2 hour e-learning program improved nurses' (n=25) ability to detect child abuse in an emergency department. The nurses in the intervention (n=13) group demonstrated significantly better (p=0.022) questioning techniques and consequently, higher quality history taking, to determine children at risk of child abuse when compared with the control group who received no training at all.These three exemplar studies demonstrate the broad range of applications e-learning has in HCP education, as each study used different designs, had different subject areas and target health care professionals. This reflects the conceptual and practical challenges of the area of research that addresses levels three of Kirkpatrick's model. For this reason, the e-learning research agenda in health should focus on whether knowledge generated through e-learning is able to be re-contextualized into clinical practice, and influence sustained clinical behavior change and patient outcomes.A preliminary search of PubMed, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, ERIC and PROSPERO was conducted to determine if a systematic review on the topic of interest already existed. This search identified four systematic reviews that specifically reviewed outcome measures of knowledge and skill improvement in the domain of e-learning. Two examined research conducted in nursing, with the other two in orthodontics. Lahti et al. systematic review examined the impact of e-learning on nurses' and nursing students' knowledge, skills and satisfaction. Lahti et al. were unable to demonstrate a statistical difference between cohorts undertaking e-learning compared to conventional teaching methods, findings that were not replicated by Du et al. This may be due to the decision by Lahti et al. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
-
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep · Jan 2015
ReviewEffectiveness of ondansetron as an adjunct to lidocaine intravenous regional anesthesia on tourniquet pain and postoperative pain in patients undergoing elective hand surgery: a systematic review protocol.
The objective of this quantitative systematic review is to determine the effects of ondansetron as an adjunct to lidocaine on the tourniquet pain and postoperative pain of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 1 or 2 adult patients undergoing elective hand surgery with intravenous regional anesthesia. ⋯ Both injury and deformity of the upper extremity can result in dysfunction to nerves, tendons and bones which can lead to disability and pain. Hand injuries and deformities encompass an area of upper extremity surgery, wherein isolation and accessibility to peripheral nerves allows for a wide range of anesthesia techniques. Common hand surgeries include carpal tunnel or trigger finger release, Dupuytren's contracture fasciectomy, tendon repair, and ganglion cyst removal. According to the extent of injury or deformity, a general anesthetic, regional anesthetic, monitored anesthetic care (MAC) or local anesthetic may be used for these hand surgeries. Depending on the injury or deformity, local anesthesia may not provide sufficient anesthesia, but a general anesthesia may not be completely warranted either. Typical elective hand surgeries performed under regional anesthesia and MAC may be the ideal anesthetic plan that balances adequate sedation and analgesia. Intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA), commonly known as a bier block, is a safe and effective anesthetic and is typically utilized in uncomplicated hand or forearm surgeries lasting less than an hour. Intravenous regional anesthesia was first developed by August Bier in 1908 for anesthesia of the hand and forearm. It is a regional anesthetic technique that is easy to perform, with success rates up to 98%. Intravenous regional anesthesia is a simple, reliable and cost-effective anesthesia technique for short ambulatory hand surgery. The IVRA technique is ideal for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 1 or 2 patients, which according to ASA classification, are individuals who are healthy with well controlled to no comorbidities.The IVRA technique consists of inserting an intravenous catheter into a peripheral vein of the affected extremity. A double pneumatic tourniquet is applied to the same arm. The extremity is lifted and exsanguinated from distal to proximal with an Esmarch bandage. The proximal cuff of the tourniquet is then inflated to the appropriate pressure; standard 250mmHg for an upper extremity followed by the distal cuff. Insufflation times are limited to a maximum of one and a half to two hours, whereas the total insufflation time should never be less than 20 minutes. The Esmarch bandage is removed, and the local anesthetic is injected via the intravenous catheter to promote anesthesia in the operative area. In addition to the advantages of IVRA, there are disadvantages as well. These disadvantages include, but are not limited to, local anesthetic (LA) toxicity, delayed onset of action, poor muscle relaxation, tourniquet pain, and minimal postoperative analgesia. A method for improving analgesia and IVRA is to add medications to the IVRA solution. The ideal IVRA should include rapid onset of sensory and motor block, reduced LA dose, reduced intraoperative and tourniquet pain, prolonged postoperative analgesia, and minimal side effects.Adjuncts to LA can help offset some of the disadvantages mentioned above. In a systematic review of adjuncts for intravenous regional anesthesia conducted by Choyce and Peng, 29 studies were systematically reviewed to include various adjuncts to LA in IVRA. Adjuncts studied in this review included opioids, tramadol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), clonidine, muscle relaxants, sodium bicarbonate and potassium. The results of this systematic review suggest that NSAIDs have the most potential to offer as adjuncts to IVRA, while opioid adjuncts to IVRA proved to be disappointing as a form of postoperative analgesia. The search for the optimal IVRA adjunct that improves analgesia but has limited side effects is ongoing. More recent studies on adjuncts to IVRA have included medications such as neostigmine, dexmetomidine, nitroglycerin, and ondansetron.Ondansetron is a specific 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3 or serotonin) antagonist, commonly used as an antiemetic drug for prevention or treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Used in the recommended dose range, there are minimal reported side effects, with constipation, dizziness and headache being the most common. 5-HT3 antagonists such as ondansetron possess anti-inflammatory, anesthetic, and analgesic properties which may have a potential role in decreasing pain. 5-HT3 antagonists participate in the pathway of nociception by interfering with peripheral effects of serotonin on nociception. By binding to opioid mu receptors and acting as a potential opioid agonist, the result is a peripheral nociceptive analgesic effect. A study by Deegan shows that there are 5-HT3 receptors on the central spinal terminal, which suggests that ondansetron could have both peripheral and central nociceptive effects. Ambesh et al. found that pain during injection of propofol can be successfully prevented by the administration of 4 mg of ondansetron. In a study performed by Reddy et al., it was shown that 4 mg of ondansetron could significantly reduce pain during the intravenous (IV) injection of rocuronium and propofol.Ondansetron may be useful for its potential anti-in-ammatory effect as an adjunct to medication to reduce acute inflammation. Ondansetron can block sodium channels similar to local anesthetics and produce a local anesthetic effect. It has been shown to be approximately fifteen times more potent than lidocaine. A study by Farouk suggests the addition of ondansetron to lidocaine may improve the quality of IVRA and prolong postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing hand surgery. A study conducted by Honarmand, concluded that the addition of ondansetron to lidocaine for IVRA reduced intraoperative and postoperative analgesic use.Tourniquet pain, which is described as a dull and aching pain sensation, is caused by the nerve compression from the tourniquet. Neuropathic pain produced by nerve compression plays an important role in the etiology of this discomfort. Tourniquet pain is thought to be mediated by impulse propagation via small, unmyelinated, slow-conducting C fibers. The duration of the tourniquet time is directly proportional to the onset of tourniquet pain. In a study by Asik, onset of tourniquet pain ranged from eight to fifteen minutes. Tourniquet pain is a well-known limitation of IVRA and is a factor that can limit the number of times which IVRA can be used for extremity surgery. Lidocaine is one of the most frequently used LAs for IVRA. It has a relatively brief duration of action which may limit the postoperative analgesia. Duration of postoperative analgesia, measured as time to first analgesic requirement ranged from 34 to 45 minutes (median) with LA alone.Outcome measures will include pain assessment for intraoperative tourniquet pain and postoperative pain measured by first analgesic requirement time (the time elapsed after tourniquet release to the first request by the patient for analgesic). Pain will be assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS) (0 = no pain and 10 = worst pain imaginable). A VAS score of more than three would indicate pain threshold has been exceeded.A preliminary search of the Joanna Briggs Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PubMed and PROSPERO has revealed that there are currently no systematic reviews (either published or underway) on the topic of ondansetron as an adjunct to lidocaine intravenous regional anesthesia. Search terms included Zofran, ondansetron, intravenous regional anesthesia, and IVRA. Outcomes of this review will determine if ondansetron, admixed with lidocaine, has an effect on tourniquet pain, and secondly to determine if ondansetron, admixed with lidocaine, has an effect on the duration of postoperative analgesia.