Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background An essential component of future-proofing health systems against future pandemics and climate change is strengthening the front lines of care: principally, emergency departments and primary care settings. To achieve this, these settings can adopt learning health system (LHS) principles, integrating data, evidence, and experience to continuously improve care delivery. This rapid review aimed to understand the ways in which LHS principles have been applied to primary care and emergency departments, the extent to which LHS approaches have been adopted in these key settings, and the factors that affect their adoption. Methods Three academic databases (Embase, Scopus, and PubMed) were searched for full text articles reporting on LHSs in primary care and/or emergency departments published in the last five years. Articles were included if they had a primary focus on LHSs in primary care settings (general practice, allied health, multidisciplinary primary care, and community-based care) and/or emergency care settings. Data from included articles were catalogued and synthesised according to the modified Institute of Medicine’s five-component framework for LHSs (science and informatics, patient-clinician partnerships, incentives, continuous learning culture, and structure and governance). Results Thirty-seven articles were included, 32 of which reported LHSs in primary care settings and seven of which reported LHSs in emergency departments. Science and informatics was the most commonly reported LHS component, followed closely by continuous learning culture and structure and governance. Most articles ( n  = 30) reported on LHSs that had been adopted, and many of the included articles ( n  = 17) were descriptive reports of LHS approaches. Conclusions Developing LHSs at the front lines of care is essential for future-proofing against current and new threats to health system sustainability, such as pandemic- and climate change-induced events. Limited research has examined the application of LHS concepts to emergency care settings. Implementation science should be utilised to better understand the factors influencing adoption of LHS approaches on the front lines of care, so that all five LHS components can be progressed in these settings.

Background Healthcare triage policies are vital for allocating limited resources fairly and equitably. Despite extensive studies of healthcare equity, consensus on the applied definition of equity in triage remains elusive. This study aimed to investigate how the principles of equity are operationalised in Australian hospital physiotherapy triage tools to guide resource distribution. Methods A retrospective, qualitative content analysis of 13 triage policies from 10 hospitals across Australia was conducted. Triage policies from both inpatient and outpatient settings were sourced. Data were coded deductively using the five discrete domains of the multi-faceted operational definition of health equity posited by Lane et al. (2017): 1) point of equalisation in the health service supply/access/outcome chain, 2) need or potential to benefit, 3) groupings of equalisation, 4) caveats to equalisation, 5) close enough is good enough. Descriptive summative statistics were used to analyse and present the frequency of reported equity domains. Results Within the included triage tools, four out of five domains of equity were evident in the included documents to guide decision making. Allocation based on perceived patient need and overall health outcomes were the central guiding principles across both inpatient and outpatient settings. Equal provision of service relative to patient need and reducing wait times were also prioritised. However, explicit inclusion of certain equity domains such as discrimination, ensuring equal capability to be healthy and other patient factors was limited. Conclusions Physiotherapy triage policies consider various domains of equity to guide resource allocation decisions. Policymakers and service providers can use the insights gained from this study to review the application and operationalisation of equity principles within their healthcare systems through mechanisms such as patient triage tools.

Introduction Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is commonly diagnosed and managed in primary care but there is evidence that this has been suboptimal, with low confidence expressed in providing interventions requiring behaviour change. The aim of this study was to determine the acceptability of a general practitioner (GP)–physiotherapist partnership in the diagnosis and management of COPD in primary care and to explore the experiences of participants during the implementation of the model. Methods Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with physiotherapists (n = 3), GPs (n = 2), practice nurses (PNs) (n = 2) and patients (n = 12) who had participated in the InNovaTivE Gp‐physiotheRapist pArTnErship for copD (INTEGRATED) trial. We sought to explore participants' views about their experiences and perceived benefits, barriers and facilitators to the implementation of this model of care. Interviews were transcribed, coded and thematically analysed. Synthesis of the data was guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework for clinician interviews and the health belief model for patient interviews. Results All clinicians felt that this integrated model helped to optimise care for patients with COPD by facilitating evidence‐based practice. GPs and PNs valued the physiotherapist's knowledge and skills relating to diagnosis and management, which was reported to complement their own management and improve patient outcomes. Patients reported a sense of empowerment following their appointments and acknowledged improved self‐management skills. However, physiotherapists reported many patients were already engaging in positive health behaviours. Responses were mixed on the effectiveness of the model in facilitating teamwork between clinicians with different perspectives concerning management, communication pathways and logistical issues, such as time and room availability, being cited as barriers. Conclusions An experienced cardiorespiratory physiotherapist embedded into a small number of primary care practices to work in partnership with GPs for COPD diagnosis and management was acceptable and viewed as beneficial for patients. Barriers relating to logistics and resources remain, which must be addressed to optimise implementation. Patient or Public Contribution Patient input was obtained from qualitative feedback from a prior study conducted by two authors and was used to refine the model of care to determine the added value of a physiotherapist integrated into the primary care team. This feedback was also used to refine the interview guides utilised in this study determine the acceptability of this model of care. We had health service involvement from the rehabilitation service of the local health district who were directly involved in determining study aims and establishing the project around the priorities for their chronic disease integration service. For example, this project aimed to engage with a less severe patient population in primary care who would benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation. The findings from this study will be used to further tailor the model of care to the needs of the public and patients. Trial Registration: ACTRN12619001127190

Background Evidence suggests that management of people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in primary care has been suboptimal, in particular, with low referral rates to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a GP-physiotherapist partnership in optimising management of COPD in primary care. Methods A pragmatic, pilot, before and after study was conducted in four general practices in Australia. A senior cardiorespiratory physiotherapist was partnered with each general practice. Adults with a history of smoking and/or COPD, aged ≥ 40 years with ≥ 2 practice visits in the previous year were recruited following spirometric confirmation of COPD. Intervention was provided by the physiotherapist at the general practice and included PR referral, physical activity and smoking cessation advice, provision of a pedometer and review of inhaler technique. Intervention occurred at baseline, one month and three months. Main outcomes included PR referral and attendance. Secondary clinical outcomes included changes in COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, dyspnoea, health activation and pedometer step count. Process outcomes included count of initiation of smoking cessation interventions and review of inhaler technique. Results A total of 148 participants attended a baseline appointment where pre/post bronchodilator spirometry was performed. 31 participants with airflow obstruction on post-bronchodilator spirometry (mean age 75yrs (SD 9.3), mean FEV 1 % pred = 75% (SD 18.6), 61% female) received the intervention. At three months, 78% (21/27) were referred to PR and 38% (8/21) had attended PR. No significant improvements were seen in CAT scores, dyspnoea or health activation. There was no significant change in average daily step count at three months compared to baseline (mean difference (95% CI) -266 steps (-956 to 423), p  = 0.43). Where indicated, all participants had smoking cessation interventions initiated and inhaler technique reviewed. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that this model was able to increase referrals to PR from primary care and was successful in implementing some aspects of COPD management, however, was insufficient to improve symptom scores and physical activity levels in people with COPD. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12619001127190. Registered 12 August 2019 – Retrospectively registered, http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12619001127190.aspx .

IntroductionImplementation science focuses on improving the dissemination, uptake and adoption of evidence into practice. Over the last decade, implementation science research has proliferated, particularly in healthcare and social science. The key synthesis of implementation frameworks conducted by Meyers and colleagues in 2012, and the resulting Quality Implementation Framework, has yet to be updated to incorporate this research. This protocol proposes an umbrella review of reviews (RORs) to synthesise the literature since 2012 on implementation science in the fields of healthcare and social science and provides recommendations for an updated Quality Implementation Framework.Methods and analysisThis ROR will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Four academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO and Web of Science) will be used to identify peer-reviewed meta-analyses, systematic reviews and scoping reviews published in the English language since January 2012 and report on the development, application or update of one or more implementation frameworks in healthcare or social science contexts. Multiple reviewers will be involved in the screening of articles and extraction of data, and the quality of reviews will be assessed using the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2. The outcome of interest is the content of implementation science frameworks reported in the included reviews. The content of these frameworks will be synthesised, aggregated and mapped to the four phases and 14 steps outlined in the original Quality Implementation Framework using both deductive and inductive analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as this ROR protocol and the resulting ROR do not involve primary data collection. The protocol as well as the ROR will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42023475994.

Healthcare is a complex, multi-layered team environment where effective change often requires reaching consensus among relatively autonomous stakeholders. Although conducting informal consensus discussions is a frequently used implementation strategy in real-world clinical settings, limited information exists about what defines consensus when using these methods. Specifying the criteria for consensus is important, as it can shape the design of consensus-building strategies. This study aimed to identify and define the key domains of consensus used in local consensus discussions to standardise healthcare practices. A qualitative study was conducted in one private hospital in Australia using a modified, grounded theory methodology. Clinical, non-clinical and leadership staff involved in developing standardised perioperative pathways using informal consensus discussions were recruited. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and naturalistic participant observations between February 2023 and May 2024. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently until theoretical saturation was achieved. Data were analysed using open coding with constant comparison, focussed and theoretical coding to develop theoretical concepts. Sixteen hours of observations with 31 participants and nine semi-structured interviews were conducted. Analysis identified four distinct consensus criteria: i) unanimous consensus, ii) delegated consensus, iii) assumed consensus and iv) concessional consensus. While unanimity was the preferred outcome, other consensus types emerged as viable alternatives when unanimous agreement was challenging to achieve. Each criterion had differing factors and mechanisms which influenced reaching the consensus criterion, underpinning assumptions, and considerations for practice, which formed four domains of consensus. These domains provide a structured framework for classifying consensus criteria when conducting local consensus discussions in healthcare. The findings broaden our understanding of consensus in local healthcare discussions, moving beyond a singular focus on unanimity. By clearly defining consensus types, organisations can strategically select consensus methods that best support decision-making and intervention implementation.

Background Variation in perioperative care persists globally. Consensus discussions may facilitate standardisation, yet the processes used to reach agreement are poorly understood. This study aimed to develop a model for conducting local consensus discussions when implementing standardised perioperative pathways. Specifically, we 1) describe how local consensus discussions are operationalised; 2) identify what guides decision making and consensus between clinicians; and 3) formulate explanatory mechanisms and identify determinants that facilitate consensus discussions. Methods A qualitative, modified grounded theory study was conducted in one private hospital in metropolitan Sydney, Australia. Thirty-one participants from clinical disciplines and hospital management/leadership were included. Data were collected from nine semi-structured interviews and 16 h of participant observations during consensus development or implementation meetings. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently until theoretical saturation was achieved. Interviews and field notes were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using coding, constant comparison, detailed memo writing and data interpretation. Results Seven individual and contextual factors crucial for building consensus, and eight mechanisms for reaching agreement were identified and integrated into a conceptual model. Seeking evidence to support decision-making emerged as the primary driver of consensus. Strong research evidence in support of a pathway component facilitated swift agreement. Where there was ambiguous evidence for a pathway component, clinicians based their decisions on a desire for professional autonomy, consideration of how their peers practice, patient preferences, practices from external organisations, or the feasibility of implementing the pathway component. Conclusions The Consensus Model for Standardising Healthcare provides a map for healthcare organisations seeking to conduct local consensus discussions to reduce variation in care. Our findings advance our understanding of how local consensus discussions are conducted and factors that impact success when standardising care amongst clinicians.

Aims To examine the implementation of a physiotherapist-driven spirometry case finding service in primary care to identify new cases of COPD and confirm diagnosis of existing cases of COPD. Methods Four general practices were recruited. ‘At risk’ participants (aged ≥ 40 years, current/ex-smoker) and people with ‘existing’ COPD were identified from practice databases and invited to attend an assessment with a cardiorespiratory physiotherapist in each general practice. The physiotherapist performed pre/post-bronchodilator spirometry to identify or confirm a diagnosis of COPD (FEV 1 /FVC < 0.7). Outcome measures included number (%) of new cases of COPD, number (%) confirmed diagnosis of COPD and number (%) of high quality spirometry assessments with accurate interpretation. Results One hundred forty eight participants (mean age 70 years (SD 11.1), 57% female) attended a baseline assessment (117 ‘at risk’, 31’existing’ COPD) from 748 people invited. Physiotherapists performed 145 pre/post bronchodilator spirometry assessments. Obstruction on post-bronchodilator spirometry was confirmed in 17% (19/114) of ‘at risk’ and 77% (24/31) of ‘existing’ COPD. Majority of cases were classified as GOLD Stage II (63%, n  = 27). Quality of pre/post bronchodilator spirometries for FEV 1 were classified as A (68%), B (19%) and C (5%). Conclusion Physiotherapists integrated into primary care performed high quality spirometry testing, successfully case finding ‘at risk’ patients and identifying potential misdiagnosis of obstruction in some ‘existing’ COPD cases. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12619001127190. Registered 12 August 2019 – Retrospectively registered, http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12619001127190.aspx

Background The Quality Implementation Framework (QIF) is a widely used process model in implementation science (IS). Since its publication in 2012, the field of IS has expanded considerably, yet QIF has never undergone formal revision. Given recent advances and the complexity in implementation research and practice, this study examines whether QIF continues to capture the full scope of implementation quality and its challenges. Methods An umbrella review of reviews was conducted on literature published between 2012 and 2025. Eligible articles reported on the development, application, or update of implementation frameworks within healthcare or social science. Data were deductively mapped to the four phases and 14 steps of the original QIF and inductively mapped to identify knowledge not included in the original framework. Results A total of 15 reviews met the inclusion criteria. Most aligned with the core structure of QIF, supporting its continued relevance. However, several reviews highlighted the need to add a pre-implementation phase focusing on evidence appraisal, and a post-implementation phase addressing sustainability. Four cross-cutting domains (service user, intervention deliverer, context, and technology) were identified as critical factors throughout the implementation process. Conclusions An updated version of QIF is proposed, building on the original framework while introducing two new phases and four cross-cutting domains. This expanded model reflects recent developments in the literature and provides more comprehensive guidance to support implementation across complex real-world settings; it has important implications for implementation research and implementation practice. Registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023475994.

IntroductionAddressing clinical variation in elective surgery is challenging. A key issue is how to gain consensus between largely autonomous clinicians. Understanding how the consensus process works to develop and implement perioperative pathways and the impact of these pathways on reducing clinical variation can provide important insights into the effectiveness of the consensus process. The primary objective of this study is to understand the implementation of an organisationally supported, consensus approach to implement perioperative care pathways in a private healthcare facility and to determine its impact.MethodsA mixed-methods Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid (type III) pre–post study will be conducted in one Australian private hospital. Five new consensus-based perioperative care pathways will be developed and implemented for specific patient cohorts: spinal surgery, radical prostatectomy, cardiac surgery, bariatric surgery and total hip and knee replacement. The individual components of these pathways will be confirmed as part of a consensus-building approach and will follow a four-stage implementation process using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment framework. The process of implementation, as well as barriers and facilitators, will be evaluated through semistructured interviews and focus groups with key clinical and non-clinical staff, and participant observation. We anticipate completing 30 interviews and 15–20 meeting observations. Administrative and clinical end-points for at least 152 participants will be analysed to assess the effectiveness of the pathways.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethical approval from Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Medical Sciences Committee (Reference No: 520221219542374). The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and reports for key stakeholders.