scholarly journals A mixed-methods study of retail food waste in New Zealand

Food Policy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 92 ◽  
pp. 101845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Goodman-Smith ◽  
Miranda Mirosa ◽  
Sheila Skeaff
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Food Waste ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Retail Food

scholarly journals Exploring the Barriers and Levers to Hand Hygiene of Nursing and Medical Staff in Emergency Departments: A Mixed Methods Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Lorraine Rees
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Medical Staff ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Doctors And Nurses

<p>Background: Emergency Departments (ED) frequently host patients with undiagnosed infectious conditions and patients who are vulnerable to infection. Minimising the risk of exposure to infectious diseases is a priority in healthcare and is managed using a variety of strategies. Hand hygiene (HH) underpins these strategies, but ED have lagged behind improvement in HH compared to other units in New Zealand public hospitals. Given the consequences of healthcare associated infections (HAI), further investigation is warranted to identify barriers and levers to HH in the challenging environment of ED.  The aim of this explanatory sequential mixed methods study was to identify barriers and levers to HH practice in two ED in New Zealand.  Design: The mixed methods study was conducted in two phases. In Phase One, a questionnaire was used to survey nurses and doctors in the two ED sites. In Phase Two, follow-on focus groups were used to explore in-depth, specific aspects of the survey results.  Methods: In Phase One, doctors and nurses in the ED sites were surveyed to identify perceived barriers and levers of HH. A previously validated questionnaire from the United Kingdom was used. Following piloting, the questionnaire was circulated via email to all doctors and registered nurses. Results were analysed descriptively. Areas identified as strong barriers and levers to HH practice were identified, and used to inform development of a focus group interview guide.  In Phase Two, focus group participants were identified from a self-selected convenience sample of survey respondents. Focus groups were audio-recorded and data transcribed verbatim into NVivo Pro 11 before undergoing thematic analysis.  Results: The survey was distributed to doctors (n= 81) and nurses (n= 214). The response rate was low (11% for nurses, 12% for doctors). Two focus groups (n=6 & n=2) and one face to face interview (n=1) was held with nurses participating in each session. No medical staff participated in this phase of data collection. All respondents had worked in healthcare more than three years. Healthcare workers identified that professional role was the strongest lever for HH (93.1%, n=95), closely followed by knowledge and skills (84.3%, n=86). Healthcare workers demonstrated an awareness of benefits of HH including improving patient confidence and avoidance on infection for the patient and themselves (65.9%, n= 89). 45.6% (n=62) of responses identified a lack of encouragement or role modelling in this area of practice.  The physical environment in the ED was a major barrier (53.7%, n=73) although shorter stays in ED were not perceived as a barrier to HH (73.5%, n= 25). High patient turnover and acuity were also perceived as barriers to HH. HH initiatives were perceived to have a marginal effect (55.3%, n=57). Social influences and communication were further barriers to HH, with healthcare workers identifying discomfort when challenging others about HH.  Conclusion: Current barriers to HH including the environmental challenges, and social and cultural barriers to HH need to be addressed. Hand hygiene education that targets known challenges in, and misunderstandings about practice, need to be developed. Organisations must clearly articulate expectations of HH through policy and procedure, including a commitment to address non-compliance. Doctors and nurses should be supported in developing strategies to effectively communicate about, and challenge HH practices. With organisational support and a harnessing of the professional responsibilities that doctors and nurses hold, there is opportunity to strengthen barriers and mitigate barriers to HH.</p>

SPLIT ENZ: Survivorship of Patients post Long Intensive care stay, Exploration/Experience in a New Zealand cohort (A mixed methods study protocol) (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynsey Sutton-Smith ◽  
Elliot Bell ◽  
Susanna Every-Palmer ◽  
Mark Weatherall ◽  
Paul Skirrow
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Critical Illness ◽  
Unmet Needs ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Published Research

BACKGROUND ‘Post Intensive Care Syndrome’ (PICS) was defined by the Society of Critical Care Medicine in 2012 with subsequent international research highlighting the poor long-term outcomes, reduced quality of life, and ongoing impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions for survivors of critical illness. However, to date, there has been no published research about long-term outcomes for New Zealand survivors of critical illness. OBJECTIVE This mixed methods study will be the first to explore long-term outcomes after critical illness in New Zealand. It will also be done in the context of the global COVID pandemic. The primary objectives are to describe and quantify symptoms and disability in survivors of critical illness, to explore possible risk factors for their development, and to identify longer-term unmet needs for those who survive for a year. METHODS This will be a mixed methods study. There will be a prospective cohort study of 100 critically ill patients followed up one, six- and 12-months after hospital discharge. The primary outcome for the cohort study will be disability assessed with the World Health Organization’s Disability Assessment Scale: WHODAS 2.0. Secondary outcomes will focus on mental health using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS) and the Impact of Events Scale-revised (IES-r), cognitive function using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA- blind), and Health related Quality of Life by the EQ-5D-5L. A second element of the study will use qualitative grounded theory methods to explore patients’ experiences of recovery, highlight their unmet needs and develop a model of barriers and facilitators to coping. This will use a sample from the main cohort with interviews conducted six months after discharge. RESULTS This study has received full ethics approval from the New Zealand Northern A Health and Disability Ethics Committee on the 16/8/21 (21/NTA/107) and has been registered with ANZCTR on 5/10/21 (12621001335886). SPLIT ENZ is due to start recruitment in early 2022 and will continue recruitment for up to two years aiming to enroll approximately 125 patients. Data collection is estimated to be completed by 2024–20255 and will be published once all data is available for reporting. CONCLUSIONS Although International research identifies the prevalence of PICS and the extent of disability in survivors of critical illness there is no published research in New Zealand. Research in this field is particularly pressing in the context of COVID, an illness which may include PICS in its sequelae. To understand the extent of disability and the survival journey in New Zealand, would be of benefit not only to patients and families making sense of their recovery, but to clinicians and health care workers wanting to understand how best to support these patients once they have left hospital. CLINICALTRIAL Ethics ID: 21/NTA/107. Australia and New Zealand Clinical trials registration (ANZCTR) no: 1262100133588

Retail Food Store Access in Rural Appalachia: A Mixed Methods Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esther Thatcher ◽  
Cassandra Johnson ◽  
Shannon N. Zenk ◽  
Pamela Kulbok
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Food Store ◽  
Rural Appalachia ◽  
Retail Food

Exploring Food Waste at a Residential Youth Summer Camp: A Mixed-Methods Study

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Susan Chen ◽  
Vivica I. Kraak ◽  
Tonya T. Price ◽  
Kenner Love ◽  
Carmen Byker Shanks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Food Waste ◽  
Summer Camp ◽  
Mixed Methods Study

scholarly journals Improving the quality of administration of the Surgical Safety Checklist: a mixed methods study in New Zealand hospitals

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e022882 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M Weller ◽  
Tanisha Jowsey ◽  
Carmen Skilton ◽  
Derryn A Gargiulo ◽  
Oleg N Medvedev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Information Transfer ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Staff Attitudes ◽  
Surgical Safety Checklist ◽  
Surgical Safety ◽  
Professional Groups

While the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (the Checklist) can improve patient outcomes, variable administration can erode benefits. We sought to understand and improve how operating room (OR) staff use the Checklist. Our specific aims were to: determine if OR staff can discriminate between good and poor quality of Checklist administration using a validated audit tool (WHOBARS); to determine reliability and accuracy of WHOBARS self-ratings; determine the influence of demographic variables on ratings and explore OR staff attitudes to Checklist administration.DesignMixed methods study using WHOBARS ratings of surgical cases by OR staff and two independent observers, thematic analysis of staff interviews.ParticipantsOR staff in three New Zealand hospitals.Outcome measuresReliability of WHOBARS for self-audit; staff attitudes to Checklist administration.ResultsAnalysis of scores (243 participants, 2 observers, 59 cases) supported tool reliability, with 87% of WHOBARS score variance attributable to differences in Checklist administration between cases. Self-ratings were significantly higher than observer ratings, with some differences between professional groups but error variance from all raters was less than 10%. Key interview themes (33 interviewees) were: Team culture and embedding the Checklist, Information transfer and obstacles, Raising concerns and ‘A tick-box exercise’. Interviewees felt the Checklist could promote teamwork and a safety culture, particularly enabling speaking up. Senior staff were of key importance in setting the appropriate tone.ConclusionsThe WHOBARS tool could be useful for self-audit and quality improvement as OR staff can reliably discriminate between good and poor Checklist administration. OR staff self-ratings were lenient compared with external observers suggesting the value of external audit for benchmarking. Small differences between ratings from professional groups underpin the value of including all members of the team in scoring. We identified factors explaining staff perceptions of the Checklist that should inform quality improvement interventions.

scholarly journals The views of pregnant women in New Zealand on vaginal seeding: a mixed-methods study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Éadaoin M. Butler ◽  
Abigail J. Reynolds ◽  
José G. B. Derraik ◽  
Brooke C. Wilson ◽  
Wayne S. Cutfield ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Gut Microbiome ◽  
Natural Process ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Infant Gut Microbiome ◽  
The Media

Abstract Background Vaginal seeding is the administration of maternal vaginal bacteria to babies following birth by caesarean section (CS), intended to mimic the microbial exposure that occurs during vaginal birth. Appropriate development of the infant gut microbiome assists early immune development and might help reduce the risk of certain health conditions later in life, such as obesity and asthma. We aimed to explore the views of pregnant women on this practice. Methods We conducted a sequential mixed-methods study on the views of pregnant women in New Zealand (NZ) on vaginal seeding. Phase one: brief semi-structured interviews with pregnant women participating in a clinical trial of vaginal seeding (n = 15); and phase two: online questionnaire of pregnant women throughout NZ (not in the trial) (n = 264). Reflexive thematic analysis was applied to interview and open-ended questionnaire data. Closed-ended questionnaire responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results Six themes were produced through analysis of the open-ended data: “seeding replicates a natural process”, “microbiome is in the media”, “seeding may have potential benefits”, “seeking validation by a maternity caregiver”, “seeding could help reduce CS guilt”, and “the unknowns of seeding”. The idea that vaginal seeding replicates a natural process was suggested by some as an explanation to help overcome any initial negative perceptions of it. Many considered vaginal seeding to have potential benefit for the gut microbiome, while comparatively fewer considered it to be potentially beneficial for specific conditions such as obesity. Just under 30% of questionnaire respondents (n = 78; 29.5%) had prior knowledge of vaginal seeding, while most (n = 133; 82.6%) had an initially positive or neutral reaction to it. Few respondents changed their initial views on the practice after reading provided evidence-based information (n = 60; 22.7%), but of those who did, most became more positive (n = 51; 86.4%). Conclusions Given its apparent acceptability, and if shown to be safe and effective for the prevention of early childhood obesity, vaginal seeding could be a non-stigmatising approach to prevention of this condition among children born by CS. Our findings also highlight the importance of lead maternity carers in NZ remaining current in their knowledge of vaginal seeding research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document