The implementation and impacts of the Comprehensive Care Standard in Australian acute care hospitals: a survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive care (CC) is becoming a widely acknowledged standard for modern healthcare as it has the potential to improve health service delivery impacting both patient-centred care and clinical outcomes. In 2019, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care mandated the implementation of the Comprehensive Care Standard (CCS). However, little is known about the implementation and impacts of the CCS in acute care hospitals. Our study aimed to explore care professionals' self-reported knowledge, experiences, and perceptions about the implementation and impacts of the CCS in Australian acute care hospitals. METHODS: An online survey using a cross-sectional design that included Australian doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals in acute care hospitals was distributed through our research team and organisation, healthcare organisations, and clinical networks using various methods, including websites, newsletters, emails, and social media platforms. The survey items covered self-reported knowledge of the CCS and confidence in performing CC, experiences in consumer involvement and CC plans, and perceptions of organisational support and impacts of CCS on patient care and health outcomes. Quantitative data were analysed using Rstudio, and qualitative data were analysed thematically using Nvivo. RESULTS: 864 responses were received and 649 were deemed valid responses. On average, care professionals self-reported a moderate level of knowledge of the CCS (median = 3/5) and a high level of confidence in performing CC (median = 4/5), but they self-reported receiving only a moderate level of organisational support (median = 3/5). Only 4% (n = 17) of respondents believed that all patients in their unit had CCS-compliant care plans, which was attributed to lack of knowledge, motivation, teamwork, and resources, documentation issues, system and process limitations, and environment-specific challenges. Most participants believed the CCS introduction improved many aspects of patient care and health outcomes, but also raised healthcare costs. CONCLUSION: Care professionals are confident in performing CC but need more organisational support. Further education and training, resources, multidisciplinary collaboration, and systems and processes that support CC are needed to improve the implementation of the CCS. Perceived increased costs may hinder the sustainability of the CCS. Future research is needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of the CCS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".