ORCID Profile
0000-0001-9626-3646
Current Organisation
University of South Australia
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
Date: 09-11-2021
DOI: 10.1071/AH21283
Abstract: The Royal Commission’s recommendation for nursing home minimum time standards and the Australian Government’s response do not support best practice resident care. We recommend that higher mandated minimum staffing levels and skills mix should be phased in by mid-2026. What is known about the topic? The Australian Government has not committed to fully implementing the Commission’s recommendations for mandated minimum staff time standards. What does this paper add? We highlight issues with the Commission’s recommendations and the Australian Government’s response where they do not support sufficient minimum time to provide best practice care. What are the implications for practitioners? Mandated evidence-based minimum staffing levels and skills mix should be phased in by mid-2026 to support best practice care.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 22-09-2020
Publisher: Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre
Date: 2019
DOI: 10.25954/YKED-PR88
Publisher: Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation
Date: 04-02-2021
Publisher: Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation
Date: 25-03-2022
Publisher: Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation
Date: 03-03-2022
Publisher: Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.25954/NK9G-1A75
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2020
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 09-02-2022
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 04-2022
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 03-02-2023
Abstract: The objective of this scoping review is to explore formalized methods of reflection that are used in clinical settings in general practice when training medical students, postgraduate trainees, general practitioners, and family physicians. Medical professionals are increasingly required to demonstrate competency in their ability to reflect on clinical practice. To accommodate this, the teaching of reflection is common in medical programs however, there is a lack of clarity in the literature on how reflection is taught. This review will seek evidence describing the tools and approaches to reflection used by medical students, postgraduate trainees, and other registered medical professionals in general practice. The review will also include any evidence from those who teach reflection in a general practice setting. Evidence regarding reflection in training programs for other medical specialties will not be considered for inclusion. This review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), and the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched will include MEDLINE (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Extracted evidence will be presented using figurative, tabular, and accompanying narrative synthesis, in line with the review questions. Open Science Framework osf.io/uxw7d
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 20-06-2022
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 09-02-2022
Publisher: Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.25954/J6B9-SG84
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 03-02-2023
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2021
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 08-10-2021
DOI: 10.1186/S13643-021-01821-3
Abstract: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis with a growing suite of methodological guidance and resources to assist review authors with their planning, conduct and reporting. The latest guidance for scoping reviews includes the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—Extension for Scoping Reviews. This paper provides readers with a brief update regarding ongoing work to enhance and improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews as well as information regarding the future steps in scoping review methods development. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a concise source of information regarding the difference between scoping reviews and other review types, the reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, and an update on methodological guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. Despite available guidance, some publications use the term ‘scoping review’ without clear consideration of available reporting and methodological tools. Selection of the most appropriate review type for the stated research objectives or questions, standardised use of methodological approaches and terminology in scoping reviews, clarity and consistency of reporting and ensuring that the reporting and presentation of the results clearly addresses the review’s objective(s) and question(s) are critical components for improving the rigour of scoping reviews. Rigourous, high-quality scoping reviews should clearly follow up to date methodological guidance and reporting criteria. Stakeholder engagement is one area where further work could occur to enhance integration of consultation with the results of evidence syntheses and to support effective knowledge translation. Scoping review methodology is evolving as a policy and decision-making tool. Ensuring the integrity of scoping reviews by adherence to up-to-date reporting standards is integral to supporting well-informed decision-making.
No related grants have been discovered for Casey Marnie.