Systematically measuring the work environment of healthcare employees is key to continuously improving the quality of care and addressing staff shortages. In this study, we systematically analyse the responses to the one open-ended question posed in the Dutch version of the Culture of Care Barometer (CoCB-NL) to examine (1) if the responses offered new insights into healthcare employees’ perceptions of their work environment and (2) if the original CoCB had any themes missing.

Retrospective text analysis using Rigorous and Accelerated Data Reduction technique.

University hospital in the Netherlands using the CoCB-NL as part of the annual employee survey.

All hospital employees were invited to participate in the study (N=14 671). In total, 2287 employees responded to the open-ended question.

2287 comments were analysed. Comments that contained more than one topic were split according to topic, adding to the total (n=2915). Of this total, 372 comments were excluded because they lacked content or respondents indicated they had nothing to add. Subsequently, 2543 comments were allocated to 33 themes. Most comments (n=2113) addressed the 24 themes related to the close-ended questions in the CoCB-NL. The themes most commented on concerned questions on ‘organisational support’. The remaining 430 comments covered nine additional themes that addressed concerns about work environment factors (team connectedness, team effectiveness, corporate vision, administrative burden and performance pressure) and themes (diversity and inclusion, legal frameworks and collective bargaining, resilience and work–life balance, and personal matters).

Analysing responses to the open-ended question in the CoCB-NL led to new insights into relevant elements of the work environment and missing themes in the COCB-NL. Moreover, the analysis revealed important themes that not only require attention from healthcare organisations to ensure adequate improvements in their employees’ work environment but should also be considered to further develop the CoCB-NL.

Intensive care units (ICUs) admit the most severely ill patients. Once these patients are discharged from the ICU to a step-down ward, they continue to have their vital signs monitored by nursing staff, with Early Warning Score (EWS) systems being used to identify those at risk of deterioration.

We report the development and validation of an enhanced continuous scoring system for predicting adverse events, which combines vital signs measured routinely on acute care wards (as used by most EWS systems) with a risk score of a future adverse event calculated on discharge from the ICU.

A modified Delphi process identified candidate variables commonly available in electronic records as the basis for a ‘static’ score of the patient’s condition immediately after discharge from the ICU. L1-regularised logistic regression was used to estimate the in-hospital risk of future adverse event. We then constructed a model of physiological normality using vital sign data from the day of hospital discharge. This is combined with the static score and used continuously to quantify and update the patient’s risk of deterioration throughout their hospital stay.

Data from two National Health Service Foundation Trusts (UK) were used to develop and (externally) validate the model.

A total of 12 394 vital sign measurements were acquired from 273 patients after ICU discharge for the development set, and 4831 from 136 patients in the validation cohort.

Outcome validation of our model yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.724 for predicting ICU readmission or in-hospital death within 24 hours. It showed an improved performance with respect to other competitive risk scoring systems, including the National EWS (0.653).

We showed that a scoring system incorporating data from a patient’s stay in the ICU has better performance than commonly used EWS systems based on vital signs alone.

ISRCTN32008295.

This scoping review mapped and synthesised original research that identified low-value care in hospital settings as part of multicomponent processes.

Scoping review.

Electronic databases (EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane CENTRAL) and grey literature were last searched 11 July and 3 June 2022, respectively, with no language or date restrictions.

We included original research targeting the identification and prioritisation of low-value care as part of a multicomponent process in hospital settings.

Screening was conducted in duplicate. Data were extracted by one of six authors and checked by another author. A framework synthesis was conducted using seven areas of focus for the review and an overuse framework.

Twenty-seven records were included (21 original studies, 4 abstracts and 2 reviews), originating from high-income countries. Benefit or value (11 records), risk or harm (10 records) were common concepts referred to in records that explicitly defined low-value care (25 records). Evidence of contextualisation including barriers and enablers of low-value care identification processes were identified (25 records). Common components of these processes included initial consensus, consultation, ranking exercise or list development (16 records), and reviews of evidence (16 records). Two records involved engagement of patients and three evaluated the outcomes of multicomponent processes. Five records referenced a theory, model or framework.

Gaps identified included applying systematic efforts to contextualise the identification of low-value care, involving people with lived experience of hospital care and initiatives in resource poor contexts. Insights were obtained regarding the theories, models and frameworks used to guide initiatives and ways in which the concept ‘low-value care’ had been used and reported. A priority for further research is evaluating the effect of initiatives that identify low-value care using contextualisation as part of multicomponent processes.

Non-adherence to antihypertensive medication significantly contributes to inadequate blood pressure control. Regarding non-pharmacological interventions to improve medication adherence, the question remains of which interventions yield the highest efficacy.

Understanding the complementary perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals can be valuable for designing strategies to enhance medication adherence. Few studies explored the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals regarding medication adherence. None of them focused specifically on adherence to pharmacological therapy for hypertension in Portugal.

Considering the high prevalence of non-adherence and its location-specific aspects, the priority should be identifying its barriers and developing tactics to address them.

This study aims to gather the perspectives of patients with hypertension and healthcare professionals such as family doctors, nurses and community pharmacists from Portugal, regarding the most effective strategies to enhance antihypertensive medication adherence and to understand the factors contributing to non-adherence.

We will conduct qualitative research through synchronous online focus groups of 6–10 participants. Some groups will involve patients with hypertension, while others will include family doctors, nurses and community pharmacists. The number of focus groups will depend on the achievement of theoretical saturation. A purposive sample will be used. Healthcare participants will be recruited via email, while patients will be recruited through their family doctors.

The moderator will maintain neutrality while ensuring interactive contributions from every participant. Participants will be encouraged to express their opinions on the meeting summary. Meetings will be recorded and transcribed.

Two researchers will perform content analyses using MAXQDA V.12 through comparative analyses and subsequent consensus. A third researcher will review the analyses. The results will be presented narratively.

The Ethics Committee of the University of Coimbra has approved this study with the number: CE-026/2021. The results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and national and international conferences.

This study investigates the influence of socioeconomic status, health literacy, and numeracy on treatment decisions and the occurrence of adverse events in patients with breast, lung, and prostate cancer within a Nordic healthcare setting.

A follow-up to a cross-sectional, mixed-methods, single-centre study.

A Nordic, tertiary cancer clinic.

A total of 244 participants with breast, lung and prostate cancer were initially identified, of which 138 first-line treatment participants were eligible for this study. First-line treatment participants (n=138) surpassed the expected cases (n=108).

Not applicable as this was an observational study.

The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of guideline adherence. The secondary endpoint involved assessing treatment toxicity in the form of adverse events.

Guideline-adherent treatment was observed in 114 (82.6%) cases. First-line treatment selection appeared uninfluenced by participants’ education, occupation, income or self-reported health literacy. A minority (3.6%) experienced difficulties following treatment instructions, primarily with oral cancer medications.

The findings indicated lesser cancer health disparities regarding guideline adherence and treatment toxicity within the Nordic healthcare framework. A causal connection may not be established; however, the findings contribute to discourse on equitable cancer health provision.

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a critical, costly condition with high mortality rates, affecting millions annually. Despite advances in cardiovascular care, AHF treatment lacks robust evidence. AHF commonly manifests with sudden heart failure symptoms such as pulmonary congestion, and the pathophysiology involves fluid overload. Initial treatment is based on intravenous diuretics typically, but the optimal combination of drugs remains uncertain.

We will systematically review randomised controlled trials enrolling patients with AHF and volume overload undergoing in-hospital diuretic treatment. We aim to investigate any diuretic intervention. Our search strategy includes the following databases: Embase, Medline, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events, hospital readmission and kidney failure. Study results reported at the most extended follow-up will be used for all outcomes. If appropriate, we will conduct meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis.

No ethics approval is required for this study. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal in this field.

CRD42023463979.

There is a substantial lack of inter-facility referral systems for emergency obstetrical and neonatal care in rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Data on the costs and cost-effectiveness of such systems that reduce preventable maternal and neonatal deaths are scarce.

We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of a non-governmental organisation (NGO)-run inter-facility referral system for emergency obstetrical and neonatal care in rural Southern Madagascar by analysing the characteristics of cases referred through the intervention as well as its costs.

We used secondary NGO data, drawn from an NGO’s monitoring and financial administration database, including medical and financial records.

We performed a descriptive and a cost-effectiveness analysis, including a one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis.

1172 cases were referred over a period of 4 years. The most common referral reasons were obstructed labour, ineffective labour and eclampsia. In total, 48 neonates were referred through the referral system over the study period. Estimated cost per referral was US$336 and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was US$70 per additional life-year saved (undiscounted, discounted US$137). The sensitivity analysis showed that the intervention was cost-effective for all scenarios with the lowest ICER at US$99 and the highest ICER at US$205 per additional life-year saved. When extrapolated to the population living in the study area, the investment costs of the programme were US$0.13 per person and annual running costs US$0.06 per person.

In our study, the inter-facility referral system was a very cost-effective intervention. Our findings may inform policies, decision-making and implementation strategies for emergency obstetrical and neonatal care referral systems in similar resource-constrained settings.

Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is a highly successful public health programme that uses biochemical and other assays to screen for severe but treatable childhood-onset conditions. Introducing genomic sequencing into NBS programmes increases the range of detectable conditions but raises practical and ethical issues. Evidence from prospectively ascertained cohorts is required to guide policy and future implementation. This study aims to develop, implement and evaluate a genomic NBS (gNBS) pilot programme.

The BabyScreen+ study will pilot gNBS in three phases. In the preimplementation phase, study materials, including education resources, decision support and data collection tools, will be designed. Focus groups and key informant interviews will also be undertaken to inform delivery of the study and future gNBS programmes. During the implementation phase, we will prospectively recruit birth parents in Victoria, Australia, to screen 1000 newborns for over 600 severe, treatable, childhood-onset conditions. Clinically accredited whole genome sequencing will be performed following standard NBS using the same sample. High chance results will be returned by genetic healthcare professionals, with follow-on genetic and other confirmatory testing and referral to specialist services as required. The postimplementation phase will evaluate the feasibility of gNBS as the primary aim, and assess ethical, implementation, psychosocial and health economic factors to inform future service delivery.

This project received ethics approval from the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne Research Ethics Committee: HREC/91500/RCHM-2023, HREC/90929/RCHM-2022 and HREC/91392/RCHM-2022. Findings will be disseminated to policy-makers, and through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

Vertigo is a prevalent and burdensome symptom. More than 80% of patients with vertigo are primarily treated by their general practitioner (GP) and are never referred to a medical specialist. Despite this therapeutic responsibility, the GP’s diagnostic toolkit has serious limitations. All recommended tests lack empirical evidence, because a diagnostic accuracy study on vestibular disorders (‘How well does test x discriminate between patients with or without target condition y?’) has never been performed in general practice. The VERtigo DIagnosis study aims to fill this gap.

We will perform a diagnostic accuracy study on vertigo of primary vestibular origin in general practice to assess the discriminative ability of history taking and physical examination. We will compare all index tests with a respective reference standard. We will focus on five target conditions that account for more than 95% of vertigo diagnoses in general practice: (1) benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, (2) vestibular neuritis, (3) Ménière’s disease, (4) vestibular migraine (VM) and (5) central causes other than VM. As these five target conditions have a different pathophysiology and lack one generally accepted gold standard, we will use consensus diagnosis as a construct reference standard. Data for each patient, including history, physical examination and additional tests as recommended by experts in an international Delphi procedure, will be recorded on a standardised form and independently reviewed by a neurologist and otorhinolaryngologist. For each patient, the reviewers have to decide about the presence/absence of each target condition. We will calculate sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and diagnostic ORs, followed by decision rules for each target condition.

The study obtained approval from the Vrije Universiteit Medical Center Medical Ethical Review Committee (reference: 2022.0817—NL83111.029.22). We will publish our findings in peer-reviewed international journals.

ISRCTN97250704.

Treatment for abdominal pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) remains challenging in the setting of central nervous system sensitisation, a phenomenon of remodelling and neuronal hyperexcitability resulting from persistent pain stimuli. This is suspected to render affected individuals less likely to respond to conventional therapies. Endotherapy or surgical decompression is offered to patients with pancreatic duct obstruction. However, the response to treatment is unpredictable. Pancreatic quantitative sensory testing (P-QST), an investigative technique of standardised stimulations to test the pain system in CP, has been used for phenotyping patients into three mutually exclusive groups: no central sensitisation, segmental sensitisation (pancreatic viscerotome) and widespread hyperalgesia suggestive of supraspinal central sensitisation. We will test the predictive capability of the pretreatment P-QST phenotype to predict the likelihood of pain improvement following invasive treatment for painful CP.

This observational clinical trial will enrol 150 patients from the University of Pittsburgh, Johns Hopkins and Indiana University. Participants will undergo pretreatment phenotyping with P-QST. Treatment will be pancreatic endotherapy or surgery for clearance of painful pancreatic duct obstruction. Primary outcome: average pain score over the preceding 7 days measured by Numeric Rating Scale at 6 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes will include changes in opioid use during follow-up, and patient-reported outcomes in pain and quality of life at 3, 6 and 12 months after the intervention. Exploratory outcomes will include creation of a model for individualised prediction of response to invasive treatment.

The trial will evaluate the ability of P-QST to predict response to invasive treatment for painful CP and develop a predictive model for individualised prediction of treatment response for widespread use. This trial was approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. Data and results will be reported and disseminated in conjunction with National Institutes of Health policies.

NCT04996628.