Conectar
Efficient discharge for stroke patients is crucial but challenging. The study aimed to develop early predictive models to explore which patient characteristics and variables significantly influence the discharge planning of patients, based on the data available within 24 h of admission.
Prospective observational study.
A prospective cohort was conducted at a university hospital with 523 patients hospitalised for stroke. We built and trained six different machine learning (ML) models, followed by testing and tuning those models to find the best-suited predictor for discharge disposition, dichotomized into home and non-home. To evaluate the accuracy, reliability and interpretability of the best-performing models, we identified and analysed the features that had the greatest impact on the predictions.
In total, 523 patients met the inclusion criteria, with a mean age of 61 years. Of the patients with stroke, 30.01% had non-home discharge. Our model predicting non-home discharge achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.95 and a precision of 0.776. After threshold was moved, the model had a recall of 0.809. Top 10 variables by importance were National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, family income, Barthel index (BI) score, FRAIL score, fall risk, pressure injury risk, feeding method, depression, age and dysphagia.
The ML model identified higher NIHSS, BI, and FRAIL, family income, higher fall risk, pressure injury risk, older age, tube feeding, depression and dysphagia as the top 10 strongest risk predictors in identifying patients who required non-home discharge to higher levels of care. Modern ML techniques can support timely and appropriate clinical decision-making.
This study illustrates the characteristics and risk factors of non-home discharge in patients with stroke, potentially contributing to the improvement of the discharge process.
STROBE guidelines.
To investigate the level of adoption of evidence-based family engagement and support during end-of-life cancer care and subsequent bereavement and its contextual facilitators and barriers from health professionals' perspectives, and to explore differences between professional groups.
Contextual analysis using an online cross-sectional survey.
This study was conducted in four Swiss hospitals and three home care oncology and palliative care services. Non-parametric testing was used to investigate the level of adoption and differences between nurses, physicians, occupational- and physiotherapists and psychosocial professionals (chaplains, onco-psychologists and social workers). The STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies was followed.
The majority of the 111 participating health professionals were nurses. Adoption was statistically significantly higher during end-of-life care than bereavement, with nurses and physicians reporting higher levels than the other professional groups. Guidance on end-of-life family care was available in about half of the cases, in contrast to a quarter for bereavement care. Self-perceived knowledge, skills and attitudes were moderate to high, with nurses and physicians reporting higher levels than others, except for general skills in working with families. Organisational structures were experienced as rather supportive, with the psychosocial group appraising the organisational context as significantly less conducive to fully implementing end-of-life and bereavement care than others, particularly during the end-of-life phase.
Evidence-based family engagement and support were better adopted during end-of-life care than bereavement. Overall, nurses and physicians felt better enabled to care for families compared to other professional groups.
No patient or public contribution.
Implementation and quality improvement efforts should focus particularly on the bereavement phase and be tailored to professional groups.
The findings show that evidence-based family engagement and support practices during end-of-life were rather well adopted in contrast to subsequent bereavement care, with nurses and physicians better enabled than other professionals to provide care. A better understanding of health professionals' contributions and roles in family care is important to build interprofessional capacity for evidence-based end-of-life and bereavement support.
The STROBE checklist for reports of cross-sectional studies was followed (von Elm et al., 2007).
(i) To estimate the national incidence of unplanned removal of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in China. (ii) To explore the associated risk factors to provide evidence for the prevention.
A multi-centre prospective cohort study.
A representative sample of 3222 Chinese adult patients with successful PICC insertion was recruited for the PICC Safety Management Research (PATH) using a two-stage cluster sampling method from December 2020 to June 2022. Sixty hospitals from seven Chinese provinces representing all geographical regions were selected. Demographic information and PICC characteristics were collected using a standard online case report form. Risk factors for the unplanned removal of PICCs were assessed using a cause-specific hazard model and verified using a sub-distribution hazard model. STROBE guidelines were followed in reporting this study.
Three thousand one hundred and sixty-six patients were included in the final analysis with a mean age of 59 years and a total of 344,247 catheter days. The incidence of unplanned removal was 10.04%. Female, with thrombosis history, PICC insertion due to infusion failure, valved catheter and double-lumen catheter were risk factors, whereas longer insertion and exposure length were protective factors in the cause-specific hazard model. Higher BMI became an independent risk factor in the sub-distribution hazard model.
Unplanned removal of PICCs is a serious clinical challenge in China. Our findings call for prevention strategies targeting the identified risk factors.
Our study characterised the epidemiology of unplanned removal of PICCs among Chinese adult inpatients, highlighting the need for prevention among this population and providing a basis for the formulation of relevant prevention strategies.
Patients contributed through sharing their information required for the case report form. Healthcare professionals who provide direct care to the patient at each medical centre contributed by completing the online case report form.
To evaluate and summarize the evidence for prevention and management of enteral feeding intolerance in critically ill patients and provide reference for clinical practice.
This study was an evidence summary followed by the evidence summary reporting standard of Fudan University Center for Evidence-based Nursing.
Current literatures were systematically searched for the best evidence for prevention and management of enteral feeding intolerance in critically ill patients. Literature types included clinical guidelines, best practice information sheets, expert consensuses, systematic reviews, evidence summaries and cohort studies.
UpToDate, BMJ Best Practice, Joanna Briggs Institute, Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Sinomed, Web of Science, Yi Maitong Guidelines Network, DynaMed, MEDLINE, CNKI, WanFang database, Chinese Medical Journal Full-text Database, European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism website, the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition website were searched from January 2012 to April 2023.
We finally identified 18 articles that had high-quality results. We summarized the 24 pieces of best evidence from these articles, covering five aspects: screening and assessment of the risk of enteral nutritional tolerance; formulation of enteral nutrition preparations; enteral nutritional feeding implementation; feeding intolerance symptom prevention and management; and multidisciplinary management. Of these pieces of evidence, 19 were ‘strong’ and 5 were ‘weak’, 7 pieces of evidence were recommended in level one and 4 pieces of evidence were recommended in level two.
The following 24 pieces of evidence for prevention and management of enteral feeding intolerance in critically ill patients were finally recommended. However, as these evidences came from different countries, relevant factors such as the clinical environment should be evaluated before application. Future studies should focus on more specific symptoms of feeding intolerance and more targeted prevention design applications.
The clinical medical staffs are recommended to take evidence-based recommendations for the implementation of standardized enteral nutrition to improve patient outcomes and decrease gastrointestinal intolerance in critically ill patients.
The management of enteral nutrition feeding intolerance has always been a challenge and difficulty in critically ill patients. This study summarizes 24 pieces of the best evidence for prevention and management of enteral nutrition feeding intolerance in critically ill patients. Following and implementing these 24 pieces of evidence is beneficial to the prevention and management of feeding intolerance in clinical practice. The 24 pieces of evidence include five aspects, including screening and assessment of the risk of enteral nutritional tolerance, formulation of enteral nutrition preparations, enteral nutritional feeding implementation, feeding intolerance symptom prevention and management and multidisciplinary management. These five aspects constitute a good implementation process. Screening and assessment of enteral nutritional tolerance throughout intervention are important guarantees for developing a feasible nutrition program in critically ill patients. This study will be benefit to global medical workers in the nutritional management of critically ill patients.
This evidence summary followed the evidence summary reporting specifications of Fudan University Center for Evidence-based Nursing, which were based on the methodological process for the summary of the evidence produced by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The reporting specifications include problem establishment, literature retrieval, literature screening, literature evaluation, the summary and grading of evidence and the formation of practical suggestions. This study was based on the evidence summary reporting specifications of the Fudan University Center for the Evidence-based Nursing, the register name is ‘Best evidence summary for prevention and management of enteral feeding intolerance in critically ill patients’, the registration number is ‘ES20231823’.
To summarize evidence from systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) regarding the impact of dyadic interventions delivered to both members of a cancer dyad, including a cancer patient and caregiver (e.g. family caregiver, intimate partner).
This overview of SRs was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews statement.
A comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wan Fang. The methodological and reporting quality of SRs and MAs was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2. The quality of the included SRs/MAs was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
Eighteen SRs/MAs undertook quantitative synthesis to assess the impact of dyadic interventions on cancer dyads. Both the credibility of the SRs/MAs and the evidence quality of the outcome measures were below satisfactory standards. Prior SRs/MAs revealed several limitations such as lack of pre-published protocols or research objectives, failure to report excluded studies and insufficient details on funding sources for individual studies.
Dyadic interventions may prove advantageous for the physical health and dyadic adjustment of cancer dyads. Nevertheless, the reported results of dyadic interventions on the psychological health of patient–caregiver dyads affected by cancer are inconsistent. Thus, rigorous and comprehensive studies are requisite to establish reliable evidence for conclusive determinations.
The findings of this overview can guide healthcare practitioners when considering the use of dyadic interventions for cancer dyads. Moreover, these findings have the potential to enhance the integration of these approaches into clinical practice.
Our paper presents an overview of systematic reviews, and therefore, such specific details may not be relevant to our study.
FreshRSS 