While needs assessment is the starting point of good quality care, there is anecdotal evidence of patients receiving different care in similar circumstances. This study aims to investigate whether practice variation exists in needs assessments conducted by home care nurses and to identify the factors influencing these assessments.

A cross-sectional, quantitative retrospective study.

Primary care; home care nursing in the Netherlands in 2023.

Sampling was based on criterion sampling. Home care organisations were approached based on the following inclusion criteria: organisations providing home care nursing in the Netherlands, organisations from various regions of the country and organisations offering different types of home care nursing (eg, paediatric or palliative care), funded under the Dutch Health Insurance Act (Zvw). Organisations were excluded if they provided home care nursing funded by sources other than the Dutch Health Insurance Act. Home care nurses were recruited from participating organisations, each of whom had recently assessed the care needs of at least five patients. In total, 28 organisations and 258 home care nurses participated in this study, thereby yielding data from 1615 patients.

Assessed and delivered minutes of home care per patient per week.

Variation was primarily associated with patient-related factors. After accounting for these factors, 83% (assessed minutes) and 88% (delivered minutes) of the total variation was attributed to the patient level, 8% (assessed minutes) and 10% (delivered minutes) to the home care nurses’ level and 9% (assessed minutes) and 2% (delivered minutes) to the organisational level. Due to inadequate documentation in electronic health records, many missing values were identified.

The lack of nursing documentation suggests that missing factors may have contributed to variations in needs assessments. Thus, further research should comprehensively explore the patient-related factors currently absent from nursing documentation.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a heterogeneous disease, which current treatment guidelines insufficiently accommodate, as they predominantly emphasise the suppression of disease activity. However, a step towards personalised medicine is preferred to further optimise treatment and requires homogeneous subgroups with similarities in pathophysiological mechanisms and treatment responses. Prior research has already demonstrated notable differences in the pathophysiology of patients with autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative RA, as well as differences in treatment responses, which may serve as a strong basis for personalised medicine. Additionally, there is evidence suggesting that an early treatment response is indicative of future courses. Based on these findings, we designed a personalised medicine trial in RA that compares the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a tailor-made approach with routine care.

The PeRsonalIsed Medicine in RA (PRIMERA) trial is a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial that includes 300 adult patients with newly diagnosed, DMARD-naïve RA, according to 2010 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR criteria. Patients are randomised into either routine care or a tailor-made approach. Both management approaches use a treat-to-target strategy, aiming for low disease activity (LDA, Disease Activity Score using 44 joints (DAS) ≤2.4). In routine care, initial treatment consists of methotrexate along with a single intramuscular dose of glucocorticoids (GCs) and treatment can be intensified after 3, 7 and 10 months if LDA is not reached. Conversely, initial treatment in the tailor-made approach depends on the presence of autoantibodies, with patients with autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative RA starting with hydroxychloroquine or methotrexate together with a single intramuscular dose of GCs, respectively. Medication intensifications will be allowed at months 1, 3, 4, 7 and 10. Intensifications at months 1 and 4 depend on whether patients have an early sufficient response to GCs and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs), respectively. The tailor-made approach is superior to routine care if no more biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) or tsDMARDs are used after 10 months of treatment, while the mean DAS over time is lower. Our primary outcome is the proportional difference in bDMARD or tsDMARD usage after 10 months of treatment between routine care and the tailor-made approach. Secondary outcomes are DAS over time, time to achieve LDA, cost-effectiveness and patient-reported outcome measurements over time.

Ethical approval has been granted by Erasmus MC Medical Ethics Review Committee (MEC-2020-0825). The results will be disseminated through peer-review journals and medical congresses.

ISRCTN16170070.

Countries face challenges in maternal and newborn care (MNC) regarding costs, workforce and sustainability. Organising integrated care is increasingly seen as a way to address these challenges. The evidence on the optimal organisation of integrated MNC in order to improve outcomes is limited.

(1) To study associations between organisational elements of integrated care and maternal and neonatal health outcomes, experiences of women and professionals, healthcare costs and care processes and (2) to examine how the different dimensions of integrated care, as defined by the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care, are reflected in the literature addressing these organisational elements.

We included 288 papers and identified 23 organisational elements, grouped into 6 categories: personal continuity of care; interventions to improve interdisciplinary collaboration and coordination; care by a midwife; alternative payment models (non-fee-for-service); place of birth outside the obstetric unit and woman-centred care. Personal continuity, care by a midwife and births outside obstetric units were most consistently associated with improved maternal and newborn outcomes, positive experiences for women and professionals and potential cost savings, particularly where well-coordinated multidisciplinary care was established. Positive professional experiences of collaboration depended on clear roles, mutual trust and respectful interdisciplinary behaviour. Evidence on collaboration interventions and alternative payment models was inconclusive. Most studies emphasised clinical and professional aspects rather than organisational integration, with implementation barriers linked to prevailing biomedical system orientations.

Although the literature provides substantial evidence of organisational elements that contribute to improved outcomes, a significant gap remains in understanding how to overcome the barriers in sustainable implementation of these elements within healthcare systems. Interpreted through a systems and transition science lens, these findings suggest that strengthening integrated maternity care requires system-level changes aligning with WHO policy directions towards midwifery models of person-centred care.

To pilot a culturally tailored, peer-led, co-produced asset-based intervention workshop to encourage early diagnosis of prostate cancer for Black men.

Mixed-methods pilot study.

Community centres in the North-East of England and Scotland.

The intervention was delivered in November 2023 with Black African and Caribbean men (n=21), and again in February 2024 (n=41). Participants were highly educated and aged between 42 and 63 years. The intervention was qualitatively evaluated with 40 of the intervention participants.

Underpinned by the Integrated Screening Action Model (I-SAM), we co-produced a culturally tailored, peer-led 2-hour workshop consisting of multiple components, including small group discussions about barriers to accessing prostate cancer care, general practitioner (GP) health education, activities to facilitate effective communication with the GP and reception staff and videos with testimonials from survivors, women and religious leaders.

Knowledge, attitudes and intention to engage in prostate cancer testing were examined through a pre- and post-survey design. Intervention acceptability was qualitatively explored through focus groups.

Participants (n=41) reported that the workshop increased their confidence in engaging with healthcare providers to discuss prostate cancer testing (I-SAM component: psychological capability). Knowledge (I-SAM component: psychological capability: Z=4.939, p

Asset-based strategies, focusing on community strengths, including faith-based health promotion, can promote health behaviours in a culturally and spiritually meaningful way. The PROCAN-B intervention effectively targeted components within the I-SAM and shows potential to increase prostate cancer awareness and build confidence to engage in behaviours conducive to early diagnosis. However, the sample was small, and more robust effectiveness testing is needed.

To explore perceptions regarding the approved and actual prescribed doses of protein kinase inhibitors (PKIs) in clinical practice in the European Union among medicine regulators and healthcare professionals (HCPs).

A qualitative descriptive study was conducted using semistructured interviews, continuing until thematic saturation was reached. Thematic analysis was undertaken using a combined deductive-inductive approach. Deductive main analytical themes were derived from the theoretical framework of questioning-based policy design, namely problem sensing, problem categorisation and problem decomposition. Subthemes were generated inductively and could coherently be situated within these main analytical themes.

Interviews were held online or in person at a location convenient for the interviewee, depending on the participant’s preference.

Seven medicine regulators involved in the regulation of cancer medicines—including PKIs—and 10 HCPs prescribing PKIs in clinical practice, from various countries within Europe, were included.

Regulators highlighted insufficient attention to optimal dose finding, yielding approved doses often based on outdated maximum tolerated dose concepts, leading to uncertainties in efficacy and safety. HCPs reported using alternative dosing strategies in clinical practice to improve tolerability and quality of life (QoL) but noted a lack of robust evidence to guide such adjustments and faced legal constraints to deviate from the approved dose. Participants emphasised the need for improved pre-approval and post-approval dose optimisation to improve safety, enhance QoL and bridge gaps between trial data and real-world patient diversity.

Collaborative efforts involving multistakeholders including HCPs, regulators, pharmaceutical companies, insurers, governments and patient representatives are essential to advance dose optimisation and improve patient-centric outcomes, with further research needed to understand these stakeholders’ perspectives.

Hypoxaemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is associated with high mortality. Three main devices are used to provide oxygen to hypoxaemic ARF patients: non-invasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO) and standard oxygen (first-attempt device in usual care). To date, no multicentre randomised controlled study has compared NIV and HFNO to standard oxygen with day 28 mortality rate as primary outcome in hypoxaemic ARF in non-selected patients. Our hypothesis is that NIV and/or HFNO is superior to standard oxygen to reduce day 28 mortality rate in hypoxaemic ARF.

The Key oxygenation Interventions in Surgical and non-Surgical patients (KISS) trial is an adaptive investigator-initiated, multicentre, stratified, parallel-group unblinded trial with an electronic system–based randomisation. Patients with hypoxaemic ARF were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the ‘NIV-group’ to receive curative NIV combined with HFNO delivered between NIV trials, or the ‘HFNO’ group to receive HFNO alone, or the ‘standard oxygen-group’ to receive oxygen therapy alone.

The primary endpoint is day 28 all-cause mortality. The main secondary endpoint is intubation rate at day 28. The exploratory endpoints are intubation rates at day 3 and day 7; oxygenation up to day 7; need for other rescue oxygen therapy up to day 7; ICU and hospital length of stay; and mortality rates in ICU, hospital and at day 90.

The main objective is to assess if NIV and/or HFNO is superior to standard oxygen to reduce day 28 mortality rate in hypoxaemic ARF. Additional comparisons between predefined stratum following randomisation will be performed: (1) medical versus postoperative admissions, (2) among medical (immunocompromised vs non-immunocompromised) and (3) among postoperative (abdominal vs cardio-thoracic).

An adaptive design will be used. Two interim analyses will be performed after 700 and 1400 included patients among the 2100 planned.

The study project has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee ‘Comité-de-Protection-des-Personnes Sud-Est V-23-CHUM-01 Cat2 2022-A02761-42/1’. Informed consent is required. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences. If NIV and/or HFNO reduce the mortality at day 28, NIV and/or HFNO could be proposed to become one of the first-line therapies in hypoxaemic ARF patients.

NCT05812911.

In non-intubated patients, symptomatic treatment of hypoxaemic respiratory failure is still debated, with different options: (1) standard oxygen therapy (SOT), (2) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) and (3) non-invasive ventilation (NIV). The objective of this study is to compare the effects of HFNC and NIV on lung volumes assessed by CT scan to allow a better understanding of their effectiveness.

The HONIVAH study (High-flow Oxygen therapy and Non-Invasive ventilation on lung Volumes and on upper Airway in Hypoxemic critically ill patients) is an investigator-initiated, prospective, single-centre, physiological, randomised, parallel-group, unblinded trial with an electronic system-based randomisation. Patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure, defined as the need for SOT flow ≥3 L/min to maintain a pulsed oxygen saturation ≥95%, and a CT scan prescribed by the physician in charge of the patient, will be randomly assigned to the HFNC group or the NIV group. Two inspiratory thoracic CT scans will be performed, one with SOT as part of the routine patient management and a second thoracic CT scan with HFNC or NIV, depending on the allocation group. The primary outcome is the comparison of the relative variation in ‘poorly aerated’ and ‘non-aerated’ lung volumes before and after the intervention between the HFNC group and NIV group, assessed by thoracic CT scan. Secondary outcomes included the variation in tracheal cross-sectional upper airway area, lung volumes, gas exchange and patient comfort.

The study project has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud-Ouest et Outre-mer 1, France, 2022-A02458-35). Informed consent is required. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05643911.

In the intensive care unit (ICU), brain-injured patients are frequently exposed to mechanical ventilation to protect the brain and preserve physiology. After intracranial pressure control and sedation withdrawal, this population is prone to residual disorder of consciousness and altered neurological control of respiratory drive, cough and airway protection. Consequently, extubation failure is more frequent than in general ICU patients, and there is no clear evidence-based clinical trigger for extubation. Different risk factors for extubation failure were described in observational trials, and clinical scores were constructed to detect patients at higher risk of extubation failure. Nevertheless, none of these scores were prospectively tested as interventional tools to prevent extubation failure. The Brain-Injured Patients Extubation Readiness (BIPER) study is an ongoing multicentre stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial aiming to test one of these scores as an intervention protocol to decrease extubation failure in neurocritical care patients with residual disorder of consciousness.

Trial design: Stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial with five groups of three to six clusters (20 ICUs). Groups of clusters are randomised to five possible sequences of nine periods with crossing from a control condition period (usual care for extubation) to an intervention condition period (BIPER-guided extubation protocol), separated by a 3-month transition period.

Participants: Participants are clinically stable brain-injured patients (18–75 years old), requiring more than 48 hours of invasive mechanical ventilation with residual disorder of consciousness after sedation withdrawal, and who achieved a spontaneous breathing trial.

Interventions: The control condition consists of extubation based on usual care and local practice. The intervention condition consists of extubation triggered by a clinical score evaluating deglutition, gag reflex, cough and visual tracking (Coma Recovery Scale-Revised Visual Scale).

Objective: To determine whether adoption of an extubation protocol based on a clinical score can lessen extubation failure compared with usual care in brain-injured patients with residual disorder of consciousness.

Outcome: The primary outcome measure is extubation failure, defined within 5 days following extubation. The key secondary outcome measure is time to effective extubation.

Randomisation: Clusters are allocated to sequence of treatments using random blocks randomisation. The constitution of groups of clusters was stratified according to planned recruitment of each centre.

Blinding: Investigators and outcome assessors are not blinded to condition allocation.

Number of participants: 660 patients (220 in the control condition and 440 in the intervention condition).

The BIPER trial was approved by an independent ethics committee. The study began on 9 February 2020, and 571 participants are now included. Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed medical journal. 

NCT04080440.

Differences in the profile of the vaginal microbiota (VMB) have been associated with pregnancy rates after medical assisted reproduction (MAR) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Monitoring the VMB profile of IVF patients creates an opportunity to identify the best window for IVF treatment and embryo transfer. The ReceptIVFity test is a predictive test that assesses the chances of becoming pregnant in women undergoing IVF treatment based on the VMB composition. A VMB profile dominated by beneficial strains, most notably Lactobacillus species, is associated with increased pregnancy chances. However, to date, limited evidence is available on the effect of active modification strategies to facilitate the modulation of the VMB profile to help restore a VMB dominated by Lactobacillus species.

This is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind intervention study. The study will involve 1:1 randomisation to one of the two arms: oral probiotic or placebo. Vaginal and rectal swabs will be collected at intake and 4, 6 and 8 weeks after the start of the treatment. Our objective is to determine if oral probiotic treatment improves the VMB profile of IVF patients from a low to a medium/high ReceptIVFity score, compared with placebo treatment. Secondary outcomes are: the potential of the bacterial strains in the oral probiotic to be detected in the vaginal tract and/or in the gut, and if the treatment leads to an increased ongoing pregnancy rate after IVF.

Ethical approval was obtained by the local medical ethical review committee at the Maastricht University Medical Centre. Findings from this study will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences.

CCMO NL81210.068.22, registered 25 September 2023.