Conectar
Decisions about nurse staffing models are a concern for health systems globally due to workforce retention and well-being challenges. Nurse staffing models range from all Registered Nurse workforce to a mix of differentially educated nurses and aides (regulated and unregulated), such as Licensed Practical or Vocational Nurses and Health Care Aides. Systematic reviews have examined relationships between specific nurse staffing models and client, staff and health system outcomes (eg, mortality, adverse events, retention, healthcare costs), with inconclusive or contradictory results. No evidence has been synthesised and consolidated on how, why and under what contexts certain staffing models produce different outcomes. We aim to describe how we will (1) conduct a realist review to determine how nurse staffing models produce different client, staff and health system outcomes, in which contexts and through what mechanisms and (2) coproduce recommendations with decision-makers to guide future research and implementation of nurse staffing models.
Using an integrated knowledge translation approach with researchers and decision-makers as partners, we are conducting a three-phase realist review. In this protocol, we report on the final two phases of this realist review. We will use Citation tracking, tracing Lead authors, identifying Unpublished materials, Google Scholar searching, Theory tracking, ancestry searching for Early examples, and follow-up of Related projects (CLUSTER) searching, specifically designed for realist searches as the review progresses. We will search empirical evidence to test identified programme theories and engage stakeholders to contextualise findings, finalise programme theories document our search processes as per established realist review methods.
Ethical approval for this study was provided by the Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Alberta (Study ID Pro00100425). We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications, national and international conference presentations, regional briefing sessions, webinars and lay summary.
This observational study compares the effectiveness of baricitinib (BARI), a targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (tsDMARD), with alternative biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), from a prospective, longitudinal cohort.
We compared patients initiating a treatment course (TC) of BARI, tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or bDMARDs with other modes of action (OMA), during a period when all these DMARDs were available in Switzerland. The primary outcome was drug maintenance; secondary outcomes included discontinuation rates related specifically to ineffectiveness and adverse events. We further analysed rates of low disease activity (LDA) and remission (REM) at 12 months and drug maintenance in bDMARD-naïve and tsDMARD-naïve population.
A total of 1053 TCs were included: 273 on BARI, 473 on TNFi and 307 on OMA. BARI was prescribed to older patients with longer disease duration and more previous treatment failures than TNFi. Compared with BARI, the adjusted drug maintenance was significantly shorter for TNFi (HR for discontinuation: 1.76; 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.35) but not compared with OMA (HR 1.27; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.72). These results were similar in the b/tsDMARD-naïve population. The higher discontinuation of TNFi was mostly due to increased discontinuation for ineffectiveness (HR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.15), with no significant differences in drug discontinuation for adverse events (HR 1.46; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.57). The LDA and REM rates at 12 months did not differ significantly between the three groups.
BARI demonstrated a significantly higher drug maintenance compared with TNFi, mainly due to lower drug discontinuations for ineffectiveness. We found no difference in drug maintenance between BARI and OMA. Clinical outcomes did not differ between the three groups. Our results suggest that BARI is an appropriate therapeutic alternative to bDMARDs in the management of RA.
To identify and characterize the thematic foci, structure and evolution of nursing research on surveillance and patient safety.
Bibliometric analysis.
Bibliometric methods were employed to analyse 1145 articles, using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer software.
The Scopus bibliographic database was searched on April 7, 2023.
A keyword co-occurrence analysis found the most frequently occurring keywords to be: patient safety, nursing, nurses, adverse events, monitoring, critical care, quality improvement, vital signs, safety, alarm fatigue, education, nursing care, surveillance, clinical alarms, failure to rescue, evidence-based practice, acute care, clinical deterioration, communication, intensive care. Network mapping, clustering and time-tracking of the keywords revealed the focal themes, structure and evolution of the research field.
By assessing critical areas of the nursing research field, this study extends and enriches the current discourse on surveillance and patient safety for nursing researchers and practitioners. Critical challenges still have to be met by nurses, however, including the failure to rescue deteriorating patients. Further knowledge and understanding of surveillance and patient safety must be successfully translated from research to practice.
This study highlights the gaps in nursing knowledge with regard to surveillance and patient safety and encourages nursing professionals to turn to evidence-based surveillance practices.
In addressing the problem of surveillance and its effect on patient safety, this study found that, in most clinical care settings, preventing failures to rescue and adverse patient outcomes still remains a challenge for the nursing profession. This study should have an impact on nursing academics' future research themes and on nursing professionals' future clinical practices.
Relevant EQUATOR guidelines have been adhered to by employing recognized bibliometric reporting methods.
by Zhen Zhao, Owen Lou, Yiyang Wang, Raymond Yin, Carrie Gong, Florence Deng, Ethan C. Wu, Jing Yi Xie, Jerry Wu, Avery Ma, Yongzhi Guo, Wei Ting Xiong
While systemic corticosteroids quicken patient recovery during acute exacerbations of COPD, they also have many adverse effects. The optimal duration of corticosteroid administration remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare patient outcomes between short- (≤7 days) and long- (>7 days) corticosteroid regimens in adults with acute exacerbations of COPD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and hand searches were used to identify eligible studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and ROBINS-I. Data were summarized as ORs (odds ratios) or MDs (mean differences) whenever possible and qualitatively described otherwise. A total of 11532 participants from eight RCTs and three retrospective cohort studies were included, with 1296 from seven RCTs and two cohort studies eligible for meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was present in the methodology and settings of the studies. The OR (using short duration as the treatment arm) for mortality was 0.76 (95% CI = 0.40–1.44, n = 1055). The MD for hospital length-of-stay was -0.91 days (95% CI = -1.81–-0.02 days, n = 421). The OR for re-exacerbations was 1.31 (95% CI = 0.90–1.90, n = 552). The OR for hyperglycemia was 0.90 (95% CI = 0.60–1.33, n = 423). The OR for infection incidence was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.59–1.156, n = 389). The MD for one-second forced expiratory volume change was -18.40 mL (95% CI = -111.80–75.01 mL, n = 161). The RCTs generally had low or unclear risks of bias, while the cohort studies had serious or moderate risks of bias. Our meta-analyses were affected by imprecision due to insufficient data. Some heterogeneity was present in the results, suggesting population, setting, and treatment details are potential prognostic factors. Our evidence suggests that short-duration treatments are not worse than long-duration treatments in moderate/severe exacerbations and may lead to considerably better outcomes in milder exacerbations. This supports the current GOLD guidelines. Trial registration: Our protocol is registered in PROSPERO: CRD42023374410.To establish a consensus on the structure and process of healthcare services for patients with concussion in England to facilitate better healthcare quality and patient outcome.
This consensus study followed the modified Delphi methodology with five phases: participant identification, item development, two rounds of voting and a meeting to finalise the consensus statements. The predefined threshold for agreement was set at ≥70%.
Specialist outpatient services.
Members of the UK Head Injury Network were invited to participate. The network consists of clinical specialists in head injury practising in emergency medicine, neurology, neuropsychology, neurosurgery, paediatric medicine, rehabilitation medicine and sports and exercise medicine in England.
A consensus statement on the structure and process of specialist outpatient care for patients with concussion in England.
55 items were voted on in the first round. 29 items were removed following the first voting round and 3 items were removed following the second voting round. Items were modified where appropriate. A final 18 statements reached consensus covering 3 main topics in specialist healthcare services for concussion; care pathway to structured follow-up, prognosis and measures of recovery, and provision of outpatient clinics.
This work presents statements on how the healthcare services for patients with concussion in England could be redesigned to meet their health needs. Future work will seek to implement these into the clinical pathway.
FreshRSS 