Conectar
by Dov Shalman
ObjectivesThis retrospective cohort study assessed whether implementation of a joint inpatient palliative care (IPC) and ICU multidisciplinary rounding model affected clinical outcomes including ICU length of stay (LOS).
MethodsBeginning in October of 2018, an IPC physician joined the pre-existing ICU multidisciplinary rounds. Data were collected for ICU patients admitted during a 6-month period before this intervention and a 6-month period after the intervention. Data were extracted from an integrated electronic medical records (EMR) data system and compared by Wilcoxon and chi-square test for continuous and categorical variables respectively. Negative binomial regression was used to analyze the primary outcome measure, ICU LOS.
ResultsPatients in the intervention group spent fewer days in the ICU (3.7 vs. 3.9 days, p = 0.05; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70–0.97, p = 0.02) and in the hospital (7.5 vs. 7.8 days, p Conclusion
The presented joint IPC-ICU multidisciplinary rounding model was associated with a statistically significant reduction in ICU and hospital LOS, but the clinical significance of this reduction is unclear.
Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a cornerstone for safe, high-quality care. Implementation science recognizes that many factors influence the successful use of EBP, from attitudes and beliefs, self-efficacy, and knowledge and skills to contextual factors related to unit and organizational culture. This integrative review aimed to identify valid and reliable instruments measuring critical EBP domains with nursing professionals.
A systematic search of the literature was conducted. CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Joanna Briggs were searched to identify original research publications testing the reliability and validity of EBP nursing instruments.
Of 347 records, 48 studies representing 50 instruments were identified as having undergone psychometric testing, thus meeting the inclusion criteria. Most instruments were validated in English-speaking countries. Content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency standards were met for 70%, 62%, and 94% of instruments, respectively. Limited testing was found for other types of validity, test–retest reliability, acceptability, feasibility, or responsivity and sensitivity, thus representing gaps in psychometric validation. Less than 20% of instruments have been translated to other languages limiting their use to advance EBP worldwide.
Eighty-two percent of instruments met minimal psychometric standards and are sound for education, practice, and research. Expanding psychometric testing and utilizing validated EBP instruments will further the EBP movement to improve global population health.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a placebo comparator are considered the gold standard study design when evaluating healthcare interventions. These are challenging to design and deliver in surgery. Guidance recommends pilot and feasibility work to optimise main trial design and conduct; however, the extent to which this occurs in surgery is unknown.
A systematic review identified randomised placebo-controlled surgical trials. Articles published from database inception to 31 December 2020 were retrieved from Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE and CENTRAL electronic databases, hand-searching and expert knowledge. Pilot/feasibility work conducted prior to the RCTs was then identified from examining citations and reference lists. Where studies explicitly stated their intent to inform the design and/or conduct of the future main placebo-controlled surgical trial, they were included. Publication type, clinical area, treatment intervention, number of centres, sample size, comparators, aims and text about the invasive placebo intervention were extracted.
From 131 placebo surgical RCTs included in the systematic review, 47 potentially eligible pilot/feasibility studies were identified. Of these, four were included as true pilot/feasibility work. Three were original articles, one a conference abstract; three were conducted in orthopaedic surgery and one in oral and maxillofacial surgery. All four included pilot RCTs, with an invasive surgical placebo intervention, randomising 9–49 participants in 1 or 2 centres. They explored the acceptability of recruitment and the invasive placebo intervention to patients and trial personnel, and whether blinding was possible. One study examined the characteristics of the proposed invasive placebo intervention using in-depth interviews.
Published studies reporting feasibility/pilot work undertaken to inform main placebo surgical trials are scarce. In view of the difficulties of undertaking placebo surgical trials, it is recommended that pilot/feasibility studies are conducted, and more are reported to share key findings and optimise the design of main RCTs.
CRD42021287371.
FreshRSS 