FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Maintaining independence in individuals with dementia at home after a fall: a protocol for the UK pilot cluster randomised controlled trial MAINTAIN

Por: Greene · L. · Barber · R. · Bingham · A. · Connors · J. · Conroy · S. · Elkhafer · K. · Fox · C. · Goodwin · V. · Gordon · A. · Hall · A. J. · Harwood · R. H. · Hulme · C. · Jackson · T. · Litherland · R. · Morgan-Trimmer · S. · Pankiewicz · S. · Parry · S. W. · Sharma · A. · Ukoumunne · O.
Introduction

Individuals with dementia face an increased risk of falls. Falls can cause a decline in the individual’s overall functionality. All types of falls, including those that do not result in injury, can lead to psychosocial consequences, such as diminished confidence and a fear of falling. Projections indicate a rising trend in dementia diagnoses, implying an increase in fall incidents. Yet, there is a lack of evidence to support interventions for people living with dementia who have fallen. Our objective is to test the feasibility of a falls intervention trial for people with dementia.

Method and analysis

This is a UK-based two-arm pilot cluster randomised controlled trial. In this study, six collaborating sites, which form the clusters, will be randomly allocated to either the intervention arm or the control arm (receiving treatment as usual) at a 1:1 ratio. During the 6 month recruitment phase, each cluster will enrol 10 dyads, comprising 10 individuals with dementia and their respective carers, leading to a total sample size of 60 dyads. The primary outcomes are the feasibility parameters for a full trial (ie, percentage consented, follow-up rate and cost framework). Secondary outcomes include activities of daily living, quality of life, fall efficacy, mobility, goal attainment, cognitive status, occurrence of falls, carer burden and healthcare service utilisation. Outcome measures will be collected at baseline and 28 weeks, with an additional assessment scheduled at 12 weeks for the healthcare service utilisation questionnaire. An embedded process evaluation, consisting of interviews and observations with participants and healthcare professionals, will explore how the intervention operates and the fidelity of study processes.

Ethics and dissemination

The study was approved by the NHS and local authority research governance and research ethics committees (NHS REC reference: 23/WA/0126). The results will be shared at meetings and conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN16413728.

Evaluation of a COVID‐19 fundamental nursing care guideline versus usual care: The COVID‐NURSE cluster randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

Design

Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial.

Methods

Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses.

Results

We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570–572 (98.1%–98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the ‘other’ ethnicity subgroup.

Conclusion

We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care.

Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care

We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required.

Impact

Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care.

Reporting Method

CONSORT and CONSERVE.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings.

❌