FreshRSS

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

Prospective cohort study of genomic newborn screening: BabyScreen+ pilot study protocol

Por: Lunke · S. · Bouffler · S. E. · Downie · L. · Caruana · J. · Amor · D. J. · Archibald · A. · Bombard · Y. · Christodoulou · J. · Clausen · M. · De Fazio · P. · Greaves · R. F. · Hollizeck · S. · Kanga-Parabia · A. · Lang · N. · Lynch · F. · Peters · R. · Sadedin · S. · Tutty · E. · Eggers
Introduction

Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is a highly successful public health programme that uses biochemical and other assays to screen for severe but treatable childhood-onset conditions. Introducing genomic sequencing into NBS programmes increases the range of detectable conditions but raises practical and ethical issues. Evidence from prospectively ascertained cohorts is required to guide policy and future implementation. This study aims to develop, implement and evaluate a genomic NBS (gNBS) pilot programme.

Methods and analysis

The BabyScreen+ study will pilot gNBS in three phases. In the preimplementation phase, study materials, including education resources, decision support and data collection tools, will be designed. Focus groups and key informant interviews will also be undertaken to inform delivery of the study and future gNBS programmes. During the implementation phase, we will prospectively recruit birth parents in Victoria, Australia, to screen 1000 newborns for over 600 severe, treatable, childhood-onset conditions. Clinically accredited whole genome sequencing will be performed following standard NBS using the same sample. High chance results will be returned by genetic healthcare professionals, with follow-on genetic and other confirmatory testing and referral to specialist services as required. The postimplementation phase will evaluate the feasibility of gNBS as the primary aim, and assess ethical, implementation, psychosocial and health economic factors to inform future service delivery.

Ethics and dissemination

This project received ethics approval from the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne Research Ethics Committee: HREC/91500/RCHM-2023, HREC/90929/RCHM-2022 and HREC/91392/RCHM-2022. Findings will be disseminated to policy-makers, and through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

Interactions that support older inpatients with cognitive impairments to engage with falls prevention in hospitals: An ethnographic study

Abstract

Aims

To explore the nature of interactions that enable older inpatients with cognitive impairments to engage with hospital staff on falls prevention.

Design

Ethnographic study.

Methods

Ethnographic observations on orthopaedic and older person wards in English hospitals (251.25 h) and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 50 staff, 28 patients and three carers. Findings were analysed using a framework approach.

Results

Interactions were often informal and personalised. Staff qualities that supported engagement in falls prevention included the ability to empathise and negotiate, taking patient perspectives into account. Although registered nurses had limited time for this, families/carers and other staff, including engagement workers, did so and passed information to nurses.

Conclusions

Some older inpatients with cognitive impairments engaged with staff on falls prevention. Engagement enabled them to express their needs and collaborate, to an extent, on falls prevention activities. To support this, we recommend wider adoption in hospitals of engagement workers and developing the relational skills that underpin engagement in training programmes for patient-facing staff.

Implications for Profession and Patient Care

Interactions that support cognitively impaired inpatients to engage in falls prevention can involve not only nurses, but also families/carers and non-nursing staff, with potential to reduce pressures on busy nurses and improve patient safety.

Reporting Method

The paper adheres to EQUATOR guidelines, Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patient/public contributors were involved in study design, evaluation and data analysis. They co-authored this manuscript.

❌