Conectar
This study explored how Structured Medication Reviews (SMRs) are being undertaken and the challenges to their successful implementation and sustainability.
A cross-sectional mixed methods online survey.
Primary care in England.
120 clinical pharmacists with experience in conducting SMRs in primary care.
Survey responses were received from clinical pharmacists working in 15 different regions. The majority were independent prescribers (62%, n=74), and most were employed by Primary Care Networks (65%, n=78), delivering SMRs for one or more general practices. 61% (n=73) had completed, or were currently enrolled in, the approved training pathway. Patient selection was largely driven by the primary care contract specification: care home residents, patients with polypharmacy, patients on medicines commonly associated with medication errors, patients with severe frailty and/or patients using potentially addictive pain management medication. Only 26% (n=36) of respondents reported providing patients with information in advance. The majority of SMRs were undertaken remotely by telephone and were 21–30 min in length. Much variation was reported in approaches to conducting SMRs, with SMRs in care homes being deemed the most challenging due to additional complexities involved. Challenges included not having sufficient time to prepare adequately, address complex polypharmacy and complete follow-up work generated by SMRs, issues relating to organisational support, competing national priorities and lack of ‘buy-in’ from some patients and General Practitioners.
These results offer insights into the role being played by the clinical pharmacy workforce in a new country-wide initiative to improve the quality and safety of care for patients taking multiple medicines. Better patient preparation and trust, alongside continuing professional development, more support and oversight for clinical pharmacists conducting SMRs, could lead to more efficient medication reviews. However, a formal evaluation of the potential of SMRs to optimise safe medicines use for patients in England is now warranted.
People living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC) admitted to hospital have worse outcomes and report lower satisfaction with care. Understanding how people living with MLTC admitted to the hospital are cared for is a key step in redesigning systems to better meet their needs. This scoping review aimed to identify existing evidence regarding clinical decision-making and care pathways for people with MLTC admitted to the hospital. In addition, we described research methods used to investigate hospital care for people living with MLTC.
A scoping review methodological framework formed the basis of this review. We took a narrative approach to describe our study findings.
A search of Medline, Embase and PsycInfo electronic databases in July 2024 captured relevant literature published from 1996 to 2024.
Studies that explored care pathways and clinical decision-making for people living with MLTC or co-morbidities, studies conducted fully or primarily in secondary or tertiary care published in English Language and with full text available.
Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two authors. Extracted data included country of origin, aims, study design, any use of an analytical framework or design, type of analyses performed, setting, participant group, number of participants included, health condition(s) studied and main findings. Included studies were categorised as either: studies reviewing existing literature, studies reviewing guidance, studies utilising qualitative methods or ‘other’.
A total of 521 articles were screened, 17 of which met the inclusion criteria. We identified a range of investigative methods. Eight studies used qualitative methods (interviews or focus groups), four were guideline reviews, four were literature reviews and one was classified as ‘other’. Often, researchers choose to combine methods, gathering evidence both empirically and from reviews of existing evidence or guidelines. However, none of the empirical qualitative studies directly or solely investigated clinical decision-making when treating people living with MLTC in acute care and the emergency department. Studies identified complexities in care for people living with MLTC, and some authors attempted to make their own recommendations or draft their own guidance to counter these.
This scoping review highlights the limitations of the current evidence base, which, while diverse in methods, provides sparse insights into clinical decision-making and care pathways for people living with MLTC admitted to hospital. Further research is recommended, including reviews of guidelines and gathering insights from both healthcare professionals and people living with MLTC.
To determine associations between arm and ankle systolic blood pressures (SBPs), develop and validate a multivariable model predicting arm SBP from ankle SBP, and investigate associations between ankle SBP, cardiovascular disease and mortality.
Ankle-arm SBP differences were examined in two-stage individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses using multivariable hierarchical linear regression models. Models were used to derive and validate a prediction model for arm SBP based on ankle SBP. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve analyses. Prognostic associations of ankle SBP with outcomes were examined using Cox proportional hazards models.
Searches identified cohorts for the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference IPD (INTERPRESS-IPD) Collaboration from Medline, Old Medline, Medline in process, Embase and CINAHL databases from inception until January 2017; unpublished data were also sought. Required primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and/or fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events.
Prospective studies from community, primary care or general clinic settings, without language restriction, that recorded SBP in both arms were eligible. Adults aged ≥18 years with SBP measured in all four limbs, in a supine position, were included in the current analyses. People with peripheral artery disease were excluded.
Anonymised datasets were individually cleaned and then combined into a single dataset for the INTERPRESS-IPD Collaboration.
The current dataset included 33 710 participants from 14 studies; mean age 58 years, 45% female, mean baseline arm blood pressure 138/80 (SD: 20/12) mm Hg. Mean ankle SBP was 12.0 mm Hg (95% CI 8.8 to 15.2) higher than arm SBP. The multivariable model predicting arm SBP from ankle SBP demonstrated excellent performance (AUROC curves, sensitivities and specificities were >0.82, 0.80 and 0.82, respectively, at all BP thresholds from 130 to 160 mm Hg). Model performance was superior to existing arithmetic formulae.
Ankle SBP was neither associated with all-cause nor cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.000 (0.997 to 1.002; p=0.682) and 1.001 (0.996 to 1.005; p=0.840), respectively). However, lower-reading ankle SBP was associated with fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular events (HR 1.005 (1.002 to 1.007; p
On average, ankle SBP is 12 mm Hg higher than arm SBP. Estimating individual arm SBP from ankle SBP measurements with a multivariable model is more accurate than existing fixed arithmetic formulae. This model, operationalised in an online calculator (https://ablebp.research.exeter.ac.uk/), could facilitate hypertension management and cardiovascular care for people unable to have arm SBP measured.
CRD42015031227.
To explore youth, caregiver and staff perspectives on their vision of trauma-informed care, and to identify and understand potential considerations for the implementation of a trauma-informed care programme in an inpatient mental health unit within a paediatric hospital.
We applied the Interpretive Description approach, guided by complexity theory and the Implementation Roadmap, and used Applied Thematic Analysis methods.
Twenty-five individuals participated in individual or group interviews between March and June 2022, including 21 healthcare professionals, 3 youth and 1 caregiver. We identified two overarching themes. The first theme, ‘Understanding and addressing the underlying reasons for distress’, related to participants’ understanding and vision of TIC in the current setting comprising: (a) ‘Participants’ understanding of TIC’; (b) ‘Trauma screening and trauma processing within TIC’; (c) ‘Taking “a more individualized approach”’; (d) ‘Unit programming’; and (e) “Connecting to the community”. The second theme, ‘Factors that support or limit successful TIC implementation’ comprises: (a) ‘The need for a broad “cultural shift”’; (b) ‘The physical environment on the unit’; and (c) ‘Factors that may limit successful implementation’.
We identified five key domains to consider within trauma-informed care implementation: (a) the centrality of engagement with youth, caregivers and staff in trauma-informed care delivery and implementation, (b) trauma-informed care core programme components, (c) factors that may support or limit success in implementing trauma-informed care within the mental health unit and (d) hospital-wide and (e) the importance of intersectoral collaboration (partnering with external organizations and sectors).
When implementing TIC, there is an ongoing need to increase clarity regarding TIC interventions and implementation initiatives. Youth, caregiver and healthcare professional participants shared considerations important for planning the delivery and implementation of trauma-informed care in their setting. We identified five key domains to consider within trauma-informed care implementation: (a) the centrality of relational engagement, (b) trauma-informed care programme components, (c) factors that may support or limit successful implementation of trauma-informed care within the mental health unit and (d) hospital-wide and (e) the importance of intersectoral collaboration. Organizations wishing to implement trauma-informed care should consider ongoing engagement with all relevant knowledge user groups throughout the process.
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR).
The local hospital research institute's Patient and Family Advisory Committee reviewed the draft study methods and provided feedback.
Busyness as a construct within modern healthcare is complex and multidimensional. To date, few studies have sought to explore how busyness influences family-centred care. This study explored the influence of busyness on the delivery of family-centred care for nurses and parents.
Ethnography was selected as the research design. The study site was a metropolitan tertiary hospital inpatient paediatric unit in Sydney, Australia. Semi-structured interview and non-participant observation techniques were used for data collection. Ten paediatric nurses and 10 parents were interviewed and 40 h of non-participant observations were undertaken. The COREQ was used to report the study.
The findings are presented as three key themes: (i) ‘Supporting family-centred care’ in which participants detail beliefs about the nurse-parent relationships and how despite busyness nurses sought out moments to engage with parents; (ii) ‘Being present at the bedside’ identified the challenges in optimising safety and how parents adapted their way of being and interacting on the unit; and (iii) ‘The emotional cost of busyness’ and how this influenced nurse-parent interactions, care delivery and family-centred care.
The ethnography has given shape to social understandings of busyness, the complexities of paediatric nursing and family-centred care. The culture of care changed in moments of busyness and transformed parent and nursing roles, expectations and collaborative care that at time generated internal emotional conflict and tension.
Given the increasing work demands across health systems, new agile ways of working need to ensure maintenance of a family-centred approach. Strategies need to be developed during periods of busyness to better support collaborative connections and the well-being of paediatric nurses and parents. At an organisational level, fostering a positive workplace culture that shares a vision for family-centred care and collaboration is essential.
Parents of sick children admitted to an acute paediatric inpatient ward were invited to be a participant in a single interview. Parents were aware of the study through ward advertisement and informal discussions with the researchers or senior clinical staff. Engagement with parents was important as healthcare delivery in paediatrics is focused on the delivery of family-centred care. To minimise the risk of child distress and separation anxiety, children were present during the parent interview. Whist children and young people voices were not silenced during the interview process, for this study the parent's voice remained the focus. While important, due to limited resources, parents were not involved in the design analysis or interpretation of the data or in the preparation of this manuscript.
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
FreshRSS 