Conectar
Dementia is a complex medical condition that poses significant challenges to healthcare systems and support services. People living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers experience complex needs often exacerbated by social isolation and challenges in accessing support. Social prescribing (SP) seeks to enable PLWD and their carers to access community and voluntary sector resources to support them address such needs. Existing research, however, does not describe what SP interventions are currently in place in dementia care. Little is known about the needs these interventions are designed to address, the reasons that lead PLWD and their carers to participate in them, their effectiveness and the extent to which they could increase positive health outcomes if adopted and how.
A complex intervention systematic review of SP for PLWD and/or their carers will be conducted using an iterative logic model approach. Six electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane/CENTRAL) and two grey literature databases (EThOS and CORE) were searched for publications between 1 January 2003 and June 2023, supplemented by handsearching of reference lists of included studies. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment, using Gough’s Weight of Evidence Framework, will be independently performed by two reviewers. A narrative approach will be employed to synthesise and report quantitative and qualitative data. Reporting will be informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Complex Interventions extension statement and checklist.
No ethical approval is required due to this systematic review operating only with secondary sources. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and meetings with key stakeholders including healthcare professionals, patient and carer groups, community organisations (eg, the Social Prescribing Network and the Evidence Collaborative at the National Academy for Social Prescribing), policymakers and funding bodies.
CRD42023428625.
We aimed to define the epidemiology of COVID-19 outbreaks in aged care facilities (ACFs) during the postvaccine period, including vaccine effectiveness (VE) for this high-risk group.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched through 1 September 2023.
Any original observational studies and trials reporting data on COVID-19 outbreaks among the partially/fully vaccinated residents from ACFs during or after the worldwide implementation of vaccine roll-out.
We estimated the attack rate, case fatality rate, mortality rate and VE during postvaccine period. Random effect model was adopted for meta-analysis. Quality assessment on all included studies was performed using the Meta Quality Appraisal Tool.
38 articles were included from 12 countries reporting 79 outbreaks with 1708 confirmed cases of COVID-19 from 78 ACFs. The pooled attack rate was 28% (95% CI 20% to 37%) among the fully vaccinated residents. Two-thirds (62.5%) of the index cases were unvaccinated healthcare professionals (eg, physicians, nurses) and caregivers. Unvaccinated residents had a significantly higher rates (12%) (95% CI 7% to 19%) of mortality compared with the vaccinated residents (2%) (95% CI% 1 to 4%) and the post-COVID-19 vaccine estimates for case fatality rate (13% vs 23%) and hospitalisation rate (17% vs 37%) were substantially lower. VE in preventing disease among residents in ACFs was 73% (95% CI 49% to 86). Overall, the included studies were heterogeneous in nature, however, the risk of bias was low to moderate.
Our study reaffirmed the impact of vaccination as a key public health measure to minimise the burden of COVID-19 in ACFs. Facilities with higher crowding indexes should be prioritised for vaccination and should advocate for higher vaccination targets among staff and residents as a critical intervention strategy to minimise disease burden in this vulnerable population.
Semi-urgent surgery where surgical intervention is required within 48 h of admission and the patient is medically stable is vulnerable to scheduling delays. Given the challenges in accessing health care, there is a need for a detailed understanding of the factors that impact decisions on scheduling semi-urgent surgeries.
To identify and describe the organisational, departmental and contextual factors that determine healthcare professionals' prioritising patients for semi-urgent surgeries.
We used the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Four online databases were used: EBSCO Academic Search Complete, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, OVID Embase and EBSCO Medline. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they published in English and focussed on the scheduling of patients for surgery were included. Data were extracted by one author and checked by another and analysed descriptively. Findings were synthesises using the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendations framework.
Twelve articles published between 1999 and 2022 were included. The Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendations framework highlighted themes of emergency surgery scheduling and its impact on operating room utilisation. Gaps in the management of operating room utilisation and the incorporation of semi-urgent surgeries into operating schedules were also identified. Finally, the lack of consensus on the definition of semi-urgent surgery and the parameters used to assign surgical acuity to patients was evident.
This scoping review identified patterns in the scheduling methods, and involvement of key decision makers. Yet there is limited evidence about how key decision makers reach consensus on prioritising patients for semi-urgent surgery and its impact on patient experience.
No Patient or Public Contribution.
Many people living with dementia experience sleep disturbance and there are no known effective treatments. Non-pharmacological treatment options should be the first-line sleep management. For family carers, relatives’ sleep disturbance leads to interruption of their sleep, low mood and breakdown of care. Our team developed and delivered DREAMS START (Dementia RElAted Manual for Sleep; STrAtegies for RelaTives), a multimodal non-pharmacological intervention, showing it to be feasible and acceptable. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to establish whether DREAMS START is clinically cost-effective in reducing sleep disturbances in people living with dementia living at home compared with usual care.
We will recruit 370 participant dyads (people living with dementia and family carers) from memory services, community mental health teams and the Join Dementia Research Website in England. Those meeting inclusion criteria will be randomised (1:1) either to DREAMS START or to usual treatment. DREAMS START is a six-session (1 hour/session), manualised intervention delivered every 1–2 weeks by supervised, non-clinically trained graduates. Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 4 months and 8 months with the primary outcome being the Sleep Disorders Inventory score at 8 months. Secondary outcomes for the person with dementia (all proxy) include quality of life, daytime sleepiness, neuropsychiatric symptoms and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes for the family carer include quality of life, sleep disturbance, mood, burden and service use and caring/work activity. Analyses will be intention-to-treat and we will conduct a process evaluation.
London—Camden & Kings Cross Ethics Committee (20/LO/0894) approved the study. We will disseminate our findings in high-impact peer-reviewed journals and at national and international conferences. This research has the potential to improve sleep and quality of life for people living with dementia and their carers, in a feasible and scalable intervention.
To explore the benefits and challenges of a recently introduced Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing workforce from the perspective of Nurses and Registered Undergraduate Students of Nursing, in a major metropolitan hospital in Australia in 2020.
A qualitative descriptive study was undertaken using individual interviews and focus groups.
Purposively selected employed Registered Undergraduate Students of Nursing and nurses who worked with them were interviewed, using a semi-structured format. Recordings were transcribed and coded using NVivo software. Reflexive thematic analysis using an inductive approach was undertaken.
Four major themes were revealed: (i) Navigating the programme, (ii) Belonging and integration; (iii) Patient care; and (iv) Continuing Development. Initial challenges were common, often related to clarifying the scope of practice for the new role. Ongoing issues were associated with gaps in understanding the role and lack of integration into the team. Mostly, nurses and Registered Undergraduate Students of Nursing built positive, professional relationships. Nurses valued the Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing knowledge and skill level, reporting improved workload and work experiences when the Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing was on shift. Nurses believed that the Registered Undergraduate Students of Nursing enhanced patient care. Registered Undergraduate Students of Nursing described positive, therapeutic relationships with patients. Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing employment provided opportunities for new learning, leading to increased efficiency and confidence on clinical placement.
This employment model benefited the Registered Undergraduate Students of Nursing and nurses who worked with them. In the absence of adequate training and support, challenges remained unresolved and negatively impacted the experience for nurses. In addition to university-level education and clinical placement, the employment model can create a third space for student learning via on-the-job training. The study supports the ongoing employment of student nurses through the Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing model.
This study contributes to the very small body of literature investigating Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing workforces in Australian hospitals. It is the first to explore the experiences of both nurses and students working together in a major metropolitan setting and also the first in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reflected a mostly positive experience for Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing and the nurses who worked with them and highlighted the importance of adequate oversight and support in the implementation and maintenance of a Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing workforce. Employed Registered Undergraduate Students of Nursing reported improved confidence, skills, and felt like they started clinical placement at an advantage, ready to step up and learn the Registered Nurse scope of practice. In addition to university-level education and clinical placement, this employment model creates a third space for learning via on-the-job training.
COREQ guidelines were followed in the reporting of this study.
No patient or public contribution.
Few clinical trials have investigated physiotherapy interventions to treat hypoxaemia following abdominal surgery. The objective of this study is to determine the feasibility and safety of conducting a clinical trial of physiotherapist-led non-invasive ventilation (NIV).
This single-centre, 50-patient, parallel-group, assessor blinded, pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation will enrol spontaneously ventilating adults with hypoxaemia within 72 hours of major abdominal surgery. Participants will receive either (1) usual care physiotherapy of a single education session (talk), daily walking of 10–15 min (walk) and four sessions of coached deep breathing and coughing (breathe) or (2) usual care physiotherapy plus four 30 min sessions of physiotherapist-led NIV delivered over 2 postoperative days. Primary feasibility and safety outcome measures are; number of eligible patients recruited per week, total time of NIV treatment delivered, acceptability of treatments to patients and clinicians and incidence of adverse events. Secondary feasibility outcomes include measures of recruitment and treatment adherence. Exploratory outcome measures include change in respiratory parameters, postoperative pulmonary complications, length of hospital stay, health-related quality of life, postoperative activity levels and mortality.
Ethics approval has been obtained from the relevant institution. Results will be published to inform future research.
ACTRN12622000839707.
Delirium is a syndrome characterised by a disturbance in attention, awareness and cognition as a result of another physical condition. It occurs in up to 50% of patients after cardiac surgery and is associated with increased mortality, prolonged intensive care and hospital stay and long-term cognitive dysfunction. Identifying effective preventive interventions is important. We will therefore conduct a systematic review to identify all randomised controlled studies that have tested a pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention to prevent delirium.
We will search electronic databases (CDSR (Reviews), CENTRAL (Trials), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, PsycINFO Ovid) as well as trial registers (clinicaltrials.gov and ISCRTN) for randomised controlled trials of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium after cardiac surgery in adults. Screening of search results and data extraction from included articles will be performed by two independent reviewers using Rayyan. The primary outcome will be the incidence of delirium. Secondary outcomes include: duration of postoperative delirium, all-cause mortality, length of postoperative hospital and intensive care stay, postoperative neurological complications other than delirium, health-related quality of life and intervention-specific adverse events. Studies will be assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. A narrative synthesis of all included studies will be presented and meta-analysis (if appropriate network meta-analysis) will be undertaken where there are sufficient studies (three or more) for pooling results. Results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.
No ethical approval is required. This review will be disseminated via peer-reviewed manuscript and conferences.
CRD42022369068.
by Shawn Walker, Emma Spillane, Kate Stringer, Lauren Trepte, Siân M. Davies, Jacana Bresson, Jane Sandall, Andrew Shennan, the OptiBreech Collaborative
OptiBreech collaborative care is a multi-disciplinary care pathway for breech presentation at term, with continuity from a breech specialist midwife, including where chosen, for vaginal breech birth (VBB). Pilot randomised trial using unblinded 1:1 parallel group allocation to OptiBreech versus standard care, within a cohort. Participants were women with a breech-presenting fetus > 33 weeks, at four sites in England, January–June 2022. A two-stage consent process was used. Participants consented to undergo random selection to be offered a ‘new care process’, with a choice to accept it, or not. Primary objectives were to identify recruitment, acceptance, and attrition rates. Randomisation procedures and potential primary outcomes for a substantive study were also feasibility-tested. 68 women were randomised between January–June 2022. The consent process was acceptable to participants, but randomisation was unacceptable to women who specifically sought OptiBreech care. Two women withdrew due to concerns about sharing personal information. More women planned a VBB when randomised to OptiBreech Care (23.5% vs 0, p = .002, 95% CI = 9.3%,37.8%). Women randomised to OptiBreech care had: lower rates of cephalic presentation at birth (38.2% vs 54.5%), higher rates of vaginal birth (32.4% vs 24.2%), lower rates of in-labour caesarean birth (20.6% vs 36.4%), lower rates of neonatal intensive care (5.9% vs 9.1%), and lower rates of severe neonatal morbidity (2.9% vs 9.1%). Randomisation was stopped on the advice of the steering committee before the planned sample of 104, as lack of access to VBB within standard care prohibited comparison of outcomes. Demand for VBB is sufficient for a cohort study, but comparison of outcomes by 1:1 randomisation is not feasible. OptiBreech care would be best evaluated using stepped wedge cluster randomisation. Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR300582). Clinical trial registration: ISRCTN 14521381.Provide insights into the experiences and perspectives of healthcare staff who treated scabies or managed outbreaks in formal and informal refugee/migrant camps in Europe 2014–2017.
Retrospective qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews and framework analysis. Recruitment was done primarily through online networks of healthcare staff involved in medical care in refugee/migrant settings.
Formal and informal refugee/migrant camps in Europe 2014–2017.
Twelve participants (four doctors, four nurses, three allied health workers, one medical student) who had worked in camps (six in informal camps, nine in formal ones) across 15 locations within seven European countries (Greece, Serbia, Macedonia, Turkey, France, the Netherlands, Belgium).
Participants reported that in camps they had worked, scabies diagnosis was primarily clinical (without dermatoscopy), and treatment and outbreak management varied highly. Seven stated scabicides were provided, while five reported that only symptomatic management was offered. They described camps as difficult places to work, with poor living standards for residents. Key perceived barriers to scabies control were (1) lack of water, sanitation and hygiene, specifically: absent/limited showers (difficult to wash off topical scabicides), and inability to wash clothes and bedding (may have increased transmission/reinfestation); (2) social factors: language, stigma, treatment non-compliance and mobility (interfering with contact tracing and follow-up treatments); (3) healthcare factors: scabicide shortages and diversity, lack of examination privacy and staff inexperience; (4) organisational factors: overcrowding, ineffective interorganisational coordination, and lack of support and maltreatment by state authorities (eg, not providing basic facilities, obstruction of self-care by camp residents and non-governmental organisation (NGO) aid).
We recommend development of accessible scabies guidelines for camps, use of consensus diagnostic criteria and oral ivermectin mass treatments. In addition, as much of the work described was by small, volunteer-staffed NGOs, we in the wider healthcare community should reflect how to better support such initiatives and those they serve.
To understand how student nurse experiences on clinical placement, within National Health Service (NHS) hospitals, differ for ethnic minority and White British groups.
A qualitative thematic analysis with an inductive approach.
Data from semi-structured interviews with 21 London (United Kingdom) hospital-based student nurses were examined using thematic analysis. Participants were interviewed as part of the Tackling Inequalities and Discrimination Experiences in Health Services (TIDES) study and asked about their experiences during clinical placement.
Five main themes were identified: (1) Role of mentors, (2) Discrimination and unfair treatment, (3) Speaking up/out, (4) Career progression, and (5) Consequences of adverse experiences. All themes were linked, with the social dynamics and workplace environment (referred to as “ward culture”) providing a context that normalizes mistreatment experienced by nursing students. Students from ethnic minority backgrounds reported racism as well as cultural and/or religious microaggressions. While being valued for their race and ethnicity, White British students also experienced discrimination and inequity due to their age, sex, gender, and sexual orientation. Students from both White British and ethnic minority groups acknowledged that being treated badly was a barrier to career progression. Ethnic minority students also noted the lack of diverse representation within senior nursing positions discouraged career progression within the UK NHS.
These initial experiences of inequality and discrimination are liable to shape a student's perspective of their profession and ability to progress within nursing. The NHS is responsible for ensuring that student nurses' developmental opportunities are equal, irrespective of ethnicity.
Ward culture is perpetuated by others who normalize mistreatment and concurrently disadvantage ethnic minority students, making them feel unvalued. This in turn impacts both staff retention and career progression within the NHS. Training assessors should be aware of the existing culture of discrimination within clinical placements and work to eradicate it.
FreshRSS 