This study aimed to identify determinants that hinder or facilitate implementation of the Feverkidstool, a clinical decision support tool offering a quantitative, evidence-based approach, to manage children with fever in the emergency department (ED) setting.

Qualitative study using semistructured interviews, analysed through directed content analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Secondary and tertiary paediatric emergency departments in three hospitals in the Netherlands.

Eighteen potential end users of the Feverkidstool, including paediatricians and paediatric residents working in the ED and involved in the care of febrile children, participated in the study.

Determinants of Feverkidstool implementation, categorised by CFIR domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals and implementation process.

Respondents (n=18) perceived the evidence-based guidance by the Feverkidstool and its potential to reduce antibiotic use as valuable. However, concerns were raised about its applicability to critically ill children and those with comorbidities. User-friendliness was seen as a facilitator, whereas the need for C reactive protein testing and lack of integration with electronic health records were mentioned as barriers. The ability to standardise care for febrile children was considered an important benefit of using the Feverkidstool.

Barriers and facilitators across all CFIR domains are identified. Addressing these will facilitate implementation. When effectively implemented, the Feverkidstool has the potential to improve care for children presenting with fever in the ED. This may potentially lead to a more standardised approach and reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions.

Being exposed to adverse psychosocial working conditions contributes to poor mental health in young workers. This study explores whether psychosocial work adversities are a necessary condition for work-related emotional exhaustion in young workers.

Data from the ‘Netherlands Working Condition Survey 2021’ was used. By applying a novel method called Necessary Condition Analysis, we tested two psychosocial work adversities as necessary conditions for high work-related emotional exhaustion in young workers: (1) a composite score of high job demands and low job resources and (2) a composite score of high job demands. Additionally, we tested whether the threshold for job demands as a necessary condition for high work-related emotional exhaustion differed for young workers with low versus high resources.

Secondary data analysis on a national working population-based survey.

The sample included 5791 young workers in the Netherlands (aged

Work-related emotional exhaustion.

A high level of the composite on job demands and job resources is necessary for a high level of work-related emotional exhaustion in young workers (effect size=0.11, p

Both psychosocial work adversities were necessary conditions for high work-related emotional exhaustion in young workers. The necessity threshold for job demands was higher for young workers with high job resources, compared with the group with low resources. This indicates that removing psychosocial work adversities and ensuring the presence of job resources might contribute to the prevention of high work-related emotional exhaustion in young workers.

Several antibiotic stewardship interventions have been proven effective and safe for reducing the high number of antibiotic prescriptions in late preterm and term neonates at risk of early-onset sepsis (EOS). For successful translation of EOS interventions to clinical practice, implementation strategies should be employed targeting stakeholders. The primary aim of this study is to assess the impact of implementing an antibiotic stewardship bundle, including the EOS calculator, procalcitonin-guided therapy and intravenous-to-oral switch therapy on antibiotic exposure for EOS in Dutch secondary hospitals. Secondary aims are to examine additional clinical outcomes and implementation outcomes.

We will conduct a multicentre, prospective implementation study with interrupted time series and before-after analyses at the paediatric or specialised neonatal departments of 11 Dutch secondary hospitals and their surrounding neonatal care networks. A multimodal implementation strategy, designed using Implementation Mapping, is employed to facilitate implementation. The study population is twofold: (1) neonates born at 34 weeks of gestation or later with suspected EOS that will receive intervention-related care and (2) paediatricians, paediatric residents, neonatal nurses, maternity nurses and parents who are the focus of the implementation strategies. The primary outcome is days of antibiotic therapy per 1000 live-born neonates, which will be evaluated using interrupted time series analysis as well as before-after comparison. Secondary clinical outcomes will be assessed by comparing clinical data from the 12 months pre-implementation and post implementation. Implementation outcomes are adoption, fidelity, feasibility and acceptability of the interventions and fidelity and appropriateness of the implementation strategies. Implementation outcomes will be assessed using both qualitative and quantitative methods, including surveys, individual interviews and focus group interviews. A mixed-methods approach will be used to integrate clinical and implementation outcomes.

The Medical Ethics Committee United (MEC-U) declared (reference: W24.132) that this study does not fall under the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO). Subsequently, ethical approval was granted by the Scientific Committee of the Franciscus Hospital (T110). The scientific committees of all participating sites adopted this decision and granted permission for local conduct of the study. As electronic health record data are sampled retrospectively and anonymously, a waiver of consent was given to collect these data. Informed consent will be obtained from participants completing surveys or taking part in interviews and focus group discussions. The findings will be disseminated through journal publications and conference presentations. Furthermore, practice and policy recommendations will be collaboratively developed with partner organisations.

NCT06845332.

Patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are considered to have a symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk of 1.0%–1.5% despite thromboprophylaxis. Fast-track treatment protocols have substantially lowered the VTE risk in most patients. Hence, the majority of patients may be unnecessarily exposed to the burden and risk of thromboprophylaxis. On the contrary, there are still patients with a high VTE risk who develop VTE despite thromboprophylaxis. Thus, tailored thromboprophylaxis treatment may potentially reduce both VTE and bleeding risk.

The DISTINCT (inDividual, targeted thrombosIS prophylaxis versus the standard ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach in patients undergoing Total hIp or total kNee replaCemenT) trial is a national, multicentre, randomised, multiarm, open-label trial. The main objective is to study whether tailored thromboprophylaxis reduces the occurrence of symptomatic VTE (primary outcome) and major bleeding (primary safety outcome) within 90 days after THA/TKA in comparison with standard thromboprophylaxis. Patients with a low, intermediate or high predicted VTE risk (based on the Thrombosis Risk Prediction following total hip and knee arthroplasty score (TRiP(plasty) score)) will be included in the DISTINCT-1, DISTINCT-2 or DISTINCT-3 studies, respectively. In the DISTINCT-1 trial, 3478 patients will be randomly allocated to receive either in-hospital thromboprophylaxis or standard prophylaxis. In the DISTINCT-2 cohort study, 2500 patients will receive standard prophylaxis. In the DISTINCT-3 trial, 4100 patients will be randomly allocated to receive either 6 weeks of high-dose thromboprophylaxis or standard prophylaxis. Standard prophylaxis consists of a low dose of any approved thromboprophylactic agent for 4 weeks. We hypothesise that (1) the efficacy of in-hospital only thromboprophylaxis is non-inferior in preventing VTE and equally safe compared with standard prophylaxis in patients with a low VTE risk (DISTINCT-1) and (2) prolonged high-dose thromboprophylaxis is superior in preventing VTE as compared with standard prophylaxis in patients with a high VTE risk (DISTINCT-3). Patients with intermediate VTE risk will be observed to evaluate VTE and bleeding rates (DISTINCT-2).

The protocol has been approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft, EU-trial-number 2023-510186-98. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and during international conferences.

NCT06581965.