Conectar
To provide expert consensus recommendations to support health systems in England to improve prioritisation and implementation of cardiovascular and renal risk-based type 2 diabetes (T2D) care, achieving quality improvement in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) NG28 guideline.
A two-round modified Delphi panel was conducted.
Participants represented health system leadership from a cross-section of integrated care systems across England. Delphi panel statements were relevant to both primary and secondary care.
A panel of 28 participants took part in the Delphi panel (10.7% drop-off rate between rounds). Statement development was guided by a separate committee of 11 topic experts, forming the Implementing NICE NG28 by harnessing Opportunities for adVanced integrated cAre Transformation and Excellence (INNOVATE)-28 Working Group.
In total, 84% (n=32/38) statements reached consensus across both Delphi rounds. There was agreement that health systems need to prioritise prevention of cardiovascular and renal complications in T2D, particularly for those at ‘high’ or at ‘rising’ cardiovascular and renal risk. Consensus was also reached that quality improvement should be incentivised based on local population needs, with investment into digital systems and supporting roles to aid this. Panellists further agreed that investment should be channelled into community-led resources to reinforce a preventative approach and help to ensure people living with T2D receive care in the most appropriate setting. Finally, collaboration between health and social care, health innovation networks and industry partners was highlighted as an opportunity to leverage support for the delivery of risk-based T2D care.
The recommendations from this Delphi panel are intended to support health systems to consistently implement the NG28 guideline and facilitate quality improvement to deliver equitable T2D care and mitigate cardiovascular and renal risk. By being innovative and bold with commissioning and ways of working, and leveraging partnerships, health system leaders can enact the transformational and sustainable change needed to improve outcomes for people living with T2D, tackle healthcare inequalities and optimise system resilience.
Emerging research indicates that integrated treatment of co-occurring post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorder can be effective among adolescents and young people. However, various barriers exist to young people accessing evidence-based treatments. Telehealth offers an opportunity to address these barriers and provide a scalable and accessible alternative to inperson treatment. This paper describes the study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of an integrated trauma-focused cognitive-behavioural treatment for traumatic stress and substance use among adolescents and young adults (Concurrent Treatment of PTSD and Substance Use Disorders Using Prolonged Exposure – Adolescent and Young Adult version (COPE-A)) when delivered in person compared with via telehealth.
A two-arm, parallel group, single-blind, non-inferiority RCT with follow-up at 4 months and 12 months post study entry will be conducted in Sydney, Australia. Participants (170 adolescents and young adults aged 12–25 years) will be allocated to receive COPE-A either in person or via telehealth (allocation ratio 1:1) using minimisation. Project psychologists will administer treatment via both modes of delivery over a maximum of 16 sessions of 60–90 min. The primary outcome will be between-group differences in change in the severity of PTSD symptoms from baseline to 4-month follow-up, as measured by the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Children and Adolescents for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition.
This study has been approved by the Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network Human Research Ethics Committee (2024/ETH01050). Research findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.
ACTRN12624000776505.
V.2.3, 20 March 2025.
A pressure ulcer is an injury to the skin and underlying tissues caused by pressure, shear or a combination of the two. In Europe, the mean prevalence rate of pressure ulcers is 10.8%, in Ireland, it is less than 12%. Using systematic review methodology, original research studies written in English were included, employing pre- and post-studies, quality improvement initiatives or projects, randomised controlled trials and experimental studies. Data was extracted using a pre-designed data extraction tool and quality appraisal was undertaken using the Evidence-Based Librarianship (EBL) tool. Where appropriate, a meta-analysis was undertaken using RevMan. The study protocol was pre-registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42023442711). Following the search, 628 records were returned, of which 25 met the inclusion criteria. The studies were conducted in a variety of acute healthcare settings. Of the included studies, 16 presented data on incidence and 12 presented data on prevalence of pressure ulcers post-implementation of a care bundle. A meta-analysis of 10 studies discussing incidence indicates the RR of PU is 0.40 (95% CI: 0.21–0.78; p = 0.007), supporting the use of a care bundle. A meta-analysis of seven studies discussing prevalence indicates the RR of PU is 0.34 (95% CI: 0.21–0.56; p = 0.0001), demonstrating the reduction in the RR of PU development in favour of the care bundle group. A variety of care bundle elements were found in the studies. Although results indicated the use of a care bundle was advantageous in preventing a pressure ulcer in the acute care setting, it was unclear which of these elements were most effective.
The intent of the PICOT (i.e., Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time) method is to formulate focused clinical questions to facilitate the discovery of relevant evidence through systematic searching, with the components of the question serving as the foundation for the search. Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) graduates use evidence-based practices to institute changes in their organizations' systems and policies, thereby yielding positive effects on both patient and system outcomes. Given that the clinical question is the foundation of the evidence-based practice process, DNP graduates' competence in the PICOT method needs to be better understood.
This analysis aimed to describe how DNP students used the PICOT method to ask clinical questions in their DNP projects.
Project questions were retrieved from a subset (n = 129, 60.56%) of an existing national random sample of publicly available DNP projects spanning the years 2010 to 2021 from Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education-accredited schools (n = 213). Project questions using the PICOT method were further evaluated with a scoring system of 0 = no and 1 = yes for missing elements, formatting, directional outcome, and project purpose. Possible scores ranged from 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more errors. Discussion among five researchers, until agreement was achieved, yielded consensus.
Although the PICOT method was project author-identified in 66 (31.0%) projects, only four (6%) followed the PICOT method. All 66 (100%) were intervention questions. There were 2.74 (SD 1.55) mean errors, ranging from 0 to 6. No questions were missing P or O. Specific errors included missing I 3 (4.5%) or missing C 37 (56%), poor formatting 34 (51.5%), directional outcome 44 (66.7%), and project purpose 38 (57.6%). Thirty-three (50%) of the questions were missing T; however, T is not used for searching, so researchers recalculated the mean error without T (M = 2.24, SD = 1.28, range 0–5).
Gaps in the accurate use of the PICOT method to construct clinical questions can lead to biased searches, inaccurate clinical problem identification, and, when used as the project purpose, jumping to non-evidence-based solutions. Academic faculty and clinical educators can mitigate these skewed outcomes and enhance their impact on quality outcomes by helping DNP-prepared nurses shore up this foundational skill.
It is common for community-based healthcare providers (CHPs)—many of whom have not received specialised training in wound care—to deliver initial and ongoing management for various wound types and diverse populations. Wounds in any setting can rapidly transition to a stalled, hard-to-heal wound (HTHW) that is not following a normal healing trajectory. Failure to recognise or address issues that cause delayed healing can lead to increased costs, healthcare utilisation and suffering. To encourage early intervention by CHPs, a panel of wound care experts developed actionable evidence-based recommendations for CHPs delineating characteristics and appropriate care in identifying and treating HTHWs. A HTHW is a wound that fails to progress towards healing with standard therapy in an orderly and timely manner and should be referred to a qualified wound care provider (QWCP) for advanced assessment and diagnosis if not healed or reduced in size by 40%–50% within 4 weeks. HTHWs occur in patients with multiple comorbidities, and display increases in exudate, infection, devitalised tissue, maceration or pain, or no change in wound size. CHPs can play an important initial role by seeing the individual's HTHW risk, addressing local infection and providing an optimal wound environment. An easy-to-follow one-page table was developed for the CHP to systematically identify, evaluate and treat HTHWs, incorporating a basic toolkit with items easily obtainable in common office/clinic practice settings. A flow chart using visual HTHW clinical cues is also presented to address CHPs with different learning styles. These tools encourage delivery of appropriate early interventions that can improve overall healthcare efficiency and cost.
FreshRSS