Evaluation of a COVID-19 fundamental nursing care guideline versus usual care: The COVID-NURSE cluster randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570-572 (98.1%-98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the 'other' ethnicity subgroup. CONCLUSION: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required. IMPACT: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care. REPORTING METHOD: CONSORT and CONSERVE. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings.

Nurses' strategies for overcoming barriers to fundamental nursing care in patients with COVID-19 caused by infection with the SARS-COV-2 virus: Results from the 'COVID-NURSE' survey.

AIMS: To identify strategies used by registered nurses and non-registered nursing care staff in overcoming barriers when providing fundamental nursing care for non-invasively ventilated inpatients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Online survey with open-ended questions to collect qualitative data. METHODS: In August 2020, we asked UK-based nursing staff to describe any strategies they employed to overcome barriers to delivering care in 15 fundamental nursing care categories when providing care to non-invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. We analysed data using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1062 nurses consented to participate in our survey. We derived four themes. 1) Communication behaviours included adapting verbal and non-verbal communication with patients, using information technology to enable patients' significant others to communicate with staff and patients, and establishing clear information-sharing methods with other staff. 2) Organizing care required clustering interventions, carefully managing supplies, encouraging patient self-care and using 'runners' and interdisciplinary input. 3) Addressing patients' well-being and values required spending time with patients, acting in loco familiae, providing access to psychological and spiritual support, obtaining information about patients' wishes early on and providing privacy and comforting/meaningful items. 4) Management and leadership behaviours included training, timely provision of pandemic information, psychological support, team huddles and facilitating regular breaks. CONCLUSIONS: Our respondents identified multiple strategies in four main areas of clinical practice. Management and leadership are crucial to both fundamental care delivery and the well-being of nurses during pandemics. Grouping strategies into these areas of action may assist nurses and leaders to prepare for pandemic nursing. IMPACT: As these strategies are unlikely to be exclusive to the COVID-19 pandemic, their global dissemination may improve patient experience and help nurses deliver fundamental care when planning pandemic nursing. However, their effectiveness is unknown. Therefore, we are currently evaluating these strategies in a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Fundamental nursing care in patients with the SARS-CoV-2 virus: results from the 'COVID-NURSE' mixed methods survey into nurses' experiences of missed care and barriers to care.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience of nursing care is associated with safety, care quality, treatment outcomes, costs and service use. Effective nursing care includes meeting patients' fundamental physical, relational and psychosocial needs, which may be compromised by the challenges of SARS-CoV-2. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients with SARS-CoV-2. We report work to develop such a guideline. Our aim was to identify views and experiences of nursing staff on necessary nursing care for inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 (not invasively ventilated) that is omitted or delayed (missed care) and any barriers to this care. METHODS: We conducted an online mixed methods survey structured according to the Fundamentals of Care Framework. We recruited a convenience sample of UK-based nursing staff who had nursed inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 not invasively ventilated. We asked respondents to rate how well they were able to meet the needs of SARS-CoV-2 patients, compared to non-SARS-CoV-2 patients, in 15 care categories; select from a list of barriers to care; and describe examples of missed care and barriers to care. We analysed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using Framework Analysis, integrating data in side-by-side comparison tables. RESULTS: Of 1062 respondents, the majority rated mobility, talking and listening, non-verbal communication, communicating with significant others, and emotional wellbeing as worse for patients with SARS-CoV-2. Eight barriers were ranked within the top five in at least one of the three care areas. These were (in rank order): wearing Personal Protective Equipment, the severity of patients' conditions, inability to take items in and out of isolation rooms without donning and doffing Personal Protective Equipment, lack of time to spend with patients, lack of presence from specialised services e.g. physiotherapists, lack of knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, insufficient stock, and reluctance to spend time with patients for fear of catching SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: Our respondents identified nursing care areas likely to be missed for patients with SARS-CoV-2, and barriers to delivering care. We are currently evaluating a guideline of nursing strategies to address these barriers, which are unlikely to be exclusive to this pandemic or the environments represented by our respondents. Our results should, therefore, be incorporated into global pandemic planning.

COVID-NURSE: evaluation of a fundamental nursing care protocol compared with care as usual on experience of care for noninvasively ventilated patients in hospital with the SARS-CoV-2 virus-protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patient experience of nursing care is correlated with safety, clinical effectiveness, care quality, treatment outcomes and service use. Effective nursing care includes actions to develop nurse-patient relationships and deliver physical and psychosocial care to patients. The high risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus compromises nursing care. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, leading to potential variations in patient experience, outcomes, quality and costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: we aim to recruit 840 in-patient participants treated for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus from 14 UK hospitals, to a cluster randomised controlled trial, with embedded process and economic evaluations, of care as usual and a fundamental nursing care protocol addressing specific areas of physical, relational and psychosocial nursing care where potential variation may occur, compared with care as usual. Our coprimary outcomes are patient-reported experience (Quality from the Patients' Perspective; Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire); secondary outcomes include care quality (pressure injuries, falls, medication errors); functional ability (Barthell Index); treatment outcomes (WHO Clinical Progression Scale); depression Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), anxiety General Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2), health utility (EQ5D) and nurse-reported outcomes (Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals). For our primary analysis, we will use a standard generalised linear mixed-effect model adjusting for ethnicity of the patient sample and research intensity at cluster level. We will also undertake a planned subgroup analysis to compare the impact of patient-level ethnicity on our primary and secondary outcomes and will undertake process and economic evaluations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research governance and ethical approvals are from the UK National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Service. Dissemination will be open access through peer-reviewed scientific journals, study website, press and online media, including free online training materials on the Open University's FutureLearn web platform. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13177364; Pre-results.

Experiences regarding maternal age-specific risks and prenatal testing of women of advanced maternal age in Japan.

The number of pregnant women of advanced maternal age has increased worldwide. Women in this group have an increased chance of fetal abnormality. To explore Japanese women's experiences regarding maternal age-specific risks and prenatal testing, we conducted a descriptive qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 women aged 35 years or over who had given birth within the previous three months to a healthy, term infant. Thematic analysis of transcribed interview data was performed and three major themes were identified: inadequate understanding of genetic risks; insufficiently informed choice regarding prenatal testing; and need for more information from health professionals. Some participants were not aware of maternal age-specific risks to the fetus. Many took their cues from health professionals and did not raise the topic themselves, but would have considered prenatal testing if made aware of the risks. Nurses, midwives and other health professionals need to adequately inform pregnant women about the genetic risks to the fetus and offer testing at an appropriate stage early in the pregnancy.

Preparedness of newly qualified midwives to deliver clinical care: an evaluation of pre-registration midwifery education through an analysis of key events.

OBJECTIVE: this study was part of a larger project commissioned to ascertain whether midwife teachers bring a unique contribution to the preparation of midwives for practice. The aim of this phase was to determine whether the student midwives' educational programme had equipped them to practise competently after entry to the professional register. DESIGN: this was a prospective, longitudinal qualitative study, using participant diaries to collect data. SETTING: data were collected from newly qualified midwives during the initial six months after they commenced their first post as a qualified midwife. PARTICIPANTS: the potential participants were all student midwives who were completing their education at one of six Universities (three in England, one in Scotland, one in Wales and one in Northern Ireland). Diary data were submitted by 35 newly qualified midwives; 28 were graduates of the three year programme and seven of the shortened programme. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: diary entries were analysed using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006), with a focus on identification of key events in the working lives of the newly qualified midwives. A total of 263 key events were identified, under three main themes: (1) impact of the event on confidence, (2) gaps in knowledge or experience and (3) articulated frustration, conflict or distress. KEY CONCLUSIONS: essentially, pre-registration education, delivered largely by midwife teachers and supported by clinical mentors, has been shown to equip newly qualified midwives to work effectively as autonomous practitioners caring for mothers and babies. While newly qualified midwives are able to cope with a range of challenging clinical situations in a safe manner, they lack confidence in key areas. Positive reinforcement by supportive colleagues plays a significant role in enabling them to develop as practitioners. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: whilst acknowledging the importance of normality in childbearing there is a need within the curriculum to enable midwives to recognise and respond to complex care situations by providing theory, simulations and practice experience.

Supporting the midwifery practice-based curriculum: the role of the link lecturer.

BACKGROUND: It is essential that Approved Education Institutions (AEIs) support practice learning to the education standards required by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC, 2009). Evaluating whether midwife lecturers bring a unique contribution to the outcomes of preregistration midwifery education programmes was investigated through a national research project (Fraser et al., 2011). The study task addressed in this paper was to establish which roles and responsibilities of lecturers have most impact on student learning and capability as midwives and provide best support for mentors' teaching and assessment decisions. METHODS: Data were collected through United Kingdom (UK) wide survey of Lead Midwives for Education, midwife lecturers and questionnaires and focus groups of student midwives from six case study sites. An activity analysis tool was completed by lecturers in these sites, as well as individual interviews with LMEs and Programme Leads. FINDINGS: The nature of midwife lecturers' engagement with practice is variable and is determined by the particular organisation model used. There is an overall agreement that midwife lecturers have a vital role in supporting the practice based curriculum. Key findings highlight the link lecturer role in supporting students, participating in assessments, supporting mentors and maintaining clinical credibility. Enhancements and deterrents to undertaking the link role are also outlined. These findings are relevant to health care programmes worldwide where clinical practice is an essential component. IMPLICATIONS: contribution to knowledge development about models to support and enhance practice-based learning.