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.

A rehabilitation intervention to improve recovery after an episode of delirium in adults over 65 years (RecoverED): study protocol for a multi-centre, single-arm feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium affects over 20% of all hospitalised older adults. Delirium is associated with a number of adverse outcomes following hospital admission including cognitive decline, anxiety and depression, increased mortality and care needs. Previous research has addressed prevention of delirium in hospitals and care homes, and there are guidelines on short-term treatment of delirium during admission. However, no studies have addressed the problem of longer-term recovery after delirium and it is currently unknown whether interventions to improve recovery after delirium are effective and cost-effective. The primary objective of this feasibility study is to test a new, theory-informed rehabilitation intervention (RecoverED) in older adults delivered following a hospital admission complicated by delirium to determine whether (a) the intervention is acceptable to individuals with delirium and (b) a definitive trial and parallel economic evaluation of the intervention are feasible. METHODS: The study is a multi-centre, single-arm feasibility study of a rehabilitation intervention with an embedded process evaluation. Sixty participants with delirium (aged > 65 years old) and carer pairs will be recruited from six NHS acute hospitals across the UK. All pairs will be offered the intervention, with follow-up assessments conducted at 3 months and 6 months post-discharge home. The intervention will be delivered in participants' own homes by therapists and rehabilitation support workers for up to 10 intervention sessions over 12 weeks. The intervention will be tailored to individual needs, and the chosen intervention plan and goals will be discussed and agreed with participants and carers. Quantitative data on reach, retention, fidelity and dose will be collected and summarised using descriptive statistics. The feasibility outcomes that will be used to determine whether the study meets the criteria for progression to a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) include recruitment, delivery of the intervention, retention, data collection and acceptability of outcome measures. Acceptability of the intervention will be assessed using in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews with participants and healthcare professionals. DISCUSSION: Findings will inform the design of a pragmatic multi-centre RCT of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the RecoverED intervention for helping the longer-term recovery of people with delirium compared to usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The feasibility study was registered: ISRCTN15676570.

Randomized Trial of BCG Vaccine to Protect against Covid-19 in Health Care Workers.

BACKGROUND: The bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine has immunomodulatory "off-target" effects that have been hypothesized to protect against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS: In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned health care workers to receive the BCG-Denmark vaccine or saline placebo and followed them for 12 months. Symptomatic Covid-19 and severe Covid-19, the primary outcomes, were assessed at 6 months; the primary analyses involved the modified intention-to-treat population, which was restricted to participants with a negative test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 3988 participants underwent randomization; recruitment ceased before the planned sample size was reached owing to the availability of Covid-19 vaccines. The modified intention-to-treat population included 84.9% of the participants who underwent randomization: 1703 in the BCG group and 1683 in the placebo group. The estimated risk of symptomatic Covid-19 by 6 months was 14.7% in the BCG group and 12.3% in the placebo group (risk difference, 2.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7 to 5.5; P = 0.13). The risk of severe Covid-19 by 6 months was 7.6% in the BCG group and 6.5% in the placebo group (risk difference, 1.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.2 to 3.5; P = 0.34); the majority of participants who met the trial definition of severe Covid-19 were not hospitalized but were unable to work for at least 3 consecutive days. In supplementary and sensitivity analyses that used less conservative censoring rules, the risk differences were similar but the confidence intervals were narrower. There were five hospitalizations due to Covid-19 in each group (including one death in the placebo group). The hazard ratio for any Covid-19 episode in the BCG group as compared with the placebo group was 1.23 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.59). No safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination with BCG-Denmark did not result in a lower risk of Covid-19 among health care workers than placebo. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; BRACE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04327206.).

Feasibility, effectiveness and costs of a decision support intervention for consultees and legal representatives of adults lacking capacity to consent (CONSULT): protocol for a randomised Study Within a Trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials play a vital role in underpinning evidence-based care. However, trials involving adults with impaired capacity to consent raise a number of ethical and methodological challenges, leading to the frequent exclusion of this group from trials. This includes challenges around involving family members as alternative 'proxy' decision-makers. Family members are often given little information about their role as a consultee or legal representative. Some family members find making a decision about trial participation difficult and may experience an emotional and decisional burden as a result. Families have reported a need for greater support and guidance when making such decisions, leading to the development of a decision aid ('Making decisions about research for others') for family members acting as consultee/legal representative. The decision aid now requires evaluation to determine its effectiveness in supporting families to make more informed decisions. METHODS: This protocol describes a prospective, multi-centre, randomised-controlled Study Within a Trial (SWAT) to evaluate the effectiveness of the decision aid. The SWAT will initially be embedded in approximately five host trials. SWAT participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention (decision aid alongside standard information about the host trial provided to consultees/legal representatives) or control (standard information alone). The primary outcome is the quality of proxy consent decision, assessed by the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD). The SWAT design is informed by previous qualitative research. Initial feasibility will be explored in one host trial, followed by the main SWAT. An embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation will enable the SWAT findings to be contextualised and identify factors likely to affect implementation. DISCUSSION: This SWAT will generate the first evidence for recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent and add to knowledge about the use of decision support interventions in trial participation decisions. The SWAT will be embedded in a range of trials, and the heterogenous nature of the host trials, settings and populations involved will enable the intervention to be evaluated in a wide range of contexts. However, a pragmatic and flexible approach to conducting the SWAT is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The SWAT is registered as SWAT #159 with the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT repository (registered 09.08.2020). Each host trial will be registered on a clinical trials registry.

Patient Acceptability of Home Monitoring for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Reactivation: A Qualitative Study.

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is a chronic, progressive condition and the commonest cause of visual disability in older adults. This study formed part of a diagnostic test accuracy study to quantify the ability of three index home monitoring (HM) tests (one paper-based and two digital tests) to identify reactivation in nAMD. The aim of this qualitative research was to investigate patients' or participants' views about acceptability and explore adherence to weekly HM. Semi-structured interviews were held with 78/297 participants (26%), with close family members (n = 11) and with healthcare professionals involved in training participants in HM procedures (n = 9) (n = 98 in total). A directed thematic analytical approach was applied to the data using a deductive and inductive coding framework informed by theories of technology acceptance. Five themes emerged related to: 1. The role of HM; 2. Suitability of procedures and instruments; 3. Experience of HM; 4. Feasibility of HM in usual practice; and 5. Impediments to patient acceptability of HM. Various factors influenced acceptability including a patient's understanding about the purpose of monitoring. While initial training and ongoing support were regarded as essential for overcoming unfamiliarity with use of digital technology, patients viewed HM as relatively straightforward and non-burdensome. There is a need for further research about how use of performance feedback, level of support and nature of tailoring might facilitate further the implementation of routinely conducted HM. Home monitoring was acceptable to patients and they recognised its potential to reduce clinic visits during non-active treatment phases. Findings have implications for implementation of digital HM in the care of older people with nAMD and other long-term conditions.

Recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent: methodological and ethical considerations for designing Studies Within a Trial (SWATs).

BACKGROUND: The number of interventions to improve recruitment and retention of participants in trials is rising, with a corresponding growth in randomised Studies Within Trials (SWATs) to evaluate their (cost-)effectiveness. Despite recognised challenges in conducting trials involving adults who lack capacity to consent, until now, no individual-level recruitment interventions have focused on this population. Following the development of a decision aid for family members making non-emergency trial participation decisions on behalf of people with impaired capacity, we have designed a SWAT to evaluate the decision aid in a number of host trials (CONSULT). Unlike in recruitment SWATs to date, the CONSULT intervention is aimed at a 'proxy' decision-maker (a family member) who is not a participant in the host trial and does not receive the trial intervention. This commentary explores the methodological and ethical considerations encountered when designing such SWATs, using the CONSULT SWAT as a case example. Potential solutions to address these issues are also presented. DISCUSSION: We encountered practical issues around informed consent, data collection, and follow-up which involves linking the intervention receiver (the proxy) with recruitment and retention data from the host trial, as well as issues around randomisation level, resource use, and maintaining the integrity of the host trial. Unless addressed, methodological uncertainty about differential recruitment and heterogeneity between trial populations could potentially limit the scope for drawing robust inferences and harmonising data from different SWAT host trials. Proxy consent is itself ethically complex, and so when conducting a SWAT which aims to disrupt and enhance proxy consent decisions, there are additional ethical issues to be considered. CONCLUSIONS: Designing a SWAT to evaluate a recruitment intervention for non-emergency trials with adults lacking capacity to consent has raised a number of methodological and ethical considerations. Explicating these challenges, and some potential ways to address them, creates a starting point for discussions about conducting these potentially more challenging SWATs. Increasing the evidence base for the conduct of trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent is intended to improve both the ability to conduct these trials and their quality, and so help build research capacity for this under-served population.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Ophthalmic Care: A Qualitative Study of Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (nAMD).

Concerns have been expressed about the relationship between reduced levels of health care utilisation and the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to elicit and explore the views of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and their ophthalmic care. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with thirty-five patients with nAMD taking part in a larger diagnostic accuracy study of home-monitoring tests. Participants were recruited using maximum variation sampling to capture a range of key characteristics including age, gender and time since initial treatment. Transcribed interview data were analysed using a deductive and inductive thematic approach. Three themes emerged from the analysis: i. access to eye clinic care. ii. COVID-19-mitigating factors and care delivery and iii. social and personal circumstances. Participants reported anxieties about cancelled or delayed appointments, limited communication from clinic-based services about appointments, and the impact of this on their ongoing care. Despite these concerns, there was apprehension about attending appointments due to infection risk and a perception that nAMD patients are a 'high risk' group. Views of those who attended clinics during the study period were, however, positive, with social distancing and infection control measures providing reassurance. These findings contribute to our understanding about experiences of patients with nAMD during the COVID-19 pandemic and may have potential implications for future planning of care services in similar circumstances. Innovative approaches may be required to address issues related to access to care, including concerns about delayed or cancelled appointments.

Monitoring for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) reactivation at home: the MONARCH study.

AIMS: This study aims to quantify the diagnostic test-accuracy of three visual function self-monitoring tests for detection of active disease in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) when compared with usual care. An integrated qualitative study will investigate the acceptability of these home-based testing strategies. METHODS: All consenting participants are provided with an equipment pack containing an iPod touch with two vision test applications installed and a paper journal of reading tests. Participants self-monitor their vision at home each week with all three tests for 12-18 months. Usual care continues over this period. Key eligibility criteria are: age ≥50 years; at least one eye with AMD with ≥6-≤42 months since first AMD treatment; and vision not worse than Snellen 6/60, LogMAR 1.04 or 33 letters. The primary outcome, and reference standard, is diagnosis of active disease during usual care monitoring in the Hospital Eye Service. Secondary outcomes include duration of study participation, ability of participants to do the tests, adherence to weekly testing and acceptability of the tests to participants. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment is in progress at five NHS centres. Challenges in procuring equipment, setting up the devices and transporting devices containing lithium batteries to participating sites delayed the start of recruitment. The study will describe the performance of the tests self-administered at home in detecting active disease compared to usual care monitoring. It will also describe the feasibility of the NHS implementing patient-administered electronic tests or similar applications at home for monitoring health.

Eplerenone for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy in patients with active, previously untreated disease for more than 4 months (VICI): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR), fluid accumulates in the subretinal space. CSCR is a common visually disabling condition that develops in individuals up to 60 years of age, and there is no definitive treatment. Previous research suggests the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, eplerenone, is effective for treating CSCR; however, this drug is not licensed for the treatment of patients with CSCR. We aimed to evaluate whether eplerenone was superior to placebo in terms of improving visual acuity in patients with chronic CSCR. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre placebo-controlled trial was done at 22 hospitals in the UK. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18-60 years and had had treatment-naive CSCR for 4 months or more. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the eplerenone or the placebo group by a trial statistician through a password-protected system online. Allocation was stratified by best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and hospital. Patients were given either oral eplerenone (25 mg/day for 1 week, increasing to 50 mg/day for up to 12 months) plus usual care or placebo plus usual care for up to 12 months. All participants, care teams, outcome assessors, pharmacists, and members of the trial management group were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was BCVA, measured as letters read, at 12 months. All outcomes apart from safety were analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis (participants who withdrew consent without contributing a post-randomisation BCVA measurement were excluded from the primary analysis population and from most secondary analysis populations). The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN92746680, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2017, and Feb 22, 2018, we enrolled and randomly assigned 114 patients to receive either eplerenone (n=57) or placebo (n=57). Three participants in the placebo group withdrew consent without contributing a post-randomisation BCVA measurement and were excluded from the primary outcome analysis population. All patients from the eplerenone group and 54 patients from the placebo group were included in the primary outcome. Modelled mean BCVA at 12 months was 79·5 letters (SD 4·5) in the placebo group and 80·4 letters (4·6) in the eplerenone group, with an adjusted estimated mean difference of 1·73 letters (95% CI -1·12 to 4·57; p=0·24) at 12 months. Hyperkalaemia occurred in eight (14%) patients in each group. No serious adverse events were reported in the eplerenone group and three unrelated serious adverse events were reported in the placebo group (myocardial infarction [anticipated], diverticulitis [unanticipated], and metabolic surgery [unanticipated]). INTERPRETATION: Eplerenone was not superior to placebo for improving BCVA in people with chronic CSCR after 12 months of treatment. Ophthalmologists who currently prescribe eplerenone for CSCR should discontinue this practice. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, and National Institute for Health Research and Social Care.