Time to re-envisage culturally responsive care: Intersection of participatory health research and implementation science.

AIM: In the context of widening societal diversity, culturally and linguistically diverse patients continue to experience inequities in healthcare access and deficiencies in standards of nursing care. Re-framing culturally responsive care as a complex intervention spanning multiple interacting factors at micro, meso and macro levels is an essential prerequisite for addressing knowledge translation gaps into everyday nursing practice. To this end, this paper proposes and explicates the potential of applying synergistic participatory implementation methodologies for developing effective implementation strategies with impact at individual and wider structural levels. DESIGN: Discussion Paper. DATA SOURCES: A co-design case study is presented as an example of combining normalization process theory and participatory learning and action to investigate and support the implementation of culturally responsive care in general practice nursing. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Enacting culturally responsive health care is inherently complex in that it is influenced by multiple interacting factors. Viewing culturally responsive care as a complex intervention and incorporating a synergistic participatory implementation science approach offers possibilities for addressing the documented shortcomings in the implementation of culturally responsive nursing care. CONCLUSION: There is a need to move away from conventional approaches to conceptualizing and generating evidence on culturally responsive care. Incorporating participatory implementation methodologies can provide a new lens to investigate and support whole system implementation strategies. IMPACT: The combination of participatory and implementation methodologies is both theoretically and empirically informed. Engaging stakeholders in the co-design and co-production of evidence and solutions to long standing problems has the potential to increase the likelihood of influencing iterative and sustainable implementation and changes to clinical practice and systems. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This work is part of a wider programme of participatory health research on migrant health, partnering with a non-governmental organization that supports migrants.

Updates in our understanding of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity: a narrative review.

Despite advances in clinical practice, local anaesthetic systemic toxicity continues to occur with the therapeutic use of local anaesthesia. Patterns of presentation have evolved over recent years due in part to the increasing use of ultrasound which has been demonstrated to reduce risk. Onset of toxicity is increasingly delayed, a greater proportion of clinical reports are secondary to fascial plane blocks, and cases are increasing where non-anaesthetist providers are involved. The evolving clinical context presents a challenge for diagnosis and requires education of all physicians, nurses and allied health professionals about these changing patterns and risks. This review discusses: mechanisms; prevention; diagnosis; and treatment of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity. The local anaesthetic and dose used, site of injection and block conduct and technique are all important determinants of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity, as are various patient factors. Risk mitigation is discussed including the care of at-risk groups, such as: those at the extremes of age; patients with cardiac, hepatic and specific metabolic diseases; and those who are pregnant. Advances in the changing clinical landscape with novel applications and settings for the use of local anaesthesia are also described. Finally, we signpost future directions to potentially improve the management of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity. The utility of local anaesthetics remains unquestionable in clinical practice, and thus maximising the safe and appropriate use of these drugs should translate to improvements in patient care.

Using Robson's Ten-Group Classification System for comparing caesarean section rates in Europe: an analysis of routine data from the Euro-Peristat study.

OBJECTIVE: Robson's Ten Group Classification System (TGCS) creates clinically relevant sub-groups for monitoring caesarean birth rates. This study assesses whether this classification can be derived from routine data in Europe and uses it to analyse national caesarean rates. DESIGN: Observational study using routine data. SETTING: Twenty-seven EU member states plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. POPULATION: All births at ≥22 weeks of gestational age in 2015. METHODS: National statistical offices and medical birth registers derived numbers of caesarean births in TGCS groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall caesarean rate, prevalence and caesarean rates in each of the TGCS groups. RESULTS: Of 31 countries, 18 were able to provide data on the TGCS groups, with UK data available only from Northern Ireland. Caesarean birth rates ranged from 16.1 to 56.9%. Countries providing TGCS data had lower caesarean rates than countries without data (25.8% versus 32.9%, P = 0.04). Countries with higher caesarean rates tended to have higher rates in all TGCS groups. Substantial heterogeneity was observed, however, especially for groups 5 (previous caesarean section), 6, 7 (nulliparous/multiparous breech) and 10 (singleton cephalic preterm). The differences in percentages of abnormal lies, group 9, illustrate potential misclassification arising from unstandardised definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Although further validation of data quality is needed, using TGCS in Europe provides valuable comparator and baseline data for benchmarking and surveillance. Higher caesarean rates in countries unable to construct the TGCS suggest that effective routine information systems may be an indicator of a country's investment in implementing evidence-based caesarean policies. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Many European countries can provide Robson's Ten-Group Classification to improve caesarean rate comparisons.

The use of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and recovery: international consensus statement on efficacy and safety.

Intravenous lidocaine is used widely for its effect on postoperative pain and recovery but it can be, and has been, fatal when used inappropriately and incorrectly. The risk-benefit ratio of i.v. lidocaine varies with type of surgery and with patient factors such as comorbidity (including pre-existing chronic pain). This consensus statement aims to address three questions. First, does i.v. lidocaine effectively reduce postoperative pain and facilitate recovery? Second, is i.v. lidocaine safe? Third, does the fact that i.v. lidocaine is not licensed for this indication affect its use? We suggest that i.v. lidocaine should be regarded as a 'high-risk' medicine. Individual anaesthetists may feel that, in selected patients, i.v. lidocaine may be beneficial as part of a multimodal peri-operative pain management strategy. This approach should be approved by hospital medication governance systems, and the individual clinical decision should be made with properly informed consent from the patient concerned. If i.v. lidocaine is used, we recommend an initial dose of no more than 1.5 mg.kg-1 , calculated using the patient's ideal body weight and given as an infusion over 10 min. Thereafter, an infusion of no more than 1.5 mg.kg-1 .h-1 for no longer than 24 h is recommended, subject to review and re-assessment. Intravenous lidocaine should not be used at the same time as, or within the period of action of, other local anaesthetic interventions. This includes not starting i.v. lidocaine within 4 h after any nerve block, and not performing any nerve block until 4 h after discontinuing an i.v. lidocaine infusion.

Folic acid supplementation reduces multigenerational sperm miRNA perturbation induced by in utero environmental contaminant exposure.

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) can induce epigenetic changes in the paternal germline. Here, we report that folic acid (FA) supplementation mitigates sperm miRNA profiles transgenerationally following in utero paternal exposure to POPs in a rat model. Pregnant founder dams were exposed to an environmentally relevant POPs mixture (or corn oil) ± FA supplementation and subsequent F1-F4 male descendants were not exposed to POPs and were fed the FA control diet. Sperm miRNA profiles of intergenerational (F1, F2) and transgenerational (F3, F4) lineages were investigated using miRNA deep sequencing. Across the F1-F4 generations, sperm miRNA profiles were less perturbed with POPs+FA compared to sperm from descendants of dams treated with POPs alone. POPs exposure consistently led to alteration of three sperm miRNAs across two generations, and similarly one sperm miRNA due to POPs+FA; which was in common with one POPs intergenerationally altered sperm miRNA. The sperm miRNAs that were affected by POPs alone are known to target genes involved in mammary gland and embryonic organ development in F1, sex differentiation and reproductive system development in F2 and cognition and brain development in F3. When the POPs treatment was combined with FA supplementation, however, these same miRNA-targeted gene pathways were perturbed to a lesser extend and only in F1 sperm. These findings suggest that FA partially mitigates the effect of POPs on paternally derived miRNA in a intergenerational manner.

How do late terminations of pregnancy affect comparisons of stillbirth rates in Europe? Analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro-Peristat Project.

OBJECTIVE: To describe how terminations of pregnancy at gestational ages at or above the limit for stillbirth registration are recorded in routine statistics and to assess their impact on comparability of stillbirth rates in Europe. DESIGN: Analysis of aggregated data from the Euro-Peristat project. SETTING: Twenty-nine European countries. POPULATION: Births and late terminations in 2010. METHODS: Assessment of terminations as a proportion of stillbirths and derivation of stillbirth rates including and excluding terminations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stillbirth rates overall and excluding terminations. RESULTS: In 23 countries, it is possible to assess the contribution of terminations to stillbirth rates either because terminations are rare occurrences or because they can be distinguished from spontaneous stillbirths. Where terminations were reported, they accounted for less than 1.5% of stillbirths at 22+ weeks in Denmark, between 13 and 22% in Germany, Italy, Hungary, Finland and Switzerland, and 39% in France. Proportions were much lower at 24+ weeks, with the exception of Switzerland (7.4%) and France (39.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Terminations represent a substantial proportion of stillbirths at 22+ weeks of gestation in some countries. Countries where terminations occur at 22+ weeks should publish rates with and without terminations in order to improve international comparisons and the policy relevance of stillbirth statistics. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: For valid comparisons of stillbirth rates, data about late terminations of pregnancy are needed.

Using Participatory Learning & Action (PLA) research techniques for inter-stakeholder dialogue in primary healthcare: an analysis of stakeholders' experiences.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: It is important for health care workers to know the needs and expectations of their patients. Therefore, service users have to be involved in research. To achieve a meaningful dialogue between service users, healthcare workers and researchers, participatory methods are needed. This paper describes how the application of a specific participatory methodology, Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) can lead to such a meaningful dialogue. In PLA all stakeholders are regarded as equal partners and collaborators in research.During 2011-2015, a European project called RESTORE used PLA in Austria, Greece, Ireland, The Netherlands and the UK to investigate how communication between primary health care workers and their migrant patients could be improved.Seventy eight migrants, interpreters, doctors, nurses and other key stakeholders (see Table 2) participated in 62 PLA sessions. These dialogues (involving discussions, activities, PLA techniques and evaluations) were generally 2-3 h long and were recorded and analysed by the researchers.Participants reported many positive experiences about their dialogues with other stakeholders. There was a positive, trusting atmosphere in which all stakeholders could express their views despite differences in social power. This made for better understanding within and across stakeholder groups. For instance a doctor changed her view on the use of interpreters after a migrant explained why this was important. Negative experiences were rare: some doctors and healthcare workers thought the PLA sessions took a lot of time; and despite the good dialogue, there was disappointment that very few migrants used the new interpreting service. ABSTRACT: Background In order to be effective, primary healthcare must understand the health needs, values and expectations of the population it serves. Recent research has shown that the involvement of service users and other stakeholders and gathering information on their perspectives can contribute positively to many aspects of primary healthcare. Participatory methodologies have the potential to support engagement and dialogue between stakeholders from academic, migrant community and health service settings. This paper focuses on a specific participatory research methodology, Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) in which all stakeholders are regarded as equal partners and collaborators in research.Our research question for this paper was: "Does the application of PLA lead to meaningful engagement of all stakeholders, and if so, what elements contribute to a positive and productive inter-stakeholder dialogue?". Methods We explored the use of PLA in RESTORE, a European FP7-funded project, during 2011-2015 in 5 countries: Austria, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK. The objective of RESTORE was to investigate and support the implementation of guidelines and training initiatives (G/TIs) to enhance communication in cross-cultural primary care consultations with migrants.Seventy eight stakeholders (migrants, interpreters, doctors, nurses and others - see Table 2) participated in a total of 62 PLA sessions (discussions, activities, evaluations) of approximately 2-3 h' duration across the five sites. During the fieldwork, qualitative data were generated about stakeholders' experiences of engagement in this dialogue, by means of various methods including participatory evaluations, researchers' fieldwork reports and researcher interviews. These were analysed following the principles of thematic analysis. Results Stakeholders involved in PLA inter-stakeholder dialogues reported a wide range of positive experiences of engagement, and very few negative experiences. A positive atmosphere during early research sessions helped to create a sense of safety and trust. This enabled stakeholders from very different backgrounds, with different social status and power, to offer their perspectives in a way that led to enhanced learning in the group - they learned with and from each other. This fostered shifts in understanding - for example, a doctor changed her view on interpreted consultations because of the input of the migrant service-users. Conclusion PLA successfully promoted stakeholder involvement in meaningful and productive inter-stakeholder dialogues. This makes it an attractive approach to enhance the further development of health research partnerships to advance primary healthcare.

Implementing guidelines and training initiatives to improve cross-cultural communication in primary care consultations: a qualitative participatory European study.

BACKGROUND: Cross-cultural communication in primary care is often difficult, leading to unsatisfactory, substandard care. Supportive evidence-based guidelines and training initiatives (G/TIs) exist to enhance cross cultural communication but their use in practice is sporadic. The objective of this paper is to elucidate how migrants and other stakeholders can adapt, introduce and evaluate such G/TIs in daily clinical practice. METHODS: We undertook linked qualitative case studies to implement G/TIs focused on enhancing cross cultural communication in primary care, in five European countries. We combined Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as an analytical framework, with Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) as the research method to engage migrants, primary healthcare providers and other stakeholders. Across all five sites, 66 stakeholders participated in 62 PLA-style focus groups over a 19 month period, and took part in activities to adapt, introduce, and evaluate the G/TIs. Data, including transcripts of group meetings and researchers' fieldwork reports, were coded and thematically analysed by each team using NPT. RESULTS: In all settings, engaging migrants and other stakeholders was challenging but feasible. Stakeholders made significant adaptations to the G/TIs to fit their local context, for example, changing the focus of a G/TI from palliative care to mental health; or altering the target audience from General Practitioners (GPs) to the wider multidisciplinary team. They also progressed plans to deliver them in routine practice, for example liaising with GP practices regarding timing and location of training sessions and to evaluate their impact. All stakeholders reported benefits of the implemented G/TIs in daily practice. Training primary care teams (clinicians and administrators) resulted in a more tolerant attitude and more effective communication, with better focus on migrants' needs. Implementation of interpreter services was difficult mainly because of financial and other resource constraints. However, when used, migrants were more likely to trust the GP's diagnoses and GPs reported a clearer understanding of migrants' symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Migrants, primary care providers and other key stakeholders can work effectively together to adapt and implement G/TIs to improve communication in cross-cultural consultations, and enhance understanding and trust between GPs and migrant patients.

Prospective controlled cohort study of Troponin I levels in patients undergoing elective spine surgery for degenerative conditions: Prone versus supine position.

Prior studies have suggested that elevated serum Troponin-I (TnI) levels immediately after non-cardiac surgical procedures (8-40%) represent subclinical cardiac stress which independently predicts increased 30-day mortality. Routine post-operative TnI monitoring has therefore been suggested as a standard of care. However, no prior studies have focussed on elective degenerative spine surgery, whilst few have measured pre-op TnI. Further, prolonged prone positioning could represent an additional, independent, cardiac stress. We planned a prospective controlled cohort study of consecutive TnI levels in routine elective spine surgery for degenerative spine conditions, incorporating 3 groups: 'prone<2h', 'prone>2h' and 'supine' positioning. TnI levels (>0.04µg/L) were recorded immediately pre-/post-surgery, and by 24h of surgery. N=120 patients were recruited. Complete results were obtained in 92 (39 supine, 53 prone). No significant between-groups differences were observed in demographic or cardiovascular risk factors. Validated TnI-elevation by 24h was not observed in any group. Spurious elevations were recorded in one 'prone<2h' and one 'prone>2h'. One non-ST segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) occurred on day 7 without TnI elevation by 24h (prone>2h). There was no 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lower cut-off, no validated TnI elevation was observed in any group by 24h after surgery. One non-STEMI had not been associated with TnI-elevation by 24h. Immediately peri-operative cardiac stress therefore appeared comparatively rare in patients undergoing routine elective spine surgery. Further, prone positioning did not represent an additional, independent, risk. Routine immediately post-operative TnI monitoring in elective spine surgery therefore appears unjustified. Our study highlighted several caveats regarding consecutive TnI testing.

Do primary care professionals agree about progress with implementation of primary care teams: results from a cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is the cornerstone of healthcare reform with policies across jurisdictions promoting interdisciplinary team working. The effective implementation of such health policies requires understanding the perspectives of all actors. However, there is a lack of research about health professionals' views of this process. This study compares Primary Healthcare Professionals' perceptions of the effectiveness of the Primary Care Strategy and Primary Care Team (PCT) implementation in Ireland. METHODS: Design and Setting: e-survey of (1) General Practitioners (GPs) associated with a Graduate Medical School (N = 100) and (2) Primary Care Professionals in 3 of 4 Health Service Executive (HSE) regions (N = 2309). After piloting, snowball sampling was used to administer the survey. Descriptive analysis was carried out using SPSS. Ratings across groups were compared using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: There were 569 responses. Response rates varied across disciplines (71 % for GPs, 22 % for other Primary Healthcare Professionals (PCPs). Respondents across all disciplines viewed interdisciplinary working as important. Respondents agreed on lack of progress of implementation of formal PCTs (median rating of 2, where 1 is no progress at all and 5 is complete implementation). GPs were more negative about the effectiveness of the Strategy to promote different disciplines to work together (median rating of 2 compared to 3 for clinical therapists and 3.5 for nurses, P = 0.001). Respondents identified resources and GP participation as most important for effective team working. Protected time for meetings and capacity to manage workload for meetings were rated as very important factors for effective team working by GPs, clinical therapists and nurses. A building for co-location of teams was rated as an important factor by nurses and clinical therapists though GPs rated it as less important. Payment to attend meetings and contractual arrangements were considered important factors by GPs but not by nurses or clinical therapists. CONCLUSION: PCPs and GPs agree there is limited PCT implementation. GPs are most negative about this implementation. There is some disagreement about which resources are most important for effective PCT working. These findings provide valuable data for clinicians and policy makers about implementation of interdisciplinary teams in primary care.