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.

Impact of COVID-19 and other infectious conditions requiring isolation on the provision of and adaptations to fundamental nursing care in hospital in terms of overall patient experience, care quality, functional ability, and treatment outcomes: systematic review.

AIM: This systematic review identifies, appraises and synthesizes the evidence on the provision of fundamental nursing care to hospitalized patients with a highly infectious virus and the effectiveness of adaptations to overcome barriers to care. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: In July 2020, we searched Medline, PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), BNI (ProQuest), WHO COVID-19 Database (https://search.bvsalud.org/) MedRxiv (https://www.medrxiv.org/), bioRxiv (https://www.biorxiv.org/) and also Google Scholar, TRIP database and NICE Evidence, forwards citation searching and reference checking of included papers, from 2016 onwards. REVIEW METHODS: We included quantitative and qualitative research reporting (i) the views, perceptions and experiences of patients who have received fundamental nursing care whilst in hospital with COVID-19, MERS, SARS, H1N1 or EVD or (ii) the views, perceptions and experiences of professional nurses and non-professionally registered care workers who have provided that care. We included review articles, commentaries, protocols and guidance documents. One reviewer performed data extraction and quality appraisal and was checked by another person. RESULTS: Of 3086 references, we included 64 articles; 19 empirical research and 45 review articles, commentaries, protocols and guidance documents spanning five pandemics. Four main themes (and 11 sub-themes) were identified. Barriers to delivering fundamental care were wearing personal protective equipment, adequate staffing, infection control procedures and emotional challenges of care. These barriers were addressed by multiple adaptations to communication, organization of care, staff support and leadership. CONCLUSION: To prepare for continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics, evaluative studies of adaptations to fundamental healthcare delivery must be prioritized to enable evidence-based care to be provided in future. IMPACT: Our review identifies the barriers nurses experience in providing fundamental care during a pandemic, highlights potential adaptations that address barriers and ensure positive healthcare experiences and draws attention to the need for evaluative research on fundamental care practices during pandemics.

Young adults with type 1 diabetes and their experiences with diabetes follow-up and participation in the DiaPROM pilot trial: A qualitative study.

AIM: To explore young adults' experiences of outpatient follow-up appointments, completing electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), and using the Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID) scale during the Diabetes Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (DiaPROM) pilot trial. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study among 19 young adults (aged 22-39 years) with type 1 diabetes who participated in the pilot trial. Between February and June 2019, we conducted individual, semi-structured telephone interviews with participants from the intervention and control arms. We analysed the data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Our analyses generated three themes, each with two subthemes: (1) Follow-up with limitations; (i) Marginal dialogue about everyday challenges, (ii) Value of supportive relationships and continuity, indicate that previous follow-up had been experienced as challenging and insufficient. (2) New insights and raised awareness; (i) More life-oriented insights, (ii) Moving out of the comfort zone, suggest mostly positive experiences with completing questionnaires and discussing the PAID scores. (3) Addressing problem areas with an open mind; (i) Need for elaboration, (ii) Preparedness for dialogue, indicate that both openness and explanations were vital in the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Participants characterised the previous follow-up as challenging and insufficient. They described completing and using the PAID as somewhat uncomfortable yet worthwhile. Our findings also suggest that by utilising diabetes distress data alongside health and biomedical outcomes, consultations became more attuned to the young adults' wishes and needs, mainly because the dialogue was more focused and direct. Hence, the PAID has the potential to facilitate person-centredness and improve patient-provider relationships.

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.

Patients' and nurses' experiences of fundamental nursing care: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To systematically identify, appraise and synthesise patients', residents' and nurses' experiences of fundamental nursing care for nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene. BACKGROUND: The evidence base for effective nursing behaviours to assist people with their fundamental care needs is sparse, hampering the development of effective interventions. Synthesising data on patients' and nurses' experiences of fundamentals of nursing care could contribute to the development of such an intervention. METHODS: Systematic review and synthesis of qualitative data from qualitative studies on patients' and nurses' experiences of fundamental nursing care behaviours addressing peoples' nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene needs. We appraised study quality and relevance and used a narrative approach to data synthesis, fulfilling PRISMA criteria (Appendix S2). RESULTS: We identified 22,374 papers, and 47 met our inclusion criteria. Most papers were of low quality. Sixteen papers met our quality and relevance criteria and were included for synthesis. Papers were about nutrition (2) elimination (2), mobility (5), hygiene (5) and multiple care areas (2). We found nurses and patients report that fundamental nursing care practices involve strong leadership, collaborative partnerships with patients and cohesive organisational practices aligned to nursing care objectives and actions. CONCLUSIONS: To improve fundamental care and interventions suitable for testing may require attention to leadership, patient-nurse relationships and organisational coherence plus the fundamentals of care nursing interventions themselves. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: More rigorous mixed methods research about fundamental nursing care is needed to inform nursing practice and improve patient's experience. Nursing interventions should include effective nurse leadership and nurse-patient collaboration and a focus on fundamental care by the host organisation.

The impact of incomplete revascularization on early and late outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: In ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with multivessel disease, there is a lack of consensus regarding the importance of complete revascularization and the timing of treatment of nonculprit stenoses. Our objective was to investigate the impact of incomplete revascularization in STEMI patients using the residual Synergy Between PCI with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery score (rSS) to define completeness of revascularization. METHODS: This study examined associations between incomplete revascularization, determined by the rSS, and the combined outcome of cardiac death and myocardial infarction (MI). Patients were divided into groups: rSS = 0 (complete revascularization), rSS = 1-8 (incomplete revascularization with a low burden of residual disease), or rSS >8 (incomplete revascularization with a high burden of residual disease). RESULTS: The rSS score was calculated in 589 consecutive patients; 25% had an rSS of 0, 42% rSS 1-8, and 33% rSS >8. At median follow-up of 3.5 years, cardiac death and MI occurred in 5% of rSS = 0 patients, 15% rSS = 1-8, and 26% with rSS >8 (P < .001). The rSS was powerful independent predictor of cardiac death and MI (hazard ratio 5.05, CI 2.89-12.00, rSS >8 vs rSS 0, P < .001 and hazard ratio 2.96, CI 1.31-6.69, rSS = 1-8 vs rSS = 0, P = .009), respectively, and an independent predictor of mortality, MI, unplanned revascularization, and major adverse cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI, the rSS independently predicts cardiac death and MI. Patients with an rSS >8 had substantially higher rates of cardiac death or MI. The rSS can be used to define incomplete revascularization in STEMI and predict adverse outcomes.

Amalgamation of Marginal Gains (AMG) as a potential system to deliver high-quality fundamental nursing care: A qualitative analysis of interviews from high-performance AMG sports and healthcare practitioners.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the components of the Amalgamation of Marginal Gains (AMG) performance system to identify a set of principles that can be built into an innovative fundamental nursing care protocol. BACKGROUND: Nursing is urged to refocus on its fundamental care activities, but little evidence exists to guide practising nurses. Fundamental care is a combination of many small behaviours aimed at meeting a person's care needs. AMG is a successful system of performance management that focusses on small (or marginal) gains, and might provide a new delivery framework for fundamental nursing care. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. METHODS: We undertook in-depth interviews with healthcare and sports professionals experienced in AMG. We analysed data using open coding in a framework analysis, and then interrogated the data using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). We triangulated findings with AMG literature to develop an intervention logic model. RESULTS: We interviewed 20 AMG practitioners. AMG processes were as follows: focusing on many details to optimise performance, identification of marginal gains using different sources, understanding current versus optimum performance, monitoring at micro and macro level and strong leadership. Elements of normalisation were as follows: whole team belief in AMG to improve performance, a collective desire for excellence using evidence-based actions, whole team engagement to identify choose and implement changes, and individual and group responsibility for monitoring performance. CONCLUSIONS: We have elicited the processes described by AMG innovators in health care and sport and have mapped the normalisation potential and work required to embed such a system into nursing practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The development of our logic model based on AMG and NPT may provide a practical framework for improving fundamental nursing care and is ripe for further development and testing in clinical trials.

Fundamental nursing care: A systematic review of the evidence on the effect of nursing care interventions for nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of nursing interventions for people's nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene needs. BACKGROUND: Patient experience of health care is sensitive to nursing quality. A refocus on fundamental nursing care is undermined by lack of evidence of effectiveness for interventions in core areas such as elimination, nutrition, mobility and hygiene. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We searched for and included experimental studies on interventions by professionally qualified and unregistered nurses that addressed participants' nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene needs. We extracted data on scope, quality and results of studies followed by descriptive narrative synthesis of included study outcomes using a novel form of harvest plots. RESULTS: We included 149 studies, 35 nutrition, 56 elimination, 16 mobility, 39 hygiene and three addressing two or more areas simultaneously (67 randomised controlled trials, 32 non-randomised controlled trials and 50 uncontrolled trials). Studies into interventions on participant self-management of nutrition (n = 25), oral health (n = 26), catheter care (n = 23) and self-management of elimination (n = 21) were the most prevalent. Most studies focussed their outcomes on observational or physiological measures, with very few collecting patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life, experience or self-reported symptoms. All but 13 studies were of low quality and at significant risk of bias. The majority of studies did not define primary outcomes, included multiple measures of identical concepts, used inappropriate analyses and did not conform to standard reporting quality criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence for fundamental nursing care interventions is sparse, of poor quality and unfit to provide evidence-based guidance to practising nurses. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Researchers in nursing internationally should now undertake a programme of work to produce evidence for clinical practice in the fundamentals of care that is reliable, replicable and robust.

The Second Triennial Systematic Literature Review of European Nursing Research: Impact on Patient Outcomes and Implications for Evidence-Based Practice.

BACKGROUND: European research in nursing has been criticized as overwhelmingly descriptive, wasteful and with little relevance to clinical practice. This second triennial review follows our previous review of articles published in 2010, to determine whether the situation has changed. OBJECTIVE: To identify, appraise, and synthesize reports of European nursing research published during 2013 in the top 20 nursing research journals. METHODS: Systematic review with descriptive results synthesis. RESULTS: We identified 2,220 reports, of which 254, from 19 European countries, were eligible for analysis; 215 (84.7%) were primary research, 36 (14.2%) secondary research, and three (1.2%) mixed primary and secondary. Forty-eight (18.9%) of studies were experimental: 24 (9.4%) randomized controlled trials, 11 (4.3%) experiments without randomization, and 13 (5.1%) experiments without control group. A total of 106 (41.7%) articles were observational: 85 (33.5%) qualitative research. The majority (158; 62.2%) were from outpatient and secondary care hospital settings. One hundred and sixty-five (65.0%) articles reported nursing intervention studies: 77 (30.3%) independent interventions, 77 (30.3%) interdependent, and 11 (4.3%) dependent. This represents a slight increase in experimental studies compared with our previous review (18.9% vs. 11.7%). The quality of reporting remained very poor. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: European research in nursing remains overwhelmingly descriptive. We call on nursing researchers globally to raise the level of evidence and, therefore, the quality of care and patient outcomes. We urge them to replicate our study in their regions, diagnose reasons for the lack of appropriate research, identify solutions, and implement a deliberate, targeted, and systematic global effort to increase the number of experimental, high quality, and relevant studies into nursing interventions. We also call on journal editors to mandate an improvement in the standards of research reporting in nursing journals.

Cost and Outcome of Behavioural Activation versus Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Depression (COBRA): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common, debilitating, and costly disorder. Many patients request psychological therapy, but the best-evidenced therapy-cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-is complex and costly. A simpler therapy-behavioural activation (BA)-might be as effective and cheaper than is CBT. We aimed to establish the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for adults with depression. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults aged 18 years or older meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria for major depressive disorder from primary care and psychological therapy services in Devon, Durham, and Leeds (UK). We excluded people who were receiving psychological therapy, were alcohol or drug dependent, were acutely suicidal or had attempted suicide in the previous 2 months, or were cognitively impaired, or who had bipolar disorder or psychosis or psychotic symptoms. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) remotely using computer-generated allocation (minimisation used; stratified by depression severity [Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score of <19 vs ≥19], antidepressant use, and recruitment site) to BA from junior mental health workers or CBT from psychological therapists. Randomisation done at the Peninsula Clinical Trials Unit was concealed from investigators. Treatment was given open label, but outcome assessors were masked. The primary outcome was depression symptoms according to the PHQ-9 at 12 months. We analysed all those who were randomly allocated and had complete data (modified intention to treat [mITT]) and also all those who were randomly allocated, had complete data, and received at least eight treatment sessions (per protocol [PP]). We analysed safety in the mITT population. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9 PHQ-9 points. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN27473954. FINDINGS: Between Sept 26, 2012, and April 3, 2014, we randomly allocated 221 (50%) participants to BA and 219 (50%) to CBT. 175 (79%) participants were assessable for the primary outcome in the mITT population in the BA group compared with 189 (86%) in the CBT group, whereas 135 (61%) were assessable in the PP population in the BA group compared with 151 (69%) in the CBT group. BA was non-inferior to CBT (mITT: CBT 8·4 PHQ-9 points [SD 7·5], BA 8·4 PHQ-9 points [7·0], mean difference 0·1 PHQ-9 points [95% CI -1·3 to 1·5], p=0·89; PP: CBT 7·9 PHQ-9 points [7·3]; BA 7·8 [6·5], mean difference 0·0 PHQ-9 points [-1·5 to 1·6], p=0·99). Two (1%) non-trial-related deaths (one [1%] multidrug toxicity in the BA group and one [1%] cancer in the CBT group) and 15 depression-related, but not treatment-related, serious adverse events (three in the BA group and 12 in the CBT group) occurred in three [2%] participants in the BA group (two [1%] patients who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed) and eight (4%) participants in the CBT group (seven [4%] who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed). INTERPRETATION: We found that BA, a simpler psychological treatment than CBT, can be delivered by junior mental health workers with less intensive and costly training, with no lesser effect than CBT. Effective psychological therapy for depression can be delivered without the need for costly and highly trained professionals. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Telephone-supported computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy: REEACT-2 large-scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundComputerised cognitive-behavioural therapy (cCBT) for depression has the potential to be efficient therapy but engagement is poor in primary care trials.AimsWe tested the benefits of adding telephone support to cCBT.MethodWe compared telephone-facilitated cCBT (MoodGYM) (n = 187) to minimally supported cCBT (MoodGYM) (n = 182) in a pragmatic randomised trial (trial registration: ISRCTN55310481). Outcomes were depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD)-7) and somatoform complaints (PHQ-15) at 4 and 12 months.ResultsUse of cCBT increased by a factor of between 1.5 and 2 with telephone facilitation. At 4 months PHQ-9 scores were 1.9 points lower (95% CI 0.5-3.3) for telephone-supported cCBT. At 12 months, the results were no longer statistically significant (0.9 PHQ-9 points, 95% CI -0.5 to 2.3). There was improvement in anxiety scores and for somatic complaints.ConclusionsTelephone facilitation of cCBT improves engagement and expedites depression improvement. The effect was small to moderate and comparable with other low-intensity psychological interventions.

Stakeholders perspectives on the key components of community-based interventions coordinating care in dementia: a qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Interventions aiming to coordinate services for the community-based dementia population vary in components, organisation and implementation. In this review we aimed to investigate the views of stakeholders on the key components of community-based interventions coordinating care in dementia. METHODS: We searched four databases from inception to June 2015; Medline, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and PsycINFO, this was aided by a search of four grey literature databases, and backward and forward citation tracking of included papers. Title and abstract screening was followed by a full text screen by two independent reviewers, and quality was assessed using the CASP appraisal tool. We then conducted thematic synthesis on extracted data. RESULTS: A total of seven papers from five independent studies were included in the review, and encompassed the views of over 100 participants from three countries. Through thematic synthesis we identified 32 initial codes that were grouped into 5 second-order themes: (1) case manager had four associated codes and described preferences for the case manager personal and professional attributes, including a sound knowledge in dementia and availability of local services; (2) communication had five associated codes and emphasized the importance stakeholders placed on multichannel communication with service users, as well as between multidisciplinary teams and across organisations; (3) intervention had 11 associated codes which focused primarily on the practicalities of implementation such as the contact type and frequency between case managers and service users, and the importance of case manager training and service evaluation; (4) resources had five associated codes which outlined stakeholder views on the required resources for coordinating interventions and potential overlap with existing resources, as well as arising issues when available resources do not meet those required for successful implementation; and (5) support had seven associated codes that reflect the importance that was placed on the support network around the case manager and the investment of professionals involved directly in care as well as the wider professional network. CONCLUSION: The synthesis of relevant qualitative studies has shown how various stakeholder groups considered dementia care coordination interventions to be acceptable, useful and appropriate for dementia care, and have clear preferences for components, implementation methods and settings of these interventions. By incorporating stakeholders' perspectives and preferences when planning and developing coordinating interventions we may increase the likelihood of successful implementation and patient benefits.

The effectiveness of community-based coordinating interventions in dementia care: a meta-analysis and subgroup analysis of intervention components.

BACKGROUND: Interventions aiming to coordinate services for the community-based dementia population vary in components, organisation and implementation. In this review we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of community-based care coordinating interventions on health outcomes and investigate whether specific components of interventions influence their effects. METHODS: We searched four databases from inception to April 2017: Medline, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and PsycINFO. This was aided by a search of four grey literature databases, and backward and forward citation tracking of included papers. Title and abstract screening was followed by a full text screen by two independent reviewers, and quality was assessed using the CASP appraisal tool. We then conducted meta-analyses and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: A total of 14 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 10,372 participants were included in the review. Altogether we carried out 12 meta-analyses and 19 subgroup analyses. Meta-analyses found coordinating interventions showed a statistically significant improvement in both patient behaviour measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (mean difference (MD) = -9.5; 95% confidence interval (CI): -18.1 to -1.0; p = 0.03; number of studies (n) = 4; I2 = 88%) and caregiver burden (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.54; 95% CI: -1.01 to -0.07; p = 0.02; n = 5, I2 = 92%) compared to the control group. Subgroup analyses found interventions using a case manager with a nursing background showed a greater positive effect on caregiver quality of life than those that used case managers from other professional backgrounds (SMD = 0.94 versus 0.03, respectively; p < 0.001). Interventions that did not provide supervision for the case managers showed greater effectiveness for reducing the percentage of patients that are institutionalised compared to those that provided supervision (odds ratio (OR) = 0.27 versus 0.96 respectively; p = 0.02). There was little evidence of effects on other outcomes, or that other intervention components modify the intervention effects. CONCLUSION: Results show that coordinating interventions in dementia care has a positive impact on some outcomes, namely patient behaviour and caregiver burden, but the evidence is inconsistent and results were not strong enough to draw definitive conclusions on general effectiveness. With the rising prevalence of dementia, effective complex interventions will be necessary to provide high quality and effective care for patients, and facilitate collaboration of health, social and third sector services.

Effect of Collaborative Care vs Usual Care on Depressive Symptoms in Older Adults With Subthreshold Depression: The CASPER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is little evidence to guide management of depressive symptoms in older people. Objective: To evaluate whether a collaborative care intervention can reduce depressive symptoms and prevent more severe depression in older people. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted from May 24, 2011, to November 14, 2014, in 32 primary care centers in the United Kingdom among 705 participants aged 65 years or older with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) subthreshold depression; participants were followed up for 12 months. Interventions: Collaborative care (n=344) was coordinated by a case manager who assessed functional impairments relating to mood symptoms. Participants were offered behavioral activation and completed an average of 6 weekly sessions. The control group received usual primary care (n=361). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was self-reported depression severity at 4-month follow-up on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; score range, 0-27). Included among 10 prespecified secondary outcomes were the PHQ-9 score at 12-month follow-up and the proportion meeting criteria for depressive disorder (PHQ-9 score ≥10) at 4- and 12-month follow-up. Results: The 705 participants were 58% female with a mean age of 77 (SD, 7.1) years. Four-month retention was 83%, with higher loss to follow-up in collaborative care (82/344 [24%]) vs usual care (37/361 [10%]). Collaborative care resulted in lower PHQ-9 scores vs usual care at 4-month follow-up (mean score with collaborative care, 5.36 vs with usual care, 6.67; mean difference, -1.31; 95% CI, -1.95 to -0.67; P < .001). Treatment differences remained at 12 months (mean PHQ-9 score with collaborative care, 5.93 vs with usual care, 7.25; mean difference, -1.33; 95% CI, -2.10 to -0.55). The proportions of participants meeting criteria for depression at 4-month follow-up were 17.2% (45/262) vs 23.5% (76/324), respectively (difference, -6.3% [95% CI, -12.8% to 0.2%]; relative risk, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.61-1.27]; P = .25) and at 12-month follow-up were 15.7% (37/235) vs 27.8% (79/284) (difference, -12.1% [95% CI, -19.1% to -5.1%]; relative risk, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.91]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older adults with subthreshold depression, collaborative care compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant difference in depressive symptoms at 4-month follow-up, of uncertain clinical importance. Although differences persisted through 12 months, findings are limited by attrition, and further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN02202951.

Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a cluster-randomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis.

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage is increasingly used to manage workload in primary care; however, supporting evidence for this approach is scarce. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost consequences of general practitioner-(GP)-led and nurse-led telephone triage compared with usual care for patients seeking same-day consultations in primary care. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation between March 1, 2011, and March 31, 2013, at 42 practices in four centres in the UK. Practices were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence minimised for geographical location, practice deprivation, and practice list size, to either GP-led triage, nurse-led computer-supported triage, or usual care. We included patients who telephoned the practice seeking a same-day face-to-face consultation with a GP. Allocations were concealed from practices until after they had agreed to participate and a stochastic element was included within the minimisation algorithm to maintain concealment. Patients, clinicians, and researchers were not masked to allocation, but practice assignment was concealed from the trial statistician. The primary outcome was primary care workload (patient contacts, including those attending accident and emergency departments) in the 28 days after the first same-day request. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. This trial was registered with the ISRCTN register, number ISRCTN20687662. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 42 practices to GP triage (n=13), nurse triage (n=15), or usual care (n=14), and 20,990 patients (n=6695 vs 7012 vs 7283) were randomly assigned, of whom 16,211 (77%) patients provided primary outcome data (n=5171 vs 5468 vs 5572). GP triage was associated with a 33% increase in the mean number of contacts per person over 28 days compared with usual care (2·65 [SD 1·74] vs 1·91 [1·43]; rate ratio [RR] 1·33, 95% CI 1·30-1·36), and nurse triage with a 48% increase (2·81 [SD 1·68]; RR 1·48, 95% CI 1·44-1·52). Eight patients died within 7 days of the index request: five in the GP-triage group, two in the nurse-triage group, and one in the usual-care group; however, these deaths were not associated with the trial group or procedures. Although triage interventions were associated with increased contacts, estimated costs over 28 days were similar between all three groups (roughly £75 per patient). INTERPRETATION: Introduction of telephone triage delivered by a GP or nurse was associated with an increase in the number of primary care contacts in the 28 days after a patient's request for a same-day GP consultation, with similar costs to those of usual care. Telephone triage might be useful in aiding the delivery of primary care. The whole-system implications should be assessed when introduction of such a system is considered. FUNDING: Health Technology Assessment Programme UK National Institute for Health Research.

High-sensitivity troponin T predicts infarct scar characteristics and adverse left ventricular function by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging early after reperfused acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) is the current standard for evaluation of myocardial infarct scar size and characteristics. Because post-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) troponin levels correlate with clinical outcomes, we sought to determine the sampling period for high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) that would best predict CMRI-measured infarct scar characteristics and left ventricular (LV) function. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 201 patients with first presentation with STEMI who were prospectively recruited, we measured serial hs-TnT levels at admission, peak, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours after STEMI. Indexed LV volumes, LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and infarct scar characteristics (scar size, scar heterogeneity, myocardial salvage index, and microvascular obstruction) were evaluated by CMRI at a median of 4 days post-STEMI. Peak and serial hs-TnT levels correlated positively with early indexed LV volumes and infarct scar characteristics, and negatively correlated with myocardial salvage index and LVEF. Both 48- and 72-hour hs-TnT levels similarly predicted "large" total infarct scar size (odds ratios [ORs] 3.08 and 3.53, both P < .001), myocardial salvage index (ORs 1.68 and 2.30, both P < .001), and LVEF <40% (ORs 2.16 and 2.17, both P < .001) on univariate analyses. On multivariate analyses, 48- and 72-hour hs-TnT levels independently predicted large infarct scar size (ORs 2.05 and 2.31, both P < .001), reduced myocardial salvage index (OR 1.39 [P = .031] and OR 1.55 [P = .009]), and LVEF <40% (OR 1.47 [P = .018] and OR 1.43 [P = .026]). All measured hs-TnT levels had a modest association and similar capacity to predict microvascular obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Levels of hs-TnT at 48 and 72 hours, measured during the "plateau phase" post-STEMI, predicted infarct scar size, poor myocardial salvage, and LVEF. These levels also correlated with scar heterogeneity and microvascular obstruction post-STEMI. Since ascertaining peak levels after STEMI is challenging in routine practice, based on the biphasic kinetics of hs-TnT, a measurement at 48 to 72 hours (during the plateau phase) provides a useful and simple method for early evaluation of LV function and infarct scar characteristics.

Implementing telephone triage in general practice: a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage represents one strategy to manage demand for face-to-face GP appointments in primary care. However, limited evidence exists of the challenges GP practices face in implementing telephone triage. We conducted a qualitative process evaluation alongside a UK-based cluster randomised trial (ESTEEM) which compared the impact of GP-led and nurse-led telephone triage with usual care on primary care workload, cost, patient experience, and safety for patients requesting a same-day GP consultation. The aim of the process study was to provide insights into the observed effects of the ESTEEM trial from the perspectives of staff and patients, and to specify the circumstances under which triage is likely to be successfully implemented. Here we report perspectives of staff. METHODS: The intervention comprised implementation of either GP-led or nurse-led telephone triage for a period of 2-3 months. A qualitative evaluation was conducted using staff interviews recruited from eight general practices (4 GP triage, 4 Nurse triage) in the UK, implementing triage as part of the ESTEEM trial. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with 44 staff members in GP triage and nurse triage practices (16 GPs, 8 nurses, 7 practice managers, 13 administrative staff). RESULTS: Staff reported diverse experiences and perceptions regarding the implementation of telephone triage, its effects on workload, and on the benefits of triage. Such diversity were explained by the different ways triage was organised, the staffing models used to support triage, how the introduction of triage was communicated across practice staff, and by how staff roles were reconfigured as a result of implementing triage. CONCLUSION: The findings from the process evaluation offer insight into the range of ways GP practices participating in ESTEEM implemented telephone triage, and the circumstances under which telephone triage can be successfully implemented beyond the context of a clinical trial. Staff experiences and perceptions of telephone triage are shaped by the way practices communicate with staff, prepare for and sustain the changes required to implement triage effectively, as well as by existing practice culture, and staff and patient behaviour arising in response to the changes made. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20687662. Registered 28 May 2009.

Facilitating professional liaison in collaborative care for depression in UK primary care; a qualitative study utilising normalisation process theory.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care (CC) is an organisational framework which facilitates the delivery of a mental health intervention to patients by case managers in collaboration with more senior health professionals (supervisors and GPs), and is effective for the management of depression in primary care. However, there remains limited evidence on how to successfully implement this collaborative approach in UK primary care. This study aimed to explore to what extent CC impacts on professional working relationships, and if CC for depression could be implemented as routine in the primary care setting. METHODS: This qualitative study explored perspectives of the 6 case managers (CMs), 5 supervisors (trial research team members) and 15 general practitioners (GPs) from practices participating in a randomised controlled trial of CC for depression. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data was analysed using a two-step approach using an initial thematic analysis, and a secondary analysis using the Normalisation Process Theory concepts of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring with respect to the implementation of CC in primary care. RESULTS: Supervisors and CMs demonstrated coherence in their understanding of CC, and consequently reported good levels of cognitive participation and collective action regarding delivering and supervising the intervention. GPs interviewed showed limited understanding of the CC framework, and reported limited collaboration with CMs: barriers to collaboration were identified. All participants identified the potential or experienced benefits of a collaborative approach to depression management and were able to discuss ways in which collaboration can be facilitated. CONCLUSION: Primary care professionals in this study valued the potential for collaboration, but GPs' understanding of CC and organisational barriers hindered opportunities for communication. Further work is needed to address these organisational barriers in order to facilitate collaboration around individual patients with depression, including shared IT systems, facilitating opportunities for informal discussion and building in formal collaboration into the CC framework. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN32829227 30/9/2008.