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.

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.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: The Association Between Child and Adolescent Depression and Later Educational Attainment.

OBJECTIVE: The association between depression and educational attainment in young people is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the longitudinal association between depression and subsequent attainment, and its potential effect modifiers and mediators. METHOD: We searched Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, ERIC, and the British Education Index from inception to October 23, 2019, conducted citation searching, and contacted authors for articles. Eligible studies reported on the longitudinal association between depression in children and adolescents 4 to 18 years of age and later educational attainment. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Correlation coefficients were pooled in meta-analysis, and effect modifiers were explored using meta-regression and stratification. Other evidence on confounders, modifiers, and mediators was narratively synthesized. The PROSPERO record for the study is CRD42019123068. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies were included, of which 22 were pooled in meta-analysis. There was a small but statistically significant association between depression and lower subsequent attainment (pooled Fisher z = -0.19, 95% CI = -0.22 to -0.16, I2 = 62.9%). A total of 15 studies also reported an enduring effect after adjusting for various confounders. No statistically significant effect modifiers were identified. Social and school problems may mediate between depression and low attainment. CONCLUSION: Depression was associated with lower educational attainment, but further research is needed to establish mechanisms. Nonetheless, there is a clear need for mental health and educational support among children and adolescents with depression.

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.

Why do GPs exclude patients from participating in research? An exploration of adherence to and divergence from trial criteria.

BACKGROUND: The role of GPs in recruiting or excluding participants critically underpins the feasibility, external validity and generalizability of primary care research. A better understanding of this role is needed. AIM: To investigate why GPs excluded potentially eligible participants from a large scale randomized controlled trial (RCT), to determine the proportion of patients excluded on account of trial eligibility compared with other reasons, and to explore the impact of such exclusions on the management and generalizability of RCTs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of data from the CoBalT study, a multi-centre general-practice-based RCT investigating cognitive behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant depression. METHOD: GPs were asked to screen patient lists generated from computerized record searches for trial eligibility and to provide narrative reasons for excluding patients. These reasons were coded independently by two researchers, with a third researcher resolving discrepancies. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent (4750/15,379) of patients were excluded at the GP screening stage, including 663 on patient lists that remained unscreened. Of the 4087 actively excluded patients, 67% were excluded on account of trial exclusion criteria, 20% for other criteria (half of which were comorbid conditions) and 13% without reason. CONCLUSION: Clear, comprehensive criteria, particularly with regards to comorbidities, are required for GPs to confidently screen patients for potential participation in research. Future studies should promote inclusivity and encourage GPs to adopt a liberal approach when screening patient lists. This would enhance the validity and generalizability of primary care research and encourage greater patient autonomy.