What is the quantity, quality and type of systematic review evidence available to inform the optimal prescribing of statins and antihypertensives? A systematic umbrella review and evidence and gap map.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to map the systematic review evidence available to inform the optimal prescribing of statins and antihypertensive medication. DESIGN: Systematic umbrella review and evidence and gap map (EGM). DATA SOURCES: Eight bibliographic databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium, MEDLINE ALL, PsycINFO, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and Science Citation Index) were searched from 2010 to 11 August 2020. Update searches conducted in MEDLINE ALL 2 August 2022. We searched relevant websites and conducted backwards citation chasing. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We sought systematic reviews of quantitative or qualitative research where adults 16 years+ were currently receiving, or being considered for, a prescription of statin or antihypertensive medication. Eligibility criteria were applied to the title and abstract and full text of each article independently by two reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Quality appraisal was completed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Review characteristics were tabulated and incorporated into an EGM based on a patient care pathway. Patients with lived experience provided feedback on our research questions and EGM. RESULTS: Eighty reviews were included within the EGM. The highest quantity of evidence focused on evaluating interventions to promote patient adherence to antihypertensive medication. Key gaps included a lack of reviews synthesising evidence on experiences of specific interventions to promote patient adherence or improve prescribing practice. The evidence was predominantly of low quality, limiting confidence in the findings from individual reviews. CONCLUSIONS: This EGM provides an interactive, accessible format for policy developers, service commissioners and clinicians to view the systematic review evidence available relevant to optimising the prescribing of statin and antihypertensive medication. To address the paucity of high-quality research, future reviews should be conducted and reported according to existing guidelines and address the evidence gaps identified above.

Interventions to improve continence for children and young people with neurodisability: a national survey of practitioner and family perspectives and experiences.

OBJECTIVE: Describe families' experiences of interventions to improve continence in children and young people with neurodisability, and health professionals' and school and social care staff's perspectives regarding factors affecting intervention use. DESIGN: Four online surveys were developed and advertised to parent carers, young people with neurodisability, health professionals and school and social care staff, via societies, charities, professional contacts, schools, local authorities, and national parent carer and family forums, who shared invitations with their networks. Survey questions explored: difficulties helping children and young people use interventions; acceptability of interventions and waiting times; ease of use and availability of interventions, and facilitators and barriers to improving continence. RESULTS: 1028 parent carers, 26 young people, 352 health professionals and 202 school and social care staff registered to participate. Completed surveys were received from 579 (56.3%) parent carers, 20 (77%) young people, 193 (54.8%) health professionals, and 119 (58.9%) school and social care staff. Common parent carer-reported difficulties in using interventions to help their children and young people to learn to use the toilet included their child's lack of understanding about what was required (reported by 337 of 556 (60.6%) parent carers who completed question) and their child's lack of willingness (343 of 556, 61.7%). Almost all (142 of 156, 91%) health professionals reported lack of funding and resources as barriers to provision of continence services. Many young people (14 of 19, 74%) were unhappy using toilet facilities while out and about. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions that children lack understanding and willingness, and inadequate facilities impact the implementation of toileting interventions for children and young people with neurodisability. Greater understanding is needed for children to learn developmentally appropriate toileting skills. Further research is recommended around availability and acceptability of interventions to ensure quality of life is unaffected.

Primary care clinicians' perspectives on interacting with patients with gynaecological conditions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Studies have found that women with gynaecological conditions and symptoms do not feel listened to by primary care clinicians (PCCs). Less understood is whether PCCs perceive that there are challenges around listening to and interacting with this patient group. AIM: To understand PCCs' perspectives on the challenges of listening to and interacting with women patients with gynaecological conditions and symptoms. DESIGN & SETTING: Systematic review of English-language studies. METHOD: We searched ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Embase, HMIC (Healthcare Management Information Consortium), and MEDLINE from inception to July 2023. We also conducted forward and backward citation searches of included studies. Identified records were screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Quality appraisal used the Wallace checklist. 'Best-fit' framework synthesis was used to synthesise findings around themes that explored the challenges of patient-clinician interaction. RESULTS: We identified 25 relevant articles. Perceived challenges associated with listening to and interacting with patients with gynaecological conditions and symptoms were identified at four 'levels': individual clinician level factors; structural and organisational factors; community and external factors; and factors related to gynaecological conditions. Interpretive analysis identified specific challenges relating to sociocultural factors affecting the consultation experience; the need for further education, training, or guidance for clinicians; factors affecting referral decisions; and factors related to service structure and organisation. CONCLUSION: PCCs acknowledge that empathy, respect, and attentive listening are important when interacting with women patients with gynaecological conditions and symptoms. However, these ideals are impeded by several factors.

Impact of interventions to improve recovery of older adults following planned hospital admission on quality-of-life following discharge: linked-evidence synthesis.

Objectives: To understand the impact of multicomponent interventions to improve recovery of older adults following planned hospital treatment, we conducted two systematic reviews, one of quantitative and one of qualitative evidence, and an overarching synthesis. These aimed to: • understand the effect of multicomponent interventions which aim to enhance recovery and/or reduce length of stay on patient-reported outcomes and health and social care utilisation • understand the experiences of patients, carers and staff involved in the delivery of interventions • understand how different aspects of the content and delivery of interventions may influence patient outcomes. Review methods: We searched bibliographic databases including MEDLINE ALL, Embase and the Health Management Information Consortium, CENTRAL, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, conducted forward and backward citation searching and examined reference lists of topically similar qualitative reviews. Bibliographic database searches were completed in May/June 2021 and updated in April 2022. We sought primary research from high-income countries regarding hospital inpatients with a mean/median age of minimum 60 years, undergoing planned surgery. Patients experienced any multicomponent hospital-based intervention to reduce length of stay or improve recovery. Quantitative outcomes included length of stay and any patient-reported outcome or experience or service utilisation measure. Qualitative research focused on the experiences of patients, carers/family and staff of interventions received. Quality appraisal was undertaken using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool or an adapted version of the Wallace checklist. We used random-effects meta-analysis to synthesise quantitative data where appropriate, meta-ethnography for qualitative studies and qualitative comparative analysis for the overarching synthesis. Results: Quantitative review: Included 125 papers. Forty-nine studies met criteria for further synthesis. Enhanced recovery protocols resulted in improvements to length of stay, without detriment to other outcomes, with minimal improvement in patient-reported outcome measures for patients admitted for lower-limb or colorectal surgery. Qualitative review: Included 43 papers, 35 of which were prioritised for synthesis. We identified six themes: 'Home as preferred environment for recovery', 'Feeling safe', 'Individualisation of structured programme', 'Taking responsibility', 'Essential care at home' and 'Outcomes'. Overarching synthesis: Intervention components which trigger successful interventions represent individualised approaches that allow patients to understand their treatment, ask questions and build supportive relationships and strategies to help patients monitor their progress and challenge themselves through early mobilisation. Discussion: Interventions to reduce hospital length of stay for older adults following planned surgery are effective, without detriment to other patient outcomes. Findings highlight the need to reconsider how to evaluate patient recovery from the perspective of the patient. Trials did not routinely evaluate patient mid- to long-term outcomes. Furthermore, when they did evaluate patient outcomes, reporting is often incomplete or conducted using a narrow range of patient-reported outcome measures or limited through asking the wrong people the wrong questions, with lack of longer-term evaluation. Findings from the qualitative and overarching synthesis will inform policy-making regarding commissioning and delivering services to support patients, carers and families before, during and after planned admission to hospital. Study registration: This trial is registered as PROSPERO registration number CRD42021230620. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 130576) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

More patients aged 60 or over need planned surgery. These patients are more likely to experience difficulties, such as urinary infections or falls, whilst in hospital, so should not spend more time in hospital than necessary. Hospitals use strategies that shorten hospital stay, but we do not know how older patients, or carers, feel about these, or whether they help patients recover in the long term. We wanted to know: how leaving hospital sooner affects how older patients feel and recover after planned surgery; how older patients, carers and staff feel about strategies designed to support older patients to go home earlier; which parts of these hospital care strategies work best? We brought together research about hospital care strategies that shorten the length of time older patients spend in hospital. We looked at patient questionnaires and interviews with patients, carers and hospital staff. Patients and carers helped us plan our research, understand our findings and consider who to share these with. hospital strategies to reduce hospital stay achieve this, without increasing risk of complications; information and follow-up care for patients and carers after discharge are essential; strategies which consider the individual needs of patients and help them understand their treatment, focus on their recovery goals and develop supportive relationships with staff were linked to better outcomes; lots of studies were excluded because they did not use patient questionnaires. Studies using questionnaires often focused on aspects of care delivered whilst patients were in hospital. Carers' voices were often overlooked. Research is needed to develop patient questionnaires to more fully capture the experiences of patients and carers and support hospitals to develop care strategies focused on the needs of individual patients and carers.

Remote monitoring for long-term physical health conditions: an evidence and gap map.

Background: Remote monitoring involves the measurement of an aspect of a patient's health without that person being seen face to face. It could benefit the individual and aid the efficient provision of health services. However, remote monitoring can be used to monitor different aspects of health in different ways. This evidence map allows users to find evidence on different forms of remote monitoring for different conditions easily to support the commissioning and implementation of interventions. Objectives: The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness, acceptability and implementation of remote monitoring for adults with long-term physical health conditions. Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, nine further databases and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews published between 2018 and March 2022, PROSPERO for continuing reviews, and completed citation chasing on included studies. Review methods: (Study selection and Study appraisal): Included systematic reviews focused on adult populations with a long-term physical health condition and reported on the effectiveness, acceptability or implementation of remote monitoring. All forms of remote monitoring where data were passed to a healthcare professional as part of the intervention were included. Data were extracted on the characteristics of the remote monitoring intervention and outcomes assessed in the review. AMSTAR 2 was used to assess quality. Results were presented in an interactive evidence and gap map and summarised narratively. Stakeholder and public and patient involvement groups provided feedback throughout the project. Results: We included 72 systematic reviews. Of these, 61 focus on the effectiveness of remote monitoring and 24 on its acceptability and/or implementation, with some reviews reporting on both. The majority contained studies from North America and Europe (38 included studies from the United Kingdom). Patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes and respiratory conditions were the most studied populations. Data were collected predominantly using common devices such as blood pressure monitors and transmitted via applications, websites, e-mail or patient portals, feedback provided via telephone call and by nurses. In terms of outcomes, most reviews focused on physical health, mental health and well-being, health service use, acceptability or implementation. Few reviews reported on less common conditions or on the views of carers or healthcare professionals. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality. Limitations: Many terms are used to describe remote monitoring; we searched as widely as possible but may have missed some relevant reviews. Poor reporting of remote monitoring interventions may mean some included reviews contain interventions that do not meet our definition, while relevant reviews might have been excluded. This also made the interpretation of results difficult. Conclusions and future work: The map provides an interactive, visual representation of evidence on the effectiveness of remote monitoring and its acceptability and successful implementation. This evidence could support the commissioning and delivery of remote monitoring interventions, while the limitations and gaps could inform further research and technological development. Future reviews should follow the guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and investigate the application of remote monitoring in less common conditions. Review registration: A protocol was registered on the OSF registry (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6Q7P4). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135450) as part of a series of evidence syntheses under award NIHR130538. For more information, visit https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR135450 and https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR130538. The report is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further project information.

Remote monitoring is when an aspect of a patient's health, such as blood pressure, is measured at home, and this information is passed to a healthcare professional. We created an evidence and gap map for remote monitoring in adults with long-term physical health conditions. The map is presented as an interactive online table, which can be used to find the number and quality of systematic reviews that address specific questions (e.g. remote monitoring in diabetes). The map does not summarise findings from the reviews (e.g. whether remote monitoring works or not). We found 72 reviews investigating whether remote monitoring works and/or how to implement it, including whether it is acceptable to patients, carers and healthcare professionals. Thirty-seven reviews included studies from the United Kingdom. The most common health conditions were heart disease, diabetes and lung conditions. There was little or no evidence for some health conditions (e.g. epilepsy). Data from patients were collected mainly using common devices (e.g. heart rate monitors) and passed to healthcare providers using computer applications, websites and telephone calls. Most feedback received by patients was motivational/educational. There was evidence about the acceptability of remote monitoring for patients, but little for carers and healthcare professionals. Reviews focused on whether remote monitoring affected physical and mental health, health service use, acceptability or implementation. More than half the included reviews were judged to be low quality; however, they may still include high-quality studies. The map could help to design and deliver remote monitoring programmes and guide further research and technology development. Stakeholder and public and patient representatives provided feedback throughout the project. The map contains reviews published between 2018 and March 2022.

Patient, carer and family experiences of seeking redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event: Systematic review of qualitative evidence.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic review of qualitative evidence to improve understanding of the processes and outcomes of redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event from the perspectives of individuals experiencing the event and their families. METHODS: We searched six bibliographic databases for primary qualitative evidence exploring the views of individuals who have experienced a life-changing event, and/or their family or carers, of redress or reconciliation processes. This was supplemented with targeted database searches, forward and backward citation chasing and searches of Google Scholar and relevant websites. Title and abstract and full-text screening were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We used a best-fit framework synthesis approach, drawing upon procedural and restorative justice concepts. FINDINGS: Fifty-three studies (61 papers) were eligible for inclusion. Forty-one studies (47 papers) were included in the synthesis, from which we identified four themes. Three themes 'Transparency', 'Person-centered' and 'Trustworthy' represent the procedural elements required to support a fair and objective process. The fourth, 'Restorative justice' encapsulates how a fair process feels to those who have experienced a life-changing event. This theme highlights the importance of an empathic relationship between the different parties involved in the redress-reconciliation process and the significance of being able to engage in meaningful action. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the procedural aspects and context of redress-reconciliation processes required to ensure that the process and outcomes are experienced as fair. These criteria may be applied to the processes used to investigate both recent and historical patient safety events. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One member of the public affiliated with the Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility helped develop the review protocol. Two people with experience of medically life-changing events provided insight which corroborated our findings and identified important limitations of the evidence included in this review.

PROTOCOL: Health and social care interventions in the 80 years old and over population: An evidence and gap map.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: identify available systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials on interventions targeting health or social needs of the people aged over 80; identify qualitative studies relating to the experiences of people aged over 80 of interventions that target their health or social needs; identify areas where systematic reviews are needed; identify gaps in evidence where further primary research is needed; assess equity considerations (using the PROGRESS plus criteria) in available systematic reviews, randomised trials and qualitative studies of identified interventions; assess gaps and evidence related to health equity.

Factors that influence the administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) to trauma patients in prehospital settings: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: In the UK there are around 5400 deaths annually from injury. Tranexamic acid (TXA) prevents bleeding and has been shown to reduce trauma mortality. However, only 5% of UK major trauma patients who are at risk of haemorrhage receive prehospital TXA. This review aims to examine the evidence regarding factors influencing the prehospital administration of TXA to trauma patients. DESIGN: Systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, Embase and MEDLINE were searched from January 2010 to 2020; searches were updated in June 2022. CLINICALTRIALS: gov and OpenGrey were also searched and forward and backwards citation chasing performed. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All primary research reporting factors influencing TXA administration to trauma patients in the prehospital setting was included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers performed the selection process, quality assessment and data extraction. Data were tabulated, grouped by setting and influencing factor and synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Twenty papers (278 249 participants in total) were included in the final synthesis; 13 papers from civilian and 7 from military settings. Thirteen studies were rated as 'moderate' using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. Several common factors were identified: knowledge and skills; consequences and social influences; injury type (severity, injury site and mechanism); protocols; resources; priorities; patient age; patient sex. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights an absence of high-quality research. Preliminary evidence suggests a host of system and individual-level factors that may be important in determining whether TXA is administered to trauma patients in the prehospital setting. FUNDING AND REGISTRATION: This review was supported by Research Capability Funding from the South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust and the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020162943.

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.

New horizons for caring for people with dementia in hospital: the DEMENTIA CARE pointers for service change.

Approximately two-thirds of hospital admissions are older adults and almost half of these are likely to have some form of dementia. People with dementia are not only at an increased risk of adverse outcomes once admitted, but the unfamiliar environment and routinised practices of the wards and acute care can be particularly challenging for them, heightening their confusion, agitation and distress further impacting the ability to optimise their care. It is well established that a person-centred care approach helps alleviate some of the unfamiliar stress but how to embed this in the acute-care setting remains a challenge. In this article, we highlight the challenges that have been recognised in this area and put forward a set of evidence-based 'pointers for service change' to help organisations in the delivery of person-centred care. The DEMENTIA CARE pointers cover areas of: dementia awareness and understanding, education and training, modelling of person-centred care by clinical leaders, adapting the environment, teamwork (not being alone), taking the time to 'get to know', information sharing, access to necessary resources, communication, involving family (ask family), raising the profile of dementia care, and engaging volunteers. The pointers extend previous guidance, by recognising the importance of ward cultures that prioritise dementia care and institutional support that actively seeks to raise the profile of dementia care. The pointers provide a range of simple to more complex actions or areas for hospitals to help implement person-centred care approaches; however, embedding them within the organisational cultures of hospitals is the next challenge.

Research priority setting related to older adults: a scoping review to inform the Cochrane-Campbell Global Ageing Partnership work programme.

OBJECTIVE: To explore and map the findings of prior research priority-setting initiatives related to improving the health and well-being of older adults. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AgeLine, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from January 2014 to 26 April 2021, and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included primary studies reporting research priorities gathered from stakeholders that focused on ageing or the health of older adults (≥60 years). There were no restrictions by setting, but language was limited to English and French. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We used a modified Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE) guideline to assess the transparency of the reported methods. Population-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) priorities were categorised according to their associated International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) and International Classification of Functioning (ICF) outcomes. Broad research topics were categorised thematically. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies gathered opinions from various stakeholder groups, including clinicians (n=56 studies) and older adults (n=35), and caregivers (n=24), with 75% of the initiatives involving multiple groups. None of the included priority-setting initiatives reported gathering opinions from stakeholders located in low-income or middle-income countries. Of the priorities extracted, 272 were identified as broad research topics, while 217 were identified as PICO priorities. PICO priorities that involved clinical outcomes (n=165 priorities) and interventions concerning health-related behaviours (n=59) were identified most often. Broad research topics on health services and systems were identified most often (n=60). Across all these included studies, the reporting of six REPRISE elements was deemed to be critically low. CONCLUSION: Future priority setting initiatives should focus on documenting a more detailed methodology with all initiatives eliciting opinions from caregivers and older adults to ensure priorities reflect the opinions of all key stakeholder groups.

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.

Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study.

OBJECTIVE: The academic and scientific community has reacted at pace to gather evidence to help and inform about COVID-19. Concerns have been raised about the quality of this evidence. The aim of this review was to map the nature, scope and quality of evidence syntheses on COVID-19 and to explore the relationship between review quality and the extent of researcher, policy and media interest. DESIGN AND SETTING: A meta-research: systematic review of reviews. INFORMATION SOURCES: PubMed, Epistemonikos COVID-19 evidence, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and the WHO COVID-19 database, searched between 10 June 2020 and 15 June 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Any peer-reviewed article reported as a systematic review, rapid review, overview, meta-analysis or qualitative evidence synthesis in the title or abstract addressing a research question relating to COVID-19. Articles described as meta-analyses but not undertaken as part of a systematic or rapid review were excluded. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Abstract and full text screening were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Descriptive information on review type, purpose, population, size, citation and attention metrics were extracted along with whether the review met the definition of a systematic review according to six key methodological criteria. For those meeting all criteria, additional data on methods and publication metrics were extracted. RISK OF BIAS: For articles meeting all six criteria required to meet the definition of a systematic review, AMSTAR-2 ((A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the reported methods. RESULTS: 2334 articles were screened, resulting in 280 reviews being included: 232 systematic reviews, 46 rapid reviews and 2 overviews. Less than half reported undertaking critical appraisal and a third had no reproducible search strategy. There was considerable overlap in topics, with discordant findings. Eighty-eight of the 280 reviews met all six systematic review criteria. Of these, just 3 were rated as of moderate or high quality on AMSTAR-2, with the majority having critical flaws: only a third reported registering a protocol, and less than one in five searched named COVID-19 databases. Review conduct and publication were rapid, with 52 of the 88 systematic reviews reported as being conducted within 3 weeks, and a half published within 3 weeks of submission. Researcher and media interest, as measured by altmetrics and citations, was high, and was not correlated with quality. DISCUSSION: This meta-research of early published COVID-19 evidence syntheses found low-quality reviews being published at pace, often with short publication turnarounds. Despite being of low quality and many lacking robust methods, the reviews received substantial attention across both academic and public platforms, and the attention was not related to the quality of review methods. INTERPRETATION: Flaws in systematic review methods limit the validity of a review and the generalisability of its findings. Yet, by being reported as 'systematic reviews', many readers may well regard them as high-quality evidence, irrespective of the actual methods undertaken. The challenge especially in times such as this pandemic is to provide indications of trustworthiness in evidence that is available in 'real time'. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020188822.

Improving continence in children and young people with neurodisability: a systematic review and survey.

BACKGROUND: Children and young people with neurodisability often need help to achieve socially acceptable bladder and bowel control. Approaches vary depending on whether or not the impairment results from spinal cord pathology that impairs motor control and sensation of the bladder and bowel. Currently, there is uncertainty about which interventions are effective. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to summarise the available evidence on and current practice for improving continence in children and young people with neurodisability. DESIGN: A systematic review of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and factors that modify intervention implementation, alongside a cross-sectional, online survey of current practice with health professionals, parent carers, school and care staff and young people with neurodisability. RESULTS: Twelve databases were searched in the review, resulting in 5756 references; 71 studies (72 papers) were included in the analyses. Most of the evidence was for children with spinal cord pathology, which involved evaluations of pharmacological approaches and surgical techniques, whereas the evidence pertaining to those with non-spinal-cord-related pathology tended to be for behavioural interventions. The methodological quality of studies was rated as being moderate to poor. There were three robust qualitative studies about the experience of continence among children with spinal cord pathology. We found substantial heterogeneity across the interventions that we evaluated in terms of quality, study design and outcomes measured. No economic studies were found. The results were synthesised narratively and reported in text and tables. We did not find any eligible studies evaluating interventions using toilet and clothing adaptations in the review, although the survey highlighted that these types of interventions are frequently used and considered. In total, 949 people responded to the survey: 202 health professionals, 605 parent carers, 122 school and social care staff, and 20 young people. The survey results illustrated the different roles that professionals have in improving continence, highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to supporting children and young people and their families. Clinicians employ a range of assessments and interventions to improve continence or independent toileting, depending on the needs of the child. LIMITATIONS: Quantitative studies in the review were not methodologically robust. The survey had a risk of response bias. CONCLUSIONS: Our research found a dearth of good-quality evidence for many of the interventions currently in use, and no evidence of experiences of implementing interventions for children with non-spinal-cord-related pathology. There was also no evidence of cost-effectiveness of any of the interventions. FUTURE WORK: There is a need to involve young people and families in the design of high-quality evaluative research for interventions that aim to improve continence. This is especially the case for children with autism and learning disability, who have been neglected in previous evaluative and qualitative research. We recommend better training for health, education and care professionals about toileting, informed by evidence and the lived experiences of children and their families. We recommend a joined-up multidisciplinary and holistic approach to improving continence to maximise independence, dignity and comfort. It is vital that children and young people with neurodisability have early access to regular, integrated assessment of their bladder and bowel health, and are fully supported with appropriate personalised treatment. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018100572. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Learning to go to the toilet is an important skill. Becoming continent involves knowing when you need to go, holding on until you find the right place, going to the toilet, cleaning and getting dressed again. Many children and young people with special educational needs or disability can learn to become clean and dry, sometimes with help or equipment. Advice is not consistent about the best ways to assess and treat continence problems for children and young people with neurodisability. This research aimed to find out how families and professionals measure and improve continence, and if there was evidence about which treatments are useful. We brought together the results of studies that have tested ways of assessing and improving toilet training for children and young people with special educational needs or disability. We carried out four online surveys with health professionals, education and care staff, parent carers, and disabled young people. We brought together and explained the findings from the surveys and the studies with help from parent carers and professionals. Approaches to improving continence vary depending on whether or not the child or young person's nerves and muscles that control their bladder and bowel work properly. Children and young people with conditions affecting the nerves and muscles of their bladder and bowel are often helped by medical or surgical treatments. Children and young people with conditions such as learning disability or autism may benefit from behavioural therapies to help them learn to use the toilet. There is poor evidence for how well treatments work and whether or not they are value for money. More and better research is needed to make sure that children and young people are able to be clean and dry without pads, maximising their independence, dignity and comfort. This also requires an adequate number of fully accessible toilets in the community.

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.

Meta-ethnography of the purpose of meaningful occupation for people living with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Guidance on provision of care for people with dementia states that occupation people find meaningful is essential for well-being; however, definitions of 'meaningful occupation' are often broad, with intrinsic meaning coming from within the person rather than the activity, leading to an inconsistent understanding of its purpose. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to create a conceptual framework depicting the types of meaning that are seen as stemming from occupation. METHOD: Six electronic databases were searched (CINAHL, PubMed Central, PsycINFO, Embase, AMED, ASSIA) using a pre-specified search strategy to identify qualitative studies relating to meaningful occupation for people living with dementia. From 114 eligible full-text articles, six qualitative studies were identified as sufficiently rich, topically relevant and explicit in their definition of meaningful activity. A further 14 were purposefully sampled for their ability to refute or advance the emerging conceptual framework. The synthesis is based on meta-ethnography and is reported following eMERGe guidance. RESULTS: We found the fundamental purpose of occupation is to support the person living with dementia to feel they are living a meaningful and fulfilling life. Three overlapping concepts were identified: (i) catalytic environment, (ii) meaningful life and (iii) occupation as a tool. CONCLUSION: The framework proposes how occupation could support meaning in multiple ways and considers how these forms of meaning were influenced by the worldviews and values of the individual, and context in which they were experienced. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The conceptual framework offers a consistent theoretical grounding with which to measure effectiveness of meaningful occupation for people living with dementia.

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

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

Can person-centred care for people living with dementia be delivered in the acute care setting?

The need to improve care for people living with dementia in the hospital setting has long been recognised. Person-centred care has the potential to improve the experience of care for persons living with dementia and their carers, and has been shown to improve the experiences of hospital staff caring for the persons living with dementia, however it remains challenging to deliver in a time- and task-focussed acute care setting. This commentary suggests that to embed person-centred care across the hospital environment, cultural changes are needed at organisational and ward levels. In particular there needs to be: leadership that supports and advocates for workforce capacity to recognise and meet both psychological and physical needs of people living with dementia, promotion of physical environments that support familiarisation and social interactions, an inclusive approach to carers and the development of a culture of sharing knowledge and information across hierarchies and roles. An evidence-based set of pointers for service change are described which highlight institutional and environmental practices and processes that need to be addressed in order for person-centred care to become part of routine care.

Rehabilitation to enable recovery from COVID-19: a rapid systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the evidence for rehabilitation interventions tested in populations of patients admitted to ICU and critical care with severe respiratory illness, and consider whether the evidence is generalizable to patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The authors undertook a rapid systematic review. Medline (via OvidSP), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL (via Wiley), Epistemonikos (via Epistemonikos.org), PEDro (via pedro.org.au) and OTseeker (via otseeker.com) searched to 7 May 2020. The authors included systematic reviews, RCTs and qualitative studies involving adults with respiratory illness requiring intensive care who received rehabilitation to enhance or restore resulting physical impairments or function. Data were extracted by one author and checked by a second. TIDier was used to guide intervention descriptions. Study quality was assessed using Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tools. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred and three titles and abstracts were screened; 24 systematic reviews, 11 RCTs and eight qualitative studies were included. Progressive exercise programmes, early mobilisation and multicomponent interventions delivered in ICU can improve functional independence. Nutritional supplementation in addition to rehabilitation in post-ICU hospital settings may improve performance of activities of daily living. The evidence for rehabilitation after discharge from hospital following an ICU admission is inconclusive. Those receiving rehabilitation valued it, engendering hope and confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise, early mobilisation and multicomponent programmes may improve recovery following ICU admission for severe respiratory illness that could be generalizable to those with COVID-19. Rehabilitation interventions can bring hope and confidence to individuals but there is a need for an individualised approach and the use of behaviour change strategies. Further research is needed in post-ICU settings and with those who have COVID-19. Registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/prc2y.