Association of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm Size With Long-term Patient Outcomes: The KP-TAA Study.

Importance: The risk of adverse events from ascending thoracic aorta aneurysm (TAA) is poorly understood but drives clinical decision-making. Objective: To evaluate the association of TAA size with outcomes in nonsyndromic patients in a large non-referral-based health care delivery system. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Kaiser Permanente Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm (KP-TAA) cohort study was a retrospective cohort study at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a fully integrated health care delivery system insuring and providing care for more than 4.5 million persons. Nonsyndromic patients from a regional TAA safety net tracking system were included. Imaging data including maximum TAA size were merged with electronic health record (EHR) and comprehensive death data to obtain demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medications, laboratory values, vital signs, and subsequent outcomes. Unadjusted rates were calculated and the association of TAA size with outcomes was evaluated in multivariable competing risk models that categorized TAA size as a baseline and time-updated variable and accounted for potential confounders. Data were analyzed from January 2018 to August 2021. Exposures: TAA size. Main Outcomes and Measures: Aortic dissection (AD), all-cause death, and elective aortic surgery. Results: Of 6372 patients with TAA identified between 2000 and 2016 (mean [SD] age, 68.6 [13.0] years; 2050 female individuals [32.2%] and 4322 male individuals [67.8%]), mean (SD) initial TAA size was 4.4 (0.5) cm (828 individuals [13.0% of cohort] had initial TAA size 5.0 cm or larger and 280 [4.4%] 5.5 cm or larger). Rates of AD were low across a mean (SD) 3.7 (2.5) years of follow-up (44 individuals [0.7% of cohort]; incidence 0.22 events per 100 person-years). Larger initial aortic size was associated with higher risk of AD and all-cause death in multivariable models, with an inflection point in risk at 6.0 cm. Estimated adjusted risks of AD within 5 years were 0.3% (95% CI, 0.3-0.7), 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4-1.3), 1.5% (95% CI, 1.2-3.9), 3.6% (95% CI, 1.8-12.8), and 10.5% (95% CI, 2.7-44.3) in patients with TAA size of 4.0 to 4.4 cm, 4.5 to 4.9 cm, 5.0 to 5.4 cm, 5.5 to 5.9 cm, and 6.0 cm or larger, respectively, in time-updated models. Rates of the composite outcome of AD and all-cause death were higher than for AD alone, but a similar inflection point for increased risk was observed at 6.0 cm. Conclusions and Relevance: In a large sociodemographically diverse cohort of patients with TAA, absolute risk of aortic dissection was low but increased with larger aortic sizes after adjustment for potential confounders and competing risks. Our data support current consensus guidelines recommending prophylactic surgery in nonsyndromic individuals with TAA at a 5.5-cm threshold.

Hospital nurse-staffing models and patient- and staff-related outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Nurses comprise the largest component of the health workforce worldwide and numerous models of workforce allocation and profile have been implemented. These include changes in skill mix, grade mix or qualification mix, staff-allocation models, staffing levels, nursing shifts, or nurses' work patterns. This is the first update of our review published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review was to explore the effect of hospital nurse-staffing models on patient and staff-related outcomes in the hospital setting, specifically to identify which staffing model(s) are associated with: 1) better outcomes for patients, 2) better staff-related outcomes, and, 3) the impact of staffing model(s) on cost outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers were searched on 22 March 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted-time-series or repeated-measures studies of interventions relating to hospital nurse-staffing models. Participants were patients and nursing staff working in hospital settings. We included any objective reported measure of patient-, staff-related, or economic outcome. The most important outcomes included in this review were: nursing-staff turnover, patient mortality, patient readmissions, patient attendances at the emergency department (ED), length of stay, patients with pressure ulcers, and costs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We worked independently in pairs to extract data from each potentially relevant study and to assess risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies, 17 of which were included in the analysis and eight of which we identified for this update. We identified four types of interventions relating to hospital nurse-staffing models:- introduction of advanced or specialist nurses to the nursing workforce;- introduction of nursing assistive personnel to the hospital workforce;- primary nursing; and- staffing models.The studies were conducted in the USA, the Netherlands, UK, Australia, and Canada and included patients with cancer, asthma, diabetes and chronic illness, on medical, acute care, intensive care and long-stay psychiatric units. The risk of bias across studies was high, with limitations mainly related to blinding of patients and personnel, allocation concealment, sequence generation, and blinding of outcome assessment.The addition of advanced or specialist nurses to hospital nurse staffing may lead to little or no difference in patient mortality (3 studies, 1358 participants). It is uncertain whether this intervention reduces patient readmissions (7 studies, 2995 participants), patient attendances at the ED (6 studies, 2274 participants), length of stay (3 studies, 907 participants), number of patients with pressure ulcers (1 study, 753 participants), or costs (3 studies, 617 participants), as we assessed the evidence for these outcomes as being of very low certainty. It is uncertain whether adding nursing assistive personnel to the hospital workforce reduces costs (1 study, 6769 participants), as we assessed the evidence for this outcome to be of very low certainty. It is uncertain whether primary nursing (3 studies, > 464 participants) or staffing models (1 study, 647 participants) reduces nursing-staff turnover, or if primary nursing (2 studies, > 138 participants) reduces costs, as we assessed the evidence for these outcomes to be of very low certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review should be treated with caution due to the limited amount and quality of the published research that was included. We have most confidence in our finding that the introduction of advanced or specialist nurses may lead to little or no difference in one patient outcome (i.e. mortality) with greater uncertainty about other patient outcomes (i.e. readmissions, ED attendance, length of stay and pressure ulcer rates). The evidence is of insufficient certainty to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of other types of interventions, including new nurse-staffing models and introduction of nursing assistive personnel, on patient, staff and cost outcomes. Although it has been seven years since the original review was published, the certainty of the evidence about hospital nurse staffing still remains very low.

Factors affecting patient participation in clinical trials in Ireland: A narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials have long been considered the 'gold standard' of research generated evidence in health care. Patient recruitment is an important determinant in the success of the trials, yet little focus is placed on the decision making process of patients towards recruitment. Our objective was to identify the key factors pertaining to patient participation in clinical trials, to better understand the identified low participation rate of patients in one clinical research facility within Ireland. DESIGN: Narrative literature review of studies focussing on factors which may act to facilitate or deter patient participation in clinical trials. Studies were identified from Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library and CINAHL. RESULTS: Sixty-one studies were included in the narrative review: Forty-eight of these papers focused specifically on the patient's perspective of participating in clinical trials. The remaining thirteen related to carers, family and health care professional perspectives of participation. The primary factor influencing participation in clinical trials amongst patients was related to personal factors and these were collectively associated with obtaining a form of personal gain through participation. Cancer was identified as the leading disease entity included in clinical trials followed by HIV and cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of literature relating to participation in clinical trials emanates predominantly from high income countries, with 63% originating from the USA. No studies for inclusion in this review were identified from low income or developing countries and therefore limits the generalizability of the influencing factors.