Supporting Cancer Survivors Following Treatment for Non-Hodgkin's and Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A Pilot Study Assessing the Feasibility and Process Outcomes of a Nurse-Led Intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Lymphoma is the sixth most common cancer in Australia and comprises 2.8% of worldwide cancer diagnoses. Research targeting development and evaluation of post-treatment care for debilitating complications resulting from the disease and its treatment is limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led survivorship intervention, post-treatment in Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma survivors. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, 3-arm, pilot, randomized controlled, parallel-group trial was used. People with lymphoma were recruited and randomized to the intervention (ENGAGE), education booklet only, or usual care arm. Participants receiving ENGAGE received an educational booklet and were offered 3 consultations (via various modes) with a cancer nurse to develop a survivorship care plan and healthcare goals. Participant distress and intervention acceptability was measured at baseline and 12-wk. Acceptability was measured via a satisfaction survey using a 11-point scale. Feasibility was measured using participation, retention rates, and process outcomes. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Thirty-four participants with HL and NHL were recruited to the study (11 = intervention, 11 = information only, 12 = usual care). Twenty-seven participants (79%) completed all time points from baseline to 12 wk. Seven (88%) of the 8 participants receiving ENGAGE completed all consultations using various modes to communicate with the nurse (videoconference 14/23, 61%; phone 5/23, 22%; face-to-face 4/23, 17%). Participants who completed the intervention were highly satisfied with ENGAGE. CONCLUSION: The ENGAGE intervention is feasible and highly acceptable for lymphoma survivors. These findings will inform a larger trial assessing effectiveness and cost effectiveness of ENGAGE.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of an evidence-based electronic minimum dataset for nursing team leader handover: A descriptive survey.

INTRODUCTION: There is widespread use of clinical information systems in intensive care units however, the evidence to support electronic handover is limited. OBJECTIVES: The study aim was to assess the barriers and facilitators to use of an electronic minimum dataset for nursing team leader shift-to-shift handover in the intensive care unit prior to its implementation. METHODS: The study was conducted in a 21-bed medical/surgical intensive care unit, specialising in cardiothoracic surgery at a tertiary referral hospital, in Queensland, Australia. An established tool was modified to the intensive care nursing handover context and a survey of all 63 nursing team leaders was undertaken. Survey statements were rated using a 6-point Likert scale with selections from 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree', and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise results. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 39 team leaders responded to the survey (62%). Team leaders used general intensive care work unit guidelines to inform practice however they were less familiar with the intensive care handover work unit guideline. Barriers to minimum dataset uptake included: a tool that was not user friendly, time consuming and contained too much information. Facilitators to minimum dataset adoption included: a tool that was user friendly, saved time and contained relevant information. Identifying the complexities of a healthcare setting prior to the implementation of an intervention assists researchers and clinicians to integrate new knowledge into healthcare settings. CONCLUSION: Barriers and facilitators to knowledge use focused on usability, content and efficiency of the electronic minimum dataset and can be used to inform tailored strategies to optimise team leaders' adoption of a minimum dataset for handover.

Direct extubation onto high-flow nasal cannulae post-cardiac surgery versus standard treatment in patients with a BMI ≥30: a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m(2) experience more severe atelectasis following cardiac surgery than those with normal BMI and its resolution is slower. This study aimed to compare extubation of patients post-cardiac surgery with a BMI ≥30 kg/m(2) onto high-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) with standard care to determine whether HFNC could assist in minimising post-operative atelectasis and improve respiratory function. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, patients received HFNC or standard oxygen therapy post-extubation. The primary outcome was atelectasis on chest X-ray. Secondary outcomes included oxygenation, respiratory rate (RR), subjective dyspnoea, and failure of allocated treatment. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-five patients were randomised, 74 to control, 81 to HFNC. No difference was seen between groups in atelectasis scores on Days 1 or 5 (median scores = 2, p = 0.70 and p = 0.15, respectively). In the 24-h post-extubation, there was no difference in mean PaO2/FiO2 ratio (HFNC 227.9, control 253.3, p = 0.08), or RR (HFNC 17.2, control 16.7, p = 0.17). However, low dyspnoea levels were observed in each group at 8 h post-extubation, median (IQR) scores were 0 (0-1) for control and 1 (0-3) for HFNC (p = 0.008). Five patients failed allocated treatment in the control group compared with three in the treatment group [Odds ratio 0.53, (95 % CI 0.11, 2.24), p = 0.40]. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, prophylactic extubation onto HFNC post-cardiac surgery in patients with a BMI ≥30 kg/m(2) did not lead to improvements in respiratory function. Larger studies assessing the role of HFNC in preventing worsening of respiratory function and intubation are required.

Head-of-bed elevation improves end-expiratory lung volumes in mechanically ventilated subjects: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Head-of-bed elevation (HOBE) has been shown to assist in reducing respiratory complications associated with mechanical ventilation; however, there is minimal research describing changes in end-expiratory lung volume. This study aims to investigate changes in end-expiratory lung volume in a supine position and 2 levels of HOBE. METHODS: Twenty postoperative cardiac surgery subjects were examined using electrical impedance tomography. End-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) was recorded as a surrogate measurement of end-expiratory lung volume in a supine position and at 20° and then 30°. RESULTS: Significant increases in end-expiratory lung volume were seen at both 20° and 30° HOBE in all lung regions, except the anterior, with the largest changes from baseline (supine) seen at 30°. From baseline to 30° HOBE, global EELI increased by 1,327 impedance units (95% CI 1,080-1,573, P < .001). EELI increased by 1,007 units (95% CI 880-1,134, P < .001) in the left lung region and by 320 impedance units (95% CI 188-451, P < .001) in the right lung. Posterior increases of 1,544 impedance units (95% CI 1,405-1,682, P < .001) were also seen. EELI decreased anteriorly, with the largest decreases occurring at 30° (-335 impedance units, 95% CI -486 to -183, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: HOBE significantly increases global and regional end-expiratory lung volume; therefore, unless contraindicated, all mechanically ventilated patients should be positioned with HOBE.

End-expiratory lung volume recovers more slowly after closed endotracheal suctioning than after open suctioning: a randomized crossover study.

PURPOSE: Endotracheal suctioning causes significant lung derecruitment. Closed suction (CS) minimizes lung volume loss during suction, and therefore, volumes are presumed to recover more quickly postsuctioning. Conflicting evidence exists regarding this. We examined the effects of open suction (OS) and CS on lung volume loss during suctioning, and recovery of end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) up to 30 minutes postsuction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized crossover study examining 20 patients postcardiac surgery. CS and OS were performed in random order, 30 minutes apart. Lung impedance was measured during suction, and end-expiratory lung impedance was measured at baseline and postsuctioning using electrical impedance tomography. Oximetry, partial pressure of oxygen in the alveoli/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio and compliance were collected. RESULTS: Reductions in lung impedance during suctioning were less for CS than for OS (mean difference, -905 impedance units; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1234 to -587; P < .001). However, at all points postsuctioning, EELV recovered more slowly after CS than after OS. There were no statistically significant differences in the other respiratory parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Closed suctioning minimized lung volume loss during suctioning but, counterintuitively, resulted in slower recovery of EELV postsuction compared with OS. Therefore, the use of CS cannot be assumed to be protective of lung volumes postsuctioning. Consideration should be given to restoring EELV after either suction method via a recruitment maneuver.