PERFECTED enhanced recovery pathway (PERFECT-ER) versus standard acute hospital care for people after hip fracture surgery who have cognitive impairment: a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Assess feasibility of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) to measure clinical and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced recovery pathway for people with hip fracture and cognitive impairment (CI). DESIGN: Feasibility trial undertaken between 2016 and 2018. SETTING: Eleven acute hospitals from three UK regions. PARTICIPANTS: 284 participants (208 female:69 male). INCLUSION CRITERIA: aged >60 years, confirmed proximal hip fracture requiring surgical fixation and CI; preoperative AMTS ≤8 in England or a 4AT score ≥1 in Scotland; minimum of 5 days on study ward; a 'suitable informant' able to provide proxy measures, recruited within 7 days of hip fracture surgery. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: no hip surgery; not expected to survive beyond 4 weeks; already enrolled in a clinical trial. INTERVENTION: PERFECT-ER, an enhanced recovery pathway with 15 quality targets supported by a checklist and manual, a service improvement lead a process lead and implemented using a plan-do-study-act model. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility outcomes: recruitment and attrition, intervention acceptability, completion of participant reported outcome measures, preliminary estimates of potential effectiveness using mortality, EQ-5D-5L, economic and clinical outcome scores. RESULTS: 282 participants were consented and recruited (132, intervention) from a target of 400. Mean recruitment rates were the same in intervention and control sites, (range: 1.2 and 2.7 participants/month). Retention was 230 (86%) at 1 month and 54%(144) at 6 months. At 3 months a relatively small effect (one quarter of an SD) was observed on health-related quality of life of the patient measured with EQ-5D-5L proxy in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: This trial design was feasible with modifications to recruitment. Mechanisms for delivering consistency in the PERFECT-ER intervention and participant retention need to be addressed. However, an RCT may be a suboptimal research design to evaluate this intervention due to the complexity of caring for people with CI after hip fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN99336264.

Freedom of Information Act: scalpel or just a sharp knife?

The concluding statement of the Burns Commission, established to evaluate whether changes are needed to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), ruled no major legislative changes were required. As such Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation still enables anyone to obtain information from public authorities. In this brief report article we explore arguments regarding FOI as an instrument for healthcare research using an international research programme as a case study.

Risk factors of severity of abuse against older women in the home setting: A multinational European study.

This article examines the ecological risk factors of abuse against older women. Data from 2,880 older women were randomly collected in five European countries (Austria, Belgium, Finland, Lithuania, and Portugal) using a standardized questionnaire. Results indicate that overall 30.1 % older women had at least one experience of abuse in the past year. The findings demonstrate that a single emphasis on personal risk factors (e.g., health, coping) is important but too simple: Abuse is multifaceted and is embedded in environmental (e.g., loneliness, household income) as well as macrocultural contexts (e.g., old age dependency ratio).

Priority setting partnership to identify the top 10 research priorities for the management of Parkinson's disease.

OBJECTIVES: This priority setting partnership was commissioned by Parkinson's UK to encourage people with direct and personal experience of the condition to work together to identify and prioritise the top 10 evidential uncertainties that impact on everyday clinical practice for the management of Parkinson's disease (PD). SETTING: The UK. PARTICIPANTS: Anyone with experience of PD including: people with Parkinson's (PwP), carers, family and friends, healthcare and social care professionals. Non-clinical researchers and employees of pharmaceutical or medical devices companies were excluded. 1000 participants (60% PwP) provided ideas on research uncertainties, 475 (72% PwP) initially prioritised them and 27 (37% PwP) stakeholders agreed a final top 10. METHODS: Using a modified nominal group technique, participants were surveyed to identify what issues for the management of PD needed research. Unique research questions unanswered by current evidence were identified and participants were asked to identify their top 10 research priorities from this list. The top 26 uncertainties were presented to a consensus meeting with key stakeholders to agree the top 10 research priorities. RESULTS: 1000 participants provided 4100 responses, which contained 94 unique unanswered research questions that were initially prioritised by 475 participants. A consensus meeting with 27 stakeholders agreed the top 10 research priorities. The overarching research aspiration was an effective cure for PD. The top 10 research priorities for PD management included the need to address motor symptoms (balance and falls, and fine motor control), non-motor symptoms (sleep and urinary dysfunction), mental health issues (stress and anxiety, dementia and mild cognitive impairments), side effects of medications (dyskinesia) and the need to develop interventions specific to the phenotypes of PD and better monitoring methods. CONCLUSIONS: These research priorities identify crucial gaps in the existing evidence to address everyday practicalities in the management of the complexities of PD.

Working on the interface: identifying professional responses to families with mental health and child-care needs.

The gaps between mental health and child-care services constitute a recognised barrier to providing effective services to families where parents have mental health problems. Recent guidance exhorts professionals to coordinate and collaborate more consistently in this area of work. The present study aimed to identify the barriers to inter-professional collaboration through a survey of 500 health and social care professionals. The views of 11 mothers with severe mental health problems whose children had been subject to a child protection case conference were also interrogated through two sets of interviews. The study found that communication problems were identified more frequently between child care workers and adult psychiatrists than between other groups. Communication between general practitioners and child-care workers was also more likely to be described as problematic. While there was some support amongst practitioners for child-care workers to assume a coordinating or lead role in such cases, this support was not overwhelming, and reflected professional interests and alliances. The mothers themselves valued support from professionals whom they felt were 'there for them' and whom they could trust. There was evidence from the responses of child-care social workers that they lacked the capacity to fill this role in relation to parents and their statutory child-care responsibilities may make it particularly difficult for them to do so. The authors recommend that a dyad of workers from the child-care and community mental health services should share the coordinating key worker role in such cases.

Assessing risk: professional perspectives on work involving mental health and child care services.

The assessment of risk is central to work with families where parental mental health needs and child care concerns coexist. This article reports on the findings of three interprofessional focus groups which examined professionals' experiences of working with such families. Specialisation and differing thresholds and codes were identified as factors which contributed to difficulties for practitioners and families and scepticism was expressed concerning the feasibility of a key worker system for this group. The issue of psychiatric diagnosis evoked ambivalent responses and was both valued as offering direction for planning interventions and seen as a means of labelling and excluding individuals from services. The focus group participants were aware that assessing risk placed families under considerable pressure, but practitioners themselves also appeared to experience an emphasis on risk as restrictive.