A study of mapping usual care and unmet need for vocational rehabilitation and psychological support following major trauma in five health districts in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To identify where and how trauma survivors' rehabilitation needs are met after trauma, to map rehabilitation across five UK major trauma networks, and to compare with recommended pathways. DESIGN: Qualitative study (interviews, focus groups, workshops) using soft-systems methodology to map usual care across trauma networks and explore service gaps. Publicly available documents were consulted. CATWOE (Customers, Actors, Transformation, Worldview, Owners, Environment) was used as an analytic framework to explore the relationship between stakeholders in the pathway. SETTING: Five major trauma networks across the UK. SUBJECTS: 106 key rehabilitation stakeholders (service providers, trauma survivors) were recruited to interviews (n = 46), focus groups (n = 4 groups, 17 participants) and workshops (n = 5 workshops, 43 participants). INTERVENTIONS: None. RESULTS: Mapping of rehabilitation pathways identified several issues: (1) lack of vocational/psychological support particularly for musculoskeletal injuries; (2) inconsistent service provision in areas located further from major trauma centres; (3) lack of communication between acute and community care; (4) long waiting lists (up to 12 months) for community rehabilitation; (5) most well-established pathways were neurologically focused. CONCLUSIONS: The trauma rehabilitation pathway is complex and varies across the UK with few, if any patients following the recommended pathway. Services have developed piecemeal to address specific issues, but rarely meet the needs of individuals with multiple impairments post-trauma, with a lack of vocational rehabilitation and psychological support for this population.

The effect on work presenteeism of job retention vocational rehabilitation compared to a written self-help work advice pack for employed people with inflammatory arthritis: protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (the WORKWELL trial).

BACKGROUND: Work problems are common in people with inflammatory arthritis. Up to 50% stop work within 10 years due to their condition and up to 67% report presenteeism (i.e. reduced work productivity), even amongst those with low disease activity. Job retention vocational rehabilitation (JRVR) may help prevent or postpone job loss and reduce presenteeism through work assessment, work-related rehabilitation and enabling job accommodations. This aims to create a better match between the person's abilities and their job demands. The objectives of the Workwell trial are to test the overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of JRVR (WORKWELL) provided by additionally trained National Health Service (NHS) occupational therapists compared to a control group who receive self-help information both in addition to usual care. METHODS: Based on the learning from a feasibility trial (the WORK-IA trial: ISRCTN76777720 ), the WORKWELL trial is a multi-centre, pragmatic, individually-randomised parallel group superiority trial, including economic evaluation, contextual factors analysis and process evaluation. Two hundred forty employed adults with rheumatoid arthritis, undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis or psoriatic arthritis (in secondary care), aged 18 years or older with work instability will be randomised to one of two groups: a self-help written work advice pack plus usual care (control intervention); or WORKWELL JRVR plus a self-help written work advice pack and usual care. WORKWELL will be delivered by occupational therapists provided with additional JRVR training from the research team. The primary outcome is presenteeism as measured using the Work Limitations Questionnaire-25. A comprehensive range of secondary outcomes of work, health, contextual factors and health resource use are included. Outcomes are measured at 6- and 12- months (with 12-months as the primary end-point). A multi-perspective within-trial cost-effectiveness analyses will also be conducted. DISCUSSION: This trial will contribute to the evidence base for provision of JRVR to people with inflammatory arthritis. If JRVR is found to be effective in enabling people to keep working, the findings will support decision-making about provision of JRVR by rheumatology teams, therapy services and healthcare commissioners, and providing evidence of the effectiveness of JRVR and the economic impact of its implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.Gov: NCT03942783 . Registered 08/05/2019 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03942783 ); ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN61762297 . Registered:13/05/2019 ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN61762297 ). Retrospectively registered.

Early, specialist vocational rehabilitation to facilitate return to work after traumatic brain injury: the FRESH feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Up to 160,000 people incur traumatic brain injury (TBI) each year in the UK. TBI can have profound effects on many areas of human functioning, including participation in work. There is limited evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vocational rehabilitation (VR) after injury to promote early return to work (RTW) following TBI. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of a definitive, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early, specialist VR plus usual care (UC) compared with UC alone on work retention 12 months post TBI. DESIGN: A multicentre, feasibility, parallel-group RCT with a feasibility economic evaluation and an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation. Randomisation was by remote computer-generated allocation. SETTING: Three NHS major trauma centres (MTCs) in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with TBI admitted for > 48 hours and working or studying prior to injury. INTERVENTIONS: Early specialist TBI VR delivered by occupational therapists (OTs) in the community using a case co-ordination model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported RTW 12 months post randomisation, mood, functional ability, participation, work self-efficacy, quality of life and work ability. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and retention rates. Follow-up was by postal questionnaires in two centres and face to face in one centre. Those collecting data were blind to treatment allocation. RESULTS: Out of 102 target participants, 78 were recruited (39 randomised to each arm), representing 39% of those eligible and 5% of those screened. Approximately 2.2 patients were recruited per site per month. Of those, 56% had mild injuries, 18% had moderate injuries and 26% had severe injuries. A total of 32 out of 45 nominated carers were recruited. A total of 52 out of 78 (67%) TBI participants responded at 12 months (UC, n = 23; intervention, n = 29), completing 90% of the work questions; 21 out of 23 (91%) UC respondents and 20 out of 29 (69%) intervention participants returned to work at 12 months. Two participants disengaged from the intervention. Face-to-face follow-up was no more effective than postal follow-up. RTW was most strongly related to social participation and work self-efficacy. It is feasible to assess the cost-effectiveness of VR. Intervention was delivered as intended and valued by participants. Factors likely to affect a definitive trial include deploying experienced OTs, no clear TBI definition or TBI registers, and repatriation of more severe TBI from MTCs, affecting recruitment of those most likely to benefit/least likely to drop out. LIMITATIONS: Target recruitment was not reached, but mechanisms to achieve this in future studies were identified. Retention was lower than expected, particularly in UC, potentially biasing estimates of the 12-month RTW rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study met most feasibility objectives. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. When objectives were not met, strategies to ensure feasibility of a full trial were identified. Future work should test two-stage recruitment and include resources to recruit from 'spokes'. A broader measure covering work ability, self-efficacy and participation may be a more sensitive outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38581822. 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. 22, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Nursing model to deliver respiratory research.

Southampton Research and Development Department has managed several chronic obstructive pulmonary disease research studies, leading to the development of a unique nurse management model. This model has ensured that research recruitment targets are met, skilled respiratory nursing care is delivered, and evidence-based practice is translated into the clinical environment.

Return to work after traumatic brain injury: cohort comparison and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Returning to work (RTW) in the UK is problematic following TBI. Vocational rehabilitation (VR) is limited and efficacy or costs seldom reported. This study aimed to determine whether a TBI specialist VR intervention (TBI VR) was more effective at work return and retention 12 months after injury than usual care (UC). Secondary aims were to explore the feasibility of collecting economic data to inform a definitive trial. METHOD: Work outcomes of TBI-VR were compared to UC. Ninety-four participants (40 TBI-VR) with TBI resulting in hospitalization ≥48 hours, who were working at injury were followed up by postal questionnaire at 3, 6 and 12 months post-hospital discharge. Primary outcome was RTW. Secondary outcomes were functional ability, mood and quality-of-life. Health resource use was measured by self-report. RESULTS: At 12 months, 15% more TBI-VR participants (27% more with moderate/severe TBI) were working than UC (27/36, 75% vs. 27/45, 60%). Mean TBI-VR health costs per person (consultant, GP, therapy, medication) were only £75 greater at 1 year. Secondary outcomes showed no significant baseline differences between groups. DISCUSSION: More TBI-VR participants returned to work than UC. People with moderate/severe TBI benefitted most. This positive trend was achieved without greatly increased health costs, suggesting cost-effectiveness. This study justifies the need for and can inform a definitive Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT).

The assessment of fitness to drive in people with dementia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether cognitive tests predict fitness to drive in patients with dementia. DESIGN: Two group comparison of patients with dementia and healthy elderly volunteers, and comparison of patients with dementia who were found safe to drive and those found unsafe, followed by a validation study. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two people with dementia and 33 healthy elderly volunteers with no known memory problems who were driving. Of the 42 people with dementia 37 were assessed on the road. A second sample of 17 people with dementia was also assessed on the road. MAIN MEASURES: Stroke Drivers Screening Assessment, Mini Mental State Examination, Salford Objective Recognition Test, Stroop Test, Test of Everyday Attention, Visual Object and Space Perception Battery, Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome, Adult Memory and Information Processing Battery. RESULTS: All healthy elderly volunteers were safe to drive but 10 of the 27 patients with dementia were unsafe. Discriminant function analysis identified a combination of tests, which correctly classified 92% of drivers with dementia as safe or unsafe. Validation of this prediction on an independent sample had 59% accuracy using a cut-off of 0 but 88% accuracy using a cut-off of 5. CONCLUSIONS: Safety to drive in people with dementia could be predicted from a combination of six cognitive tests. These correctly identified 67% of safe drivers in a validation sample. This assessment could be used to identify those who need evaluation of their safety on the road.