Dressings for the prevention of surgical site infection.

BACKGROUND: Surgical wounds (incisions) heal by primary intention when the wound edges are brought together and secured, often with sutures, staples, or clips. Wound dressings applied after wound closure may provide physical support, protection and absorb exudate. There are many different types of wound dressings available and wounds can also be left uncovered (exposed). Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication of wounds and this may be associated with using (or not using) dressings, or different types of dressing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of wound dressings compared with no wound dressings, and the effects of alternative wound dressings, in preventing SSIs in surgical wounds healing by primary intention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register (searched 19 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and Epub Ahead of Print; 1946 to 19 September 2016); Ovid Embase (1974 to 19 September 2016); EBSCO CINAHL Plus (1937 to 19 September 2016).There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound dressings with wound exposure (no dressing) or alternative wound dressings for the postoperative management of surgical wounds healing by primary intention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction independently. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 trials (5718 participants). All studies except one were at an unclear or high risk of bias. Studies were small, reported low numbers of SSI events and were often not clearly reported. There were 16 trials that included people with wounds resulting from surgical procedures with a 'clean' classification, five trials that included people undergoing what was considered 'clean/contaminated' surgery, with the remaining studies including people undergoing a variety of surgical procedures with different contamination classifications. Four trials compared wound dressings with no wound dressing (wound exposure); the remaining 25 studies compared alternative dressing types, with the majority comparing a basic wound contact dressing with film dressings, silver dressings or hydrocolloid dressings. The review contains 11 comparisons in total. PRIMARY OUTCOME: SSIIt is uncertain whether wound exposure or any dressing reduces or increases the risk of SSI compared with alternative options investigated: we assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for most comparisons (and low for others), with downgrading (according to GRADE criteria) largely due to risk of bias and imprecision. We summarise the results of comparisons with meta-analysed data below:- film dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.55), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.- hydrocolloid dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.78), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.- hydrocolloid dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following potentially contaminated surgery (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.51), very low certainty evidence downgraded twice for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.- silver-containing dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.62), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.- silver-containing dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following potentially contaminated surgery (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.37), very low certainty evidence downgraded twice for risk of bias and twice for imprecision. Secondary outcomesThere was limited and low or very low certainty evidence on secondary outcomes such as scarring, acceptability of dressing and ease of removal, and uncertainty whether wound dressings influenced these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether covering surgical wounds healing by primary intention with wound dressings reduces the risk of SSI, or whether any particular wound dressing is more effective than others in reducing the risk of SSI, improving scarring, reducing pain, improving acceptability to patients, or is easier to remove. Most studies in this review were small and at a high or unclear risk of bias. Based on the current evidence, decision makers may wish to base decisions about how to dress a wound following surgery on dressing costs as well as patient preference.

Dressings for the prevention of surgical site infection.

BACKGROUND: Surgical wounds (incisions) heal by primary intention when the wound edges are brought together and secured - often with sutures, staples, clips or glue. Wound dressings, usually applied after wound closure, provide physical support, protection from bacterial contamination and absorb exudate. Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication of surgical wounds that may delay healing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of wound dressings for preventing SSI in people with surgical wounds healing by primary intention. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2014 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); The Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) (The Cochrane Library); NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing alternative wound dressings or wound dressing with no dressing (wound exposure) for the postoperative management of surgical wounds healing by primary intention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction independently. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty RCTs were included (3623 participants). All trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. Twelve trials included people with wounds resulting from surgical procedures with a contamination classification of 'clean', two trials included people with wounds resulting from surgical procedures with a 'clean/contaminated' contamination classification and the remaining trials evaluated people with wounds resulting from various surgical procedures with different contamination classifications. Two trials compared wound dressings with leaving wounds exposed. The remaining 18 trials compared two alternative dressing types. No evidence was identified to suggest that any dressing significantly reduced the risk of developing an SSI compared with leaving wounds exposed or compared with alternative dressings in people who had surgical wounds healing by primary intention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is insufficient evidence as to whether covering surgical wounds healing by primary intention with wound dressings reduces the risk of SSI or whether any particular wound dressing is more effective than others in reducing the rates of SSI, improving scarring, pain control, patient acceptability or ease of dressing removal. Most trials in this review were small and at high or unclear risk of bias. However, based on the current evidence, we conclude that decisions on wound dressing should be based on dressing costs and the symptom management properties offered by each dressing type e.g. exudate management.

Interventions for improving adherence to ocular hypotensive therapy.

BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to therapy is a significant healthcare issue, particularly in patients with chronic disease such as open-angle glaucoma. Treatment failure may necessitate unwarranted changes of medications, increased healthcare expenditure and risk to the patient if surgical intervention is required. Simplifying eye drop regimes, providing adequate information, teaching drop instillation technique and ongoing support according to the patient need may have a positive effect on improving adherence. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the effects of interventions for improving adherence to ocular hypotensive therapy in people with ocular hypertension (OHT) or glaucoma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6), MEDLINE (June 1946 to June 2012), EMBASE (June 1980 to June 2012), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (June 1937 to June 2012), PsycINFO (1806 to June 2012), PsycEXTRA (1908 to June 2012), Web of Science (1970 to June 2012), ZETOC (1993 to June 2012), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 26 June 2012. We did not search the National Research Register (NNR) as this resource has now been now archived. We contacted pharmaceutical manufacturers to request unpublished data and searched conference proceedings for the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO), and the Annual Congress for the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCO). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared interventions to improve adherence to ocular hypotensive therapy for patients with OHT or glaucoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently assessed the search results for eligibility and extracted data for included trials onto specifically designed forms. We did not pool data due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials (1565 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies investigated some form of patient education. In six of these studies this education was combined with other behavioural change interventions including tailoring daily routines to promote adherence to eye drops. Eight studies compared different drug regimens (one of these trials also compared open and masked monitoring) and one study investigated a reminder device. The studies were of variable quality and some were at considerable risk of bias; in general, the length of follow-up was short at less than six months with only two studies following up to 12 months. Different interventions and outcomes were reported and so it was not possible to produce an overall estimate of effect. There was some evidence from three studies that education combined with personalised interventions, that is, more complex interventions, improved adherence to ocular hypotensive therapy. There was less information on other outcomes such as persistence and intraocular pressure, and no information on visual field defects, quality of life and cost. There was weak evidence as to whether people on simpler drug regimens were more likely to adhere and persist with their ocular hypotensive therapy. A particular problem was the interpretation of cross-over studies, which in general were not reported correctly. One study investigated a reminder device and monitoring but the study was small and inconclusive. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although complex interventions consisting of patient education combined with personalised behavioural change interventions, including tailoring daily routines to promote adherence to eye drops, may improve adherence to glaucoma medication, overall there is insufficient evidence to recommend a particular intervention. The interventions varied between studies and none of the included studies reported on the cost of the intervention. Simplified drug regimens also could be of benefit but again the current published studies do not provide conclusive evidence. Future studies should follow up for at least one year, and could benefit from standardised outcomes.

Interventions for improving adherence to ocular hypotensive therapy.

BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to therapy is a significant healthcare issue, particularly in patients with chronic disease such as open angle glaucoma. Treatment failure may necessitate unwarranted changes of medications, increased healthcare expenditure and risk to the patient if surgical intervention is required. Simplifying eye drop regimes, providing adequate information and ongoing support according to patient need, may have a positive effect on improving adherence. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the effects of interventions for improving adherence to ocular hypotensive therapy in people with ocular hypertension (OHT) or glaucoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ZETOC and OpenSIGLE. In addition, we searched research registers of ongoing studies. We contacted pharmaceutical manufacturers to request unpublished data and searched conference proceedings for the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO), and the Annual Congress for the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCO). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 15 January 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi RCTs that compared interventions to improve adherence to ocular hypotensive therapy for patients with OHT or glaucoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently assessed the search results for eligibility and extracted data for included trials onto specifically designed forms. We calculated the mean difference for continuous data and relative risks for dichotomous data. Where appropriate, we pooled data using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials met the inclusion criteria. There was considerable heterogeneity of interventions and reported outcome measures and therefore, meta-analysis was limited to two studies. Overall, studies were not of high quality due to small sample sizes, missing data and short term follow-up. Three of five drug comparison studies provided evidence that reducing the frequency of drops can improve adherence. However, the study that compared the least frequent regime with one of the most complicated, showed no difference in reported adherence. A small study of thirteen patients found a reminder device beneficial to adherence levels yet only one of two studies involving education and individualised care planning was found to be successful. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions involving simplified dosing regimes, reminder devices, education and individualised care planning, did show improvements in adherence rates. However, due to inadequate methodological quality and heterogeneity of study design we are unable to advocate any particular interventions at this time.

Preventing pressure ulcers in nursing homes using a care bundle: A feasibility study.

Pressure ulcers can be painful and negatively affect health-related quality of life and healthcare costs. Many people living in nursing homes are at risk of developing a pressure ulcer. Nursing home staff, tissue viability nurses and researchers have co-designed the first theory and evidence-informed care bundle specifically for nursing homes, which consists of three prevention practices (skin inspection, support surfaces, repositioning) and a range of behaviour change techniques to promote these practices. We conducted a mixed methods feasibility study of the use of this care bundle in one nursing home in the North of England using an uncontrolled, before-and-after study design. We collected quantitative data on pressure ulcer prevention behaviours of the nursing home staff and pressure ulcer incidence rates for 5 weeks prior to implementing the bundle. Data collection continued for a further 9 weeks during the bundle implementation phase. We explored adherence to the bundle and participants' experiences of using it. The Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity and the Theoretical Domains Framework informed the semi-structured interviews. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and deductive framework analysis respectively. We collected data for 462 resident bed days prior to implementing the bundle; five new pressure ulcers were recorded and repositioning was the only documented pressure ulcer prevention behaviour. We collected data for 1,181 resident bed days during the intervention phase; no new pressure ulcers developed and the documented prevention behaviours included repositioning, skin inspection and checking support surfaces. Participants reported that the bundle enhanced the care they delivered and offered suggestions for future improvements. Our findings have highlighted a number of feasibility issues surrounding recruitment and retention, collecting data and implementation fidelity. A pressure ulcer prevention bundle specifically designed for nursing homes was acceptable. The feasibility work has highlighted the potential for the intervention and the areas that require development and refinement.

Preventing pressure injury in nursing homes: developing a care bundle using the Behaviour Change Wheel.

OBJECTIVE: To develop, with nurse specialists and nursing home care staff, a theory and evidence-informed pressure injury prevention care bundle for use in nursing home settings. DESIGN: The development of a care bundle. METHODS: We undertook a detailed, multistaged and theoretically driven development process. First, we identified evidence-informed pressure injury prevention practices: these formed an initial set of possible target behaviours to be considered for inclusion in the bundle. During a 4-hour workshop and supplemental email consultation with a total of 13 healthcare workers, we agreed the key target behaviours for the care bundle. We explored with staff the barriers and facilitators to prevention activity and defined intervention functions and behaviour change practices using the Behaviour Change Wheel. SETTING: North West England. RESULTS: The target behaviours consisted of three elements: support surfaces, skin inspection and repositioning. We identified capability, opportunity and reflective motivation as influencing the pressure injury prevention behaviours of nursing home care staff. The intervention functions (education, training, modelling) and behaviour change techniques (information about social and environmental consequences, information on health consequences, feedback on behaviour, feedback on the outcome of behaviour, prompts/cues, instruction on how to perform the behaviour, demonstration of behaviour) were incorporated into the care bundle. CONCLUSION: This is the first description of a pressure injury prevention care bundle for nursing homes developed using the Behaviour Change Wheel. Key stakeholders identified and prioritised the appropriate target behaviours to aid pressure injury prevention in a nursing home setting.

What factors influence community wound care in the UK? A focus group study using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

OBJECTIVES: Research has found unwarranted variation across community wound care services in the North of England, with underuse of evidence-based practice and overuse of interventions where there is little or no known patient benefit. This study explored the factors that influence care in community settings for people with complex wounds, to develop a deeper understanding of the current context of wound care and variation in practice. DESIGN: Qualitative focus group study using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to structure the questions, prompts and analyses. SETTING: Community healthcare settings in the North of England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-six clinical professionals who cared for patients with complex wounds and eight non-clinical professionals who were responsible for procuring wound care products participated across six focus group interviews. RESULTS: We found the TDF domains: environmental context and resources, knowledge, skills, social influences and behaviour regulation to best explain the variation in wound care and the underuse of research evidence. Factors such as financial pressures were perceived as having a negative effect on the continuity of care, the availability of wound care services and workloads. We found practice to be mainly based on experiential knowledge and personal preference and highly influenced by colleagues, patients and the pharmaceutical industry, although not by research evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides new insight into the role that experiential learning and social influences play in determining wound care and on the limited influence of research. Workforce pressures and limited resources are perceived to impede care by reducing patient access to services and the ability to provide holistic care. Participative collaboration between university and healthcare organisations may offer a supportive route to addressing issues, implementing sustainable changes to practice and service delivery and a resolute commitment to research use among clinical professionals.

Do systematic reviews address community healthcare professionals' wound care uncertainties? Results from evidence mapping in wound care.

BACKGROUND: Complex wounds such as leg and foot ulcers are common, resource intensive and have negative impacts on patients' wellbeing. Evidence-based decision-making, substantiated by high quality evidence such as from systematic reviews, is widely advocated for improving patient care and healthcare efficiency. Consequently, we set out to classify and map the extent to which up-to-date systematic reviews containing robust evidence exist for wound care uncertainties prioritised by community-based healthcare professionals. METHODS: We asked healthcare professionals to prioritise uncertainties based on complex wound care decisions, and then classified 28 uncertainties according to the type and level of decision. For each uncertainty, we searched for relevant systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts of reviews against the following criteria: meeting an a priori definition of a systematic review, sufficiently addressing the uncertainty, published during or after 2012, and identifying high quality research evidence. RESULTS: The most common uncertainty type was 'interventions' 24/28 (85%); the majority concerned wound level decisions 15/28 (53%) however, service delivery level decisions (10/28) were given highest priority. Overall, we found 162 potentially relevant reviews of which 57 (35%) were not systematic reviews. Of 106 systematic reviews, only 28 were relevant to an uncertainty and 18 of these were published within the preceding five years; none identified high quality research evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the growing volume of published primary research, healthcare professionals delivering wound care have important clinical uncertainties which are not addressed by up-to-date systematic reviews containing high certainty evidence. These are high priority topics requiring new research and systematic reviews which are regularly updated. To reduce clinical and research waste, we recommend systematic reviewers and researchers make greater efforts to ensure that research addresses important clinical uncertainties and is of sufficient rigour to inform practice.

Barriers and facilitators to preventing pressure ulcers in nursing home residents: A qualitative analysis informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue; and can cause pain, immobility, and delay recovery, impacting on health-related quality of life. The individuals who are most at risk of developing a pressure ulcer are those who are seriously ill, elderly, have impaired mobility and/or poor nutrition; thus, many nursing home residents are at risk. OBJECTIVES: To understand the context of pressure ulcer prevention in nursing homes and to explore the potential barriers and facilitators to evidence-informed practices. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nursing home nurses, healthcare assistants and managers, National Health Service community-based wound specialist nurses (known in the UK as tissue viability nurses) and a nurse manager in the North West of England. The interview guide was developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore the barriers and facilitators to pressure ulcer prevention in nursing home residents. Data were analysed using a framework analysis and domains were identified as salient based on their frequency and the potential strength of their impact. FINDINGS: 25 participants (nursing home: 2 managers, 7 healthcare assistants, 11 qualified nurses; National Health Service community services: 4 tissue viability nurses, 1 manager) were interviewed. Depending upon the behaviours reported and the context, the same domain could be classified as both a barrier and a facilitator. We identified seven domains as relevant in the prevention of pressure ulcers in nursing home residents mapping to four "barrier" domains and six "facilitator" domains. The four "barrier" domains were knowledge, physical skills, social influences and environmental context and resources and the six "facilitator" domains were interpersonal skills, environmental context and resources, social influences, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences and social/professional role and identity). Knowledge and insight into these barriers and facilitators provide a theoretical understanding of the complexities in preventing pressure ulcers with reference to the staff capabilities, opportunities and motivation related to pressure ulcer prevention. CONCLUSION: Pressure ulcer prevention in nursing home residents is complex and is influenced by several factors. The findings will inform a theory and evidence-based intervention to aid the prevention of pressure ulcers in nursing home settings.

Opportunities for better value wound care: a multiservice, cross-sectional survey of complex wounds and their care in a UK community population.

BACKGROUND: Complex wounds impose a substantial health economic burden worldwide. As wound care is managed across multiple settings by a range of healthcare professionals with varying levels of expertise, the actual care delivered can vary considerably and result in the underuse of evidence-based interventions, the overuse of interventions supported by limited evidence and low value healthcare. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the number, type and management of complex wounds being treated over a two-week period and to explore variations in care by comparing current practices in wound assessment, prevention and treatment. DESIGN: A multiservice cross-sectional survey. SETTING: This survey spanned eight community services within five Northern England NHS Trusts. RESULTS: The point prevalence of complex wounds in this community-based population was 16.4 per 10 000 (95% CI 15.9 to 17.0). Based on data from 3179 patients, antimicrobial dressings were being used as the primary dressing for 36% of patients with complex wounds. Forty per cent of people with leg ulcers either had not received the recommended Doppler-aided Ankle Brachial Pressure Index assessment or it was unclear whether a recording had been taken. Thirty-one per cent of patients whose most severe wound was a venous leg ulcer were not receiving compression therapy, and there was limited use of two-layer compression hosiery. Of patients with a pressure ulcer, 39% were not using a pressure-relieving cushion or mattress. CONCLUSIONS: Marked variations were found in care, underuse of evidence-based practices and overuse of practices that are not supported by robust research evidence. Significant opportunities for delivering better value wound care therefore exist. Efforts should now focus on developing strategies to identify, assess and disinvest from products and practices supported by little or no evidence and enhance the uptake of those that are.

Rapid research and implementation priority setting for wound care uncertainties.

INTRODUCTION: People with complex wounds are more likely to be elderly, living with multimorbidity and wound related symptoms. A variety of products are available for managing complex wounds and a range of healthcare professionals are involved in wound care, yet there is a lack of good evidence to guide practice and services. These factors create uncertainty for those who deliver and those who manage wound care. Formal priority setting for research and implementation topics is needed to more accurately target the gaps in treatment and services. We solicited practitioner and manager uncertainties in wound care and held a priority setting workshop to facilitate a collaborative approach to prioritising wound care-related uncertainties. METHODS: We recruited healthcare professionals who regularly cared for patients with complex wounds, were wound care specialists or managed wound care services. Participants submitted up to five wound care uncertainties in consultation with their colleagues, via an on-line survey and attended a priority setting workshop. Submitted uncertainties were collated, sorted and categorised according professional group. On the day of the workshop, participants were divided into four groups depending on their profession. Uncertainties submitted by their professional group were viewed, discussed and amended, prior to the first of three individual voting rounds. Participants cast up to ten votes for the uncertainties they judged as being high priority. Continuing in the professional groups, the top 10 uncertainties from each group were displayed, and the process was repeated. Groups were then brought together for a plenary session in which the final priorities were individually scored on a scale of 0-10 by participants. Priorities were ranked and results presented. Nominal group technique was used for generating the final uncertainties, voting and discussions. RESULTS: Thirty-three participants attended the workshop comprising; 10 specialist nurses, 10 district nurses, seven podiatrists and six managers. Participants had been qualified for a mean of 20.7 years with a mean of 16.8 years of wound care experience. One hundred and thirty-nine uncertainties were submitted electronically and a further 20 were identified on the day of the workshop following lively, interactive group discussions. Twenty-five uncertainties from the total of 159 generated made it to the final prioritised list. These included six of the 20 new uncertainties. The uncertainties varied in focus, but could be broadly categorised into three themes: service delivery and organisation, patient centred care and treatment options. Specialist nurses were more likely to vote for service delivery and organisation topics, podiatrists for patient centred topics, district nurses for treatment options and operational leads for a broad range. CONCLUSIONS: This collaborative priority setting project is the first to engage front-line clinicians in prioritising research and implementation topics in wound care. We have shown that it is feasible to conduct topic prioritisation in a short time frame. This project has demonstrated that with careful planning and rigor, important questions that are raised in the course of clinicians' daily decision making can be translated into meaningful research and implementation initiatives that could make a difference to service delivery and patient care.

The effects of care bundles on patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Care bundles are a set of three to five evidence-informed practices performed collectively and reliably to improve the quality of care. Care bundles are used widely across healthcare settings with the aim of preventing and managing different health conditions. This is the first systematic review designed to determine the effects of care bundles on patient outcomes and the behaviour of healthcare workers in relation to fidelity with care bundles. METHODS: This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A total of 5796 abstracts were retrieved through a systematic search for articles published between January 1, 2001, to February 4, 2017, in the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, PsychInfo, British Library, Conference Proceeding Citation Index, OpenGrey trials (including cluster-randomised trials) and non-randomised studies (comprising controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, cohort studies) of care bundles for any health condition and any healthcare settings were considered. Following the removal of duplicated studies, two reviewers independently screen 3134 records. Three authors performed data extraction independently. We compared the care bundles with usual care to evaluate the effects of care bundles on the risk of negative patient outcomes. Random-effect models were used to further explore the effects of subgroups. RESULTS: In total, 37 studies (6 randomised trials, 31 controlled before-after studies) were eligible for inclusion. The effect of care bundles on patient outcomes is uncertain. For randomised trial data, the pooled relative risk of negative effects between care bundle and control groups was 0.97 [95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; 2049 participants]. The relative risk of negative patient outcomes from controlled before-after studies favoured the care bundle treated groups (0.66 [95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; 119,178 participants]). However, using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of all of the evidence to be very low (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness). CONCLUSIONS: Very low quality evidence from controlled before-after studies suggests that care bundles may reduce the risk of negative outcomes when compared with usual care. By contrast, the better quality evidence from six randomised trials is more uncertain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42016033175.

Specifying active components of educational interventions to promote adherence to treatment in glaucoma patients: application of a taxonomy of behavior change techniques.

PURPOSE: In response to recent calls for clearer specification of behavior change interventions, the purpose of this study was to apply a system of taxonomy for behavior change techniques (BCTs) to two educational interventions to improve adherence to glaucoma eye drops. Clarification of constituent BCTs will promote easy and reliable application of the interventions in clinical settings and research. METHODS: A published taxonomy of BCTs was used to code two interventions (group and individual) to increase adherence to eye drops. Intervention materials were coded by assigning a BCT label to each text unit. We noted the frequency with which each BCT occurred, compared the interventions in terms of the BCTs that were delivered, and identified whether the taxonomy was sufficient to describe the intervention components. RESULTS: The individual intervention consisted of 94 text units. Fifty-seven were identified as targeting behavior change and coded using 18 BCTs, many coded more than once. In the group intervention, 165 units of text were identified, and 125 were coded using 22 BCTs. The most frequently coded BCT was "provide information about behavior-health link" in the group intervention and "prompt barrier identification" in the individual intervention. The interventions included similar BCTs. All text units targeting behavior change were codable into BCTs. CONCLUSION: The similarity of the two interventions may have implications for the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. The taxonomy was found sufficient to describe both interventions. This level of specification can be used to ensure that precisely the same intervention that has been pilot tested is reproducible in the clinical setting and in any further research.