Realist synthesis protocol on the effectiveness of a rapid response system in managing mental state deterioration in acute hospital settings.

INTRODUCTION: Patient mental state deterioration impacts patient outcomes, staff and increases costs for healthcare organisations. Mental state is broadly defined to include not only mental health but a broad range of cognitive, emotional and psychological well-being factors. Mental state deterioration is inconsistently identified and managed within acute and tertiary medical settings. This protocol aims to synthesise the evidence to test and refine initial programme theories that outline the functioning of a rapid response system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This synthesis will be guided by Pawson's key steps in realist reviews. We will clarify the scope of synthesis through an initial literature search, focusing on understanding the functioning of rapid response system in managing patients presenting with mental state deterioration in acute hospital settings. Initial programme theories will be refined by developing a search strategy to comprehensively search electronic databases for relevant English language peer-reviewed studies. Additionally, we will search the grey literature for sources to supplement theory testing. An abstraction form will be developed to record the characteristics of literature sources. We will use spreadsheets to code and report contextual factors, underlying mechanisms, and outcome configurations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study is a realist synthesis protocol, ethics approval is not required. Synthesis findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.

The perspective of allied health staff on the role of nurses in subacute care.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore allied health staff perceptions on the role of nurses in subacute care wards. BACKGROUND: A consequence of earlier discharge from acute hospitals is higher acuity of patients in subacute care. The impact on nurses' roles and required skill mix remains unknown. In the same way, nurses' integration into the rehabilitation team is ambiguous. DESIGN: Descriptive qualitative inquiry. METHODS: Semistructured interviews conducted with 14 allied health staff from one subacute care facility in Melbourne, Australia. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Analysis using the framework approach. RESULTS: Three main themes were evident: (a) the changing context of care: patient acuity, rapid patient discharge and out-dated buildings influenced care; (b) generalist as opposed to specialist rehabilitation nurses: a divide between traditional nursing roles of clinical and personal care and a specialist rehabilitation role; and (c) interdisciplinary relations and communication demonstrated lack of respect for nurses and integrating holistic care into everyday routines. CONCLUSIONS: Allied health staff had limited understanding of nurses' role in subacute care, and expectations varied. Power relationships appeared to hamper teamwork. Failure to include nurses in team discussions and decision-making could hinder patient outcomes. Progressing patients to levels of independence involves both integrating rehabilitation into activities of daily living with nurses and therapy-based sessions. Promotion of the incorporation of nursing input into patient rehabilitation is needed with both nurses and allied health staff. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Lack of understanding of the nurses' role contributes to lack of respect for the nursing contribution to rehabilitation. Nurses have a key role in rehabilitation sometimes impeded by poor teamwork with allied health staff. Processes in subacute care wards need examination to facilitate more effective team practices inclusive of nurses. Progressing patients' independence in rehabilitation units involves activities of daily living with nurses as much as therapy-based sessions.

Lateral positioning for critically ill adult patients.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients require regular body position changes to minimize the adverse effects of bed rest, inactivity and immobilization. However, uncertainty surrounds the effectiveness of lateral positioning for improving pulmonary gas exchange, aiding drainage of tracheobronchial secretions and preventing morbidity. In addition, it is unclear whether the perceived risk levied by respiratory and haemodynamic instability upon turning critically ill patients outweighs the respiratory benefits of side-to-side rotation. Thus, lack of certainty may contribute to variation in positioning practice and equivocal patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate effects of the lateral position compared with other body positions on patient outcomes (mortality, morbidity and clinical adverse events) in critically ill adult patients. (Clinical adverse events include hypoxaemia, hypotension, low oxygen delivery and global indicators of impaired tissue oxygenation.) We examined single use of the lateral position (i.e. on the right or left side) and repeat use of the lateral position (i.e. lateral positioning) within a positioning schedule. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1950 to 23 May 2015), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1937 to 23 May 2015), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (1984 to 23 May 2015), Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1901 to 23 May 2015), Web of Science (1945 to 23 May 2015), Index to Theses in Great Britain and Ireland (1950 to 23 May 2015), Trove (2009 to 23 May 2015; previously Australasian Digital Theses Program (1997 to December 2008)) and Proquest Dissertations and Theses (2009 to 23 May 2015; previously Proquest Digital Dissertations (1980 to 23 May 2015)). We handsearched the reference lists of potentially relevant reports and two nursing journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials examining effects of lateral positioning in critically ill adults. We included manual or automated turns but limited eligibility to studies that included duration of body position of 10 minutes or longer. We examined each lateral position versus at least one comparator (opposite lateral position and/or another body position) for single therapy effects, and the lateral positioning schedule (repeated lateral turning) versus other positioning schedules for repetitive therapy effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We pre-specified methods to be used for data collection, risk of bias assessment and analysis. Two independent review authors carried out each stage of selection and data extraction and settled differences in opinion by consensus, or by third party adjudication when disagreements remained unresolved. We planned analysis of pair-wise comparisons under composite time intervals with the aim of considering recommendations based on meta-analyses of studies with low risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies of critically ill adults. No study reported mortality as an outcome of interest. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examined lateral positioning for pulmonary morbidity outcomes but provided insufficient information for meta-analysis. A total of 22 randomized trials examined effects of lateral positioning (four parallel-group and 18 cross-over designs) by measuring various continuous data outcomes commonly used to detect adverse cardiopulmonary events within critical care areas. However, parallel-group studies were not comparable, and cross-over studies provided limited data as the result of unit of analysis errors. Eight studies provided some data; most of these were single studies with small effects that were imprecise. We pooled partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) as a measure to detect hypoxaemia from two small studies of participants with unilateral lung disease (n = 19). The mean difference (MD) between lateral positions (bad lung down versus good lung down) was approximately 50 mmHg (MD -49.26 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -67.33 to -31.18; P value < 0.00001). Despite a lower mean PaO2 for bad lung down, hypoxaemia (mean PaO2 < 60 mmHg) was not consistently reported. Furthermore, pooled data had methodological shortcomings with unclear risk of bias. We had similar doubts regarding internal validity for other studies included in the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Review authors could provide no clinical practice recommendations based on the findings of included studies. Available research could not eliminate the uncertainty surrounding benefits and/or risks associated with lateral positioning of critically ill adult patients. Research gaps include the effectiveness of lateral positioning compared with semi recumbent positioning for mechanically ventilated patients, lateral positioning compared with prone positioning for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and less frequent changes in body position. We recommend that future research be undertaken to address whether the routine practice of repositioning patients on their side benefits all, some or few critically ill patients.