How registry data are used to inform activities for stroke care quality improvement across 55 countries: A cross-sectional survey of Registry of Stroke Care Quality (RES-Q) hospitals.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Registry of Stroke Care Quality (RES-Q) is a worldwide quality improvement data platform that captures performance and quality measures, enabling standardized comparisons of hospital care. The aim of this study was to determine if, and how, RES-Q data are used to influence stroke quality improvement and identify the support and educational needs of clinicians using RES-Q data to improve stroke care. METHODS: A cross-sectional self-administered online survey was administered (October 2021-February 2022). Participants were RES-Q hospital local coordinators responsible for stroke data collection. Descriptive statistics are presented. RESULTS: Surveys were sent to 1463 hospitals in 74 countries; responses were received from 358 hospitals in 55 countries (response rate 25%). RES-Q data were used "always" or "often" to: develop quality improvement initiatives (n = 213, 60%); track stroke care quality over time (n = 207, 58%); improve local practice (n = 191, 53%); and benchmark against evidence-based policies, procedures and/or guidelines to identify practice gaps (n = 179, 50%). Formal training in the use of RES-Q tools and data were the most frequent support needs identified by respondents (n = 165, 46%). Over half "strongly agreed" or "agreed" that to support clinical practice change, education is needed on: (i) using data to identify evidence-practice gaps (n = 259, 72%) and change clinical practice (n = 263, 74%), and (ii) quality improvement science and methods (n = 255, 71%). CONCLUSION: RES-Q data are used for monitoring stroke care performance. However, to facilitate their optimal use, effective quality improvement methods are needed. Educating staff in quality improvement science may develop competency and improve use of data in practice.

The Quality in Acute Stroke Care (QASC) global scale-up using a cascading facilitation framework: a qualitative process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Variation in hospital stroke care is problematic. The Quality in Acute Stroke (QASC) Australia trial demonstrated reductions in death and disability through supported implementation of nurse-led, evidence-based protocols to manage fever, hyperglycaemia (sugar) and swallowing (FeSS Protocols) following stroke. Subsequently, a pre-test/post-test study was conducted in acute stroke wards in 64 hospitals in 17 European countries to evaluate upscale of the FeSS Protocols. Implementation across countries was underpinned by a cascading facilitation framework of multi-stakeholder support involving academic partners and a not-for-profit health organisation, the Angels Initiative (the industry partner), that operates to promote evidence-based treatments in stroke centres. .We report here an a priori qualitative process evaluation undertaken to identify factors that influenced international implementation of the FeSS Protocols using a cascading facilitation framework. METHODS: The sampling frame for interviews was: (1) Executives/Steering Committee members, consisting of academics, the Angels Initiative and senior project team, (2) Angel Team leaders (managers of Angel Consultants), (3) Angel Consultants (responsible for assisting facilitation of FeSS Protocols into multiple hospitals) and (4) Country Co-ordinators (senior stroke nurses with country and hospital-level responsibilities for facilitating the introduction of the FeSS Protocols). A semi-structured interview elicited participant views on the factorsthat influenced engagement of stakeholders with the project and preparation for and implementation of the FeSS Protocol upscale. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively within NVivo. RESULTS: Individual (n = 13) and three group interviews (3 participants in each group) were undertaken. Three main themes with sub-themes were identified that represented key factors influencing upscale: (1) readiness for change (sub-themes: negotiating expectations; intervention feasible and acceptable; shared goal of evidence-based stroke management); (2) roles and relationships (sub-themes: defining and establishing roles; harnessing nurse champions) and (3) managing multiple changes (sub-themes: accommodating and responding to variation; more than clinical change; multi-layered communication framework). CONCLUSION: A cascading facilitation model involving a partnership between evidence producers (academic partners), knowledge brokers (industry partner, Angels Initiative) and evidence adopters (stroke clinicians) overcame multiple challenges involved in international evidence translation. Capacity to manage, negotiate and adapt to multi-level changes and strategic engagement of different stakeholders supported adoption of nurse-initiated stroke protocols within Europe. This model has promise for other large-scale evidence translation programs.

Introduction of a Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing workforce: A qualitative study of student and registered nurses.

AIM: To explore the benefits and challenges of a recently introduced Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing workforce from the perspective of Nurses and Registered Undergraduate Students of Nursing, in a major metropolitan hospital in Australia in 2020. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive study was undertaken using individual interviews and focus groups. METHODS: Purposively selected employed Registered Undergraduate Students of Nursing and nurses who worked with them were interviewed, using a semi-structured format. Recordings were transcribed and coded using NVivo software. Reflexive thematic analysis using an inductive approach was undertaken. RESULTS: Four major themes were revealed: (i) Navigating the programme, (ii) Belonging and integration; (iii) Patient care; and (iv) Continuing Development. Initial challenges were common, often related to clarifying the scope of practice for the new role. Ongoing issues were associated with gaps in understanding the role and lack of integration into the team. Mostly, nurses and Registered Undergraduate Students of Nursing built positive, professional relationships. Nurses valued the Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing knowledge and skill level, reporting improved workload and work experiences when the Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing was on shift. Nurses believed that the Registered Undergraduate Students of Nursing enhanced patient care. Registered Undergraduate Students of Nursing described positive, therapeutic relationships with patients. Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing employment provided opportunities for new learning, leading to increased efficiency and confidence on clinical placement. CONCLUSIONS: This employment model benefited the Registered Undergraduate Students of Nursing and nurses who worked with them. In the absence of adequate training and support, challenges remained unresolved and negatively impacted the experience for nurses. In addition to university-level education and clinical placement, the employment model can create a third space for student learning via on-the-job training. The study supports the ongoing employment of student nurses through the Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing model. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Impact This study contributes to the very small body of literature investigating Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing workforces in Australian hospitals. It is the first to explore the experiences of both nurses and students working together in a major metropolitan setting and also the first in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reflected a mostly positive experience for Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing and the nurses who worked with them and highlighted the importance of adequate oversight and support in the implementation and maintenance of a Registered Undergraduate Student of Nursing workforce. Employed Registered Undergraduate Students of Nursing reported improved confidence, skills, and felt like they started clinical placement at an advantage, ready to step up and learn the Registered Nurse scope of practice. In addition to university-level education and clinical placement, this employment model creates a third space for learning via on-the-job training. REPORTING METHOD: COREQ guidelines were followed in the reporting of this study. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Pre-implementation context and implementation approach for a nursing and midwifery clinician researcher career pathway: A qualitative study.

AIM: To describe the pre-implementation context and implementation approach, for a clinician researcher career pathway. BACKGROUND: Clinician researchers across all health disciplines are emerging to radically influence practice change and improve patient outcomes. Yet, to date, there are limited clinician researcher career pathways embedded in clinical practice for nurses and midwives. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design was used. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected from four online focus groups and four interviews of health consumers, nursing and midwifery clinicians, and nursing unit managers (N = 20) between July 2022 and September 2023. RESULTS: Thematic and content analysis identified themes/categories relating to: Research in health professionals' roles and nursing and midwifery, and Research activity and culture (context); with implementation approaches within coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring (Normalization Process Theory). CONCLUSIONS: The Pathway was perceived to meet organizational objectives with the potential to create significant cultural change in nursing and midwifery. Backfilling of protected research time was essential. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The Pathway was seen as an instrument to empower staff, foster staff retention and extend research opportunities to every nurse and midwife, while improving patient experiences and outcomes. IMPACT: Clinicians, consumers and managers fully supported the implementation of clinician researchers with this Pathway. The Pathway could engage all clinicians in evidence-based practice with a clinician researcher leader, effect practice change with colleagues and enhance patient outcomes. REPORTING METHOD: This study adheres to relevant EQUATOR guidelines using the COREG checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Health consumers involved in this research as participants, did not contribute to the design or conduct of the study, analysis or interpretation of the data, or in the preparation of the manuscript.

Towards a science-based testing strategy to identify maternal thyroid hormone imbalance and neurodevelopmental effects in the progeny - Part IV: the ECETOC and CLE Proposal for a Thyroid Function-Related Neurodevelopmental Toxicity Testing and Assessment Scheme (Thyroid-NDT-TAS).

Following the European Commission Endocrine Disruptor Criteria, substances shall be considered as having endocrine disrupting properties if they (a) elicit adverse effects, (b) have endocrine activity, and (c) the two are linked by an endocrine mode-of-action (MoA) unless the MoA is not relevant for humans. A comprehensive, structured approach to assess whether substances meet the Endocrine Disruptor Criteria for the thyroid modality (EDC-T) is currently unavailable. Here, the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Thyroxine Task Force and CropLife Europe propose a Thyroid Function-Related Neurodevelopmental Toxicity Testing and Assessment Scheme (Thyroid-NDT-TAS). In Tier 0, before entering the Thyroid-NDT-TAS, all available in vivo, in vitro and in silico data are submitted to weight-of-evidence (WoE) evaluations to determine whether the substance of interest poses a concern for thyroid disruption. If so, Tier 1 of the Thyroid-NDT-TAS includes an initial MoA and human relevance assessment (structured by the key events of possibly relevant adverse outcome pathways) and the generation of supportive in vitro/in silico data, if relevant. Only if Tier 1 is inconclusive, Tier 2 involves higher-tier testing to generate further thyroid- and/or neurodevelopment-related data. Tier 3 includes the final MoA and human relevance assessment and an overarching WoE evaluation to draw a conclusion on whether, or not, the substance meets the EDC-T. The Thyroid-NDT-TAS is based on the state-of-the-science, and it has been developed to minimise animal testing. To make human safety assessments more accurate, it is recommended to apply the Thyroid-NDT-TAS during future regulatory assessments.

Weakly supervised anomaly detection coupled with Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy for the identification of non-normal tissue.

The detection and classification of histopathological abnormal tissue constituents using machine learning (ML) techniques generally requires example data for each tissue or cell type of interest. This creates problems for studies on tissue that will have few regions of interest, or for those looking to identify and classify diseases of rarity, resulting in inadequate sample sizes from which to build multivariate and ML models. Regarding the impact on vibrational spectroscopy, specifically infrared (IR) spectroscopy, low numbers of samples may result in ineffective modelling of the chemical composition of sample groups, resulting in detection and classification errors. Anomaly detection may be a solution to this problem, enabling users to effectively model tissue constituents considered to represent normal tissue to capture any abnormal tissue and identify instances of non-normal tissue, be it disease or spectral artefacts. This work illustrates how a novel approach using a weakly supervised anomaly detection algorithm paired with IR microscopy can detect non-normal tissue spectra. In addition to incidental interferents such as hair, dust, and tissue scratches, the algorithm can also detect regions of diseased tissue. The model is never introduced to instances of these groups, training solely on healthy control data using only the IR spectral fingerprint region. This approach is demonstrated using liver tissue data from an agrochemical exposure mouse study.

Interventions for the uptake of evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of research evidence to guide acute stroke care. Receiving care in a stroke unit improves access to recommended evidence-based therapies and patient outcomes. However, even in stroke units, evidence-based recommendations are inconsistently delivered by healthcare workers to patients with stroke. Implementation interventions are strategies designed to improve the delivery of evidence-based care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of implementation interventions (compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention) on adherence to evidence-based recommendations by health professionals working in acute stroke units. Secondary objectives were to assess factors that may modify the effect of these interventions, and to determine if single or multifaceted strategies are more effective in increasing adherence with evidence-based recommendations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute and ProQuest databases to 13 April 2022. We searched the grey literature and trial registries and reviewed reference lists of all included studies, relevant systematic reviews and primary studies; contacted corresponding authors of relevant studies and conducted forward citation searching of the included studies. There were no restrictions on language and publication date. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials. Participants were health professionals providing care to patients in acute stroke units; implementation interventions (i.e. strategies to improve delivery of evidence-based care) were compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention. We included studies only if they reported on our primary outcome which was quality of care, as measured by adherence to evidence-based recommendations, in order to address the review aim. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We compared single implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to single implementation interventions and multifaceted implementation interventions to another multifaceted intervention. Our primary outcome was adherence to evidence-based recommendations. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven cluster-randomised trials with 42,489 patient participants from 129 hospitals, conducted in Australia, the UK, China, and the Netherlands. Health professional participants (numbers not specified) included nursing, medical and allied health professionals. Interventions in all studies included implementation strategies targeting healthcare workers; three studies included delivery arrangements, no studies used financial arrangements or governance arrangements. Five trials compared a multifaceted implementation intervention to no intervention, two trials compared one multifaceted implementation intervention to another multifaceted implementation intervention. No included studies compared a single implementation intervention to no intervention or to a multifaceted implementation intervention. Quality of care outcomes (proportions of patients receiving evidence-based care) were included in all included studies. All studies had low risks of selection bias and reporting bias, but high risk of performance bias. Three studies had high risks of bias from non-blinding of outcome assessors or due to analyses used. We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention leads to any change in adherence to evidence-based recommendations compared with no intervention (risk ratio (RR) 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.61; 4 trials; 76 clusters; 2144 participants, I2 =92%, very low-certainty evidence). Looking at two specific processes of care, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to no intervention probably lead to little or no difference in the proportion of patients with ischaemic stroke who received thrombolysis (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, 2 trials; 32 clusters; 1228 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), but probably do increase the proportion of patients who receive a swallow screen within 24 hours of admission (RR 6.76, 95% CI 4.44 to 10.76; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1,804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifaceted implementation interventions probably make little or no difference in reducing the risk of death, disability or dependency compared to no intervention (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; 3 trials; 51 clusters ; 1228 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably make little or no difference to hospital length of stay compared with no intervention (difference in absolute change 1.5 days; 95% CI -0.5 to 3.5; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not know if a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention result in changes to resource use or health professionals' knowledge because no included studies collected these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention improves adherence to evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings, because the certainty of evidence is very low.

Hydration and nutrition care practices in stroke: findings from the UK and Australia.

BACKGROUND: Dehydration and malnutrition are common in hospitalised patients following stroke leading to poor outcomes including increased mortality. Little is known about hydration and nutrition care practices in hospital to avoid dehydration or malnutrition, and how these practices vary in different countries. This study sought to capture how the hydration and nutrition needs of patients' post-stroke are assessed and managed in the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia (AUS). AIM: To examine and compare current in-hospital hydration and nutrition care practice for patients with stroke in the UK and Australia. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between April and November 2019. Questionnaires were mailed to stroke specialist nurses in UK and Australian hospitals providing post-stroke inpatient acute care or rehabilitation. Non-respondents were contacted up to five times. RESULTS: We received 150/174 (86%) completed surveys from hospitals in the UK, and 120/162 (74%) in Australia. Of the 270 responding hospitals, 96% reported undertaking assessment of hydration status during an admission, with nurses most likely to complete assessments (85%). The most common methods of admission assessment were visual assessment of the patient (UK 62%; AUS 58%), weight (UK 52%; AUS 52%), and body mass index (UK 47%; AUS 42%). Almost all (99%) sites reported that nutrition status was assessed at some point during admission, and these were mainly completed by nurses (91%). Use of standardised nutrition screening tools were more common in the UK (91%) than Australia (60%). Similar proportions of hydration management decisions were made by physicians (UK 84%; AUS 83%), and nutrition management decisions by dietitians (UK 98%; AUS 97%). CONCLUSION: Despite broadly similar hydration and nutrition care practices after stroke in the UK and Australia, some variability was identified. Although nutrition assessment was more often informed by structured screening tools, the routine assessment of hydration was generally not. Nurses were responsible for assessment and monitoring, while dietitians and physicians undertook decision-making regarding management. Hydration care could be improved through the development of standardised assessment tools. This study highlights the need for increased implementation and use of evidence-based protocols in stroke hydration and nutrition care to improve patient outcomes.

The ACCELERATE Plus (assessment and communication excellence for safe patient outcomes) Trial Protocol: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, cost-benefit analysis, and process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Nurses play an essential role in patient safety. Inadequate nursing physical assessment and communication in handover practices are associated with increased patient deterioration, falls and pressure injuries. Despite internationally implemented rapid response systems, falls and pressure injury reduction strategies, and recommendations to conduct clinical handovers at patients' bedside, adverse events persist. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness, implementation, and cost-benefit of an externally facilitated, nurse-led intervention delivered at the ward level for core physical assessment, structured patient-centred bedside handover and improved multidisciplinary communication. We hypothesise the trial will reduce medical emergency team calls, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, falls and pressure injuries. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial will be conducted over 52 weeks. The intervention consists of a nursing core physical assessment, structured patient-centred bedside handover and improved multidisciplinary communication and will be implemented in 24 wards across eight hospitals. The intervention will use theoretically informed implementation strategies for changing clinician behaviour, consisting of: nursing executive site engagement; a train-the-trainer model for cascading facilitation; embedded site leads; nursing unit manager leadership training; nursing and medical ward-level clinical champions; ward nurses' education workshops; intervention tailoring; and reminders. The primary outcome will be a composite measure of medical emergency team calls (rapid response calls and 'Code Blue' calls), unplanned intensive care unit admissions, in-hospital falls and hospital-acquired pressure injuries; these measures individually will also form secondary outcomes. Other secondary outcomes are: i) patient-reported experience measures of receiving safe and patient-centred care, ii) nurses' perceptions of barriers to physical assessment, readiness to change, and staff engagement, and iii) nurses' and medical officers' perceptions of safety culture and interprofessional collaboration. Primary outcome data will be collected for the trial duration, and secondary outcome surveys will be collected prior to each step and at trial conclusion. A cost-benefit analysis and post-trial process evaluation will also be undertaken. DISCUSSION: If effective, this intervention has the potential to improve nursing care, reduce patient harm and improve patient outcomes. The evidence-based implementation strategy has been designed to be embedded within existing hospital workforces; if cost-effective, it will be readily translatable to other hospitals nationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID: ACTRN12622000155796. Date registered: 31/01/2022.

Development and validation of a survey designed to measure patient experience of and preference for surgical wound care discharge education: A pilot study.

AIM OF THE STUDY: To develop and undertake validation testing of a survey designed to measure patients' experiences of and preferences for surgical wound care discharge education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review and content analysis was undertaken on patients' experiences of and preferences for surgical wound care discharge education. Four themes were uncovered in the literature (wound care discharge education, preferences for discharge education delivery, participation in wound care decisions and patient ability to manage their surgical wound to prevent wound complications), which guided item generation. Three types of validity testing occurred including: 1) face validity testing by the research team; 2) content validity testing (using Delphi study) with an international panel of experts including patients, clinicians and researchers; and 3) content validity (using pilot-testing) of the survey with seven patients from the target population. RESULTS: Initially 106 items were generated from the literature, and of these, 55 items were subjected to content validity testing by an international panel of 41 experts. After two Delphi rounds, 18 items were retained. Most patients provided limited and very minor feedback during pilot-testing. However, pilot-testing resulted in a revised survey administration plan to deliver the survey via telephone, including adding prompts and preambles to items. CONCLUSION: An 18-item survey comprised of three groups of items and an individual item was rigorously developed. The survey requires further testing among a larger sample of patients to confirm the items reflect important aspects of patients' experiences of and preferences for surgical wound care discharge education.

Infrared micro-spectroscopy coupled with multivariate and machine learning techniques for cancer classification in tissue: a comparison of classification method, performance, and pre-processing technique.

The visual detection, classification, and differentiation of cancers within tissues of clinical patients is an extremely difficult and time-consuming process with severe diagnosis implications. To this end, many computational approaches have been developed to analyse tissue samples to supplement histological cancer diagnoses. One approach is the interrogation of the chemical composition of the actual tissue samples through the utilisation of vibrational spectroscopy, specifically Infrared (IR) spectroscopy. Cancerous tissue can be detected by analysing the molecular vibration patterns of tissues undergoing IR irradiation, and even graded, with multivariate and Machine Learning (ML) techniques. This publication serves to review and highlight the potential for the application of infrared microscopy techniques such as Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and Quantum Cascade Laser Infrared Spectroscopy (QCL), as a means to improve diagnostic accuracy and allow earlier detection of human neoplastic disease. This review provides an overview of the detection and classification of different cancerous tissues using FTIR spectroscopy paired with multivariate and ML techniques, using the F1-Score as a quantitative metric for direct comparison of model performances. Comparisons also extend to data handling techniques, with a provision of a suggested pre-processing protocol for future studies alongside suggestions as to reporting standards for future publication.

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Best Practices: Recommended ("Best") Practices for Informed (Non-blinded) Versus Masked (Blinded) Microscopic Evaluation in Animal Toxicity Studies.

This article describes the Society of Toxicologic Pathology's (STP) five recommended ("best") practices for appropriate use of informed (non-blinded) versus masked (blinded) microscopic evaluation in animal toxicity studies intended for regulatory review. (1) Informed microscopic evaluation is the default approach for animal toxicity studies. (2) Masked microscopic evaluation has merit for confirming preliminary diagnoses for target organs and/or defining thresholds ("no observed adverse effect level" and similar values) identified during an initial informed evaluation, addressing focused hypotheses, or satisfying guidance or requests from regulatory agencies. (3) If used as the approach for an animal toxicity study to investigate a specific research question, masking of the initial microscopic evaluation should be limited to withholding only information about the group (control or test article-treated) and dose equivalents. (4) The decision regarding whether or not to perform a masked microscopic evaluation is best made by a toxicologic pathologist with relevant experience. (5) Pathology peer review, performed to verify the microscopic diagnoses and interpretations by the study pathologist, should use an informed evaluation approach. The STP maintains that implementing these five best practices has and will continue to consistently deliver robust microscopic data with high sensitivity for animal toxicity studies intended for regulatory review. Consequently, when conducting animal toxicity studies, the advantages of informed microscopic evaluation for maximizing sensitivity outweigh the perceived advantages of minimizing bias through masked microscopic examination.

Sustainability of evidence-based practices in the management of infants with bronchiolitis in hospital settings - a PREDICT study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how and why de-implementation of low-value practices is sustained remains unclear. The Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International CollaboraTive (PREDICT) Bronchiolitis Knowledge Translation (KT) Study was a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in 26 Australian and New Zealand hospitals (May-November 2017). Results showed targeted, theory-informed interventions (clinical leads, stakeholder meetings, train-the-trainer workshop, targeted educational package, audit/feedback) were effective at reducing use of five low-value practices for bronchiolitis (salbutamol, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, adrenaline and chest x-ray) by 14.1% in acute care settings. The primary aim of this study is to determine the sustainability (continued receipt of benefits) of these outcomes at intervention hospitals two-years after the removal of study supports. Secondary aims are to determine sustainability at one-year after removal of study support at intervention hospitals; improvements one-and-two years at control hospitals; and explore factors that influence sustainability at intervention hospitals and contribute to improvements at control hospitals. METHODS: A mixed-methods study design. The quantitative component is a retrospective medical record audit of bronchiolitis management within 24 hours of emergency department (ED) presentations at 26 Australian (n = 20) and New Zealand (n = 6) hospitals, which participated in the PREDICT Bronchiolitis KT Study. Data for a total of 1800 infants from intervention and control sites (up to 150 per site) will be collected to determine if improvements (i.e., no use of all five low-value practices) were sustained two- years (2019) post-trial (primary outcome; composite score); and a further 1800 infants from intervention and control sites will be collected to determine sustained improvements one- year (2018) post-trial (secondary outcome). An a priori definition of sustainability will be used. The qualitative component will consist of semi-structured interviews with three to five key emergency department and paediatric inpatient medical and nursing staff per site (total n = 78-130). Factors that may have contributed to sustaining outcomes and/or interventions will be explored and mapped to an established sustainability framework. DISCUSSION: This study will improve our understanding of the sustainability of evidence-based bronchiolitis management in infants. Results will also advance implementation science research by informing future de-implementation strategies to reduce low-value practices and sustain practice change in paediatric acute care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry No: ACTRN12621001287820.

The role of stroke nurses in thrombolysis administration in Australia and the United Kingdom: A cross-sectional survey of current practice.

BACKGROUND: The role of stroke nurses in patient selection and administration of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) for acute ischaemic stroke is evolving. OBJECTIVES: To compare differences in stroke nurses' practices related to rt-PA administration in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) and to examine whether these differences influence rt-PA treatment rates. METHODS: A cross-sectional, self-administered questionnaire administered to a lead stroke clinician from hospitals known to provide rt-PA for acute ischaemic stroke. Chi-square tests were used to analyse between-country differences in ten pre-specified rt-PA practices. Non-parametric equality of medians test was used to assess within-country differences for likelihood of undertaking practices and association with rt-PA treatment rates. Reporting followed STROBE checklist. RESULTS: Response rate 68%; (Australia: 74% [n = 63/85]; UK: 65% [n = 93/144]). There were significant differences between countries for 7/10 practices. UK nurses were more likely to: request CT scan; screen patient for rt-PA suitability; gain informed consent; use telemedicine to assess, diagnose or treat; assist in the decision for rt-PA with Emergency Department physician or neurologist; and undergo training in rt-PA administration. Reported median hospital rt-PA treatment rates were 12% in the UK and 7.8% in Australia: (7.8%). In Australia, there was an association between higher treatment rates and nurses involvement in 5/10 practices; read and interpret CT scans; screen patient for rt-PA suitability; gain informed consent; assess suitability for rt-PA with neurologist/stroke physician; undergo training in rt-PA administration. There was no relationship between UK treatment rates and likelihood of a stroke nurse to undertake any of the ten rt-PA practices. CONCLUSION: Stroke nurses' active role in rt-PA administration can improve rt-PA treatment rates. Models of care that broaden stroke nurses' scope of practice to maximise rt-PA treatment rates for ischaemic stroke patients are needed. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study demonstrates that UK and Australian nurses play an important role in thrombolysis practices; however, they are underused. Formalising and extending the role of stroke nurses in rt-PA administration could potentially increase thrombolysis rates with clinical benefits for patients.

Pressure injury prevalence in Australian intensive care units: A secondary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries (PIs) are an enduring problem for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) because of their vulnerability and numerous risk factors. METHOD: This study reports Australian data as a subset of data from an international 1-day point prevalence study of ICU-acquired PI in adult patients. Patients aged 18 years or older and admitted to the ICU on the study day were included. The outcome measure was the identification of a PI by direct visual skin assessment on the study day. Data collected included demographic data and clinical risk factors, PI location and stage, and PI prevention strategies used. Descriptive statistics were used to describe PI characteristics, and odds ratios (ORs) were used to identify factors associated with the development of a PI. RESULTS: Data were collected from 288 patients from 16 Australian ICUs. ICU-acquired PI prevalence was 9.7%, with 40 PIs identified on 28 patients. Most PIs were of stage 1 and stage 2 (26/40, 65.0%). Half of the ICU-acquired PIs were found on the head and face. The odds of developing an ICU-acquired PI increased significantly with renal replacement therapy (OR: 4.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.49-12.11), impaired mobility (OR: 3.13, 95% CI: 1.08-9.12), fastest respiratory rate (OR: 1.05 [per breath per minute], 95% CI: 1.00-1.10), longer stay in the ICU (OR: 1.04 [per day], 95% CI: 1.01-1.06), and mechanical ventilation on admission (OR: 0.36, CI: 0.14-0.91). CONCLUSION: This study found that Australian ICU-acquired PI prevalence was 9.7% and these PIs were associated with many risk factors. Targeted PI prevention strategies should be incorporated into routine prevention approaches to reduce the burden of PIs in the Australian adult ICU patient population.

The prevalence and impact of unprofessional behaviour among hospital workers: a survey in seven Australian hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To identify individual and organisational factors associated with the prevalence, type and impact of unprofessional behaviours among hospital employees. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Staff in seven metropolitan tertiary hospitals operated by one health care provider in three states were surveyed (Dec 2017 - Nov 2018) about their experience of unprofessional behaviours - 21 classified as incivility or bullying and five as extreme unprofessional behaviour (eg, sexual or physical assault) - and their perceived impact on personal wellbeing, teamwork and care quality, as well as about their speaking-up skills. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of experiencing 26 unprofessional behaviours during the preceding 12 months; factors associated with experiencing unprofessional behaviour and its impact, including self-reported speaking-up skills. RESULTS: Valid surveys (more than 60% of questions answered) were submitted by 5178 of an estimated 15 213 staff members (response rate, 34.0%). 4846 respondents (93.6%; 95% CI, 92.9-94.2%) reported experiencing at least one unprofessional behaviour during the preceding year, including 2009 (38.8%; 95% CI, 37.5-40.1%) who reported weekly or more frequent incivility or bullying; 753 (14.5%; 95% CI, 13.6-15.5%) reported extreme unprofessional behaviour. Nurses and non-clinical staff members aged 25-34 years reported incivility/bullying and extreme behaviour more often than other staff and age groups respectively. Staff with self-reported speaking-up skills experienced less incivility/bullying (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.46-0.61) and extreme behaviour (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.97), and also less frequently an impact on their personal wellbeing (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.38-0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Unprofessional behaviour is common among hospital workers. Tolerance for low level poor behaviour may be an enabler for more serious misbehaviour that endangers staff wellbeing and patient safety. Training staff about speaking up is required, together with organisational processes for effectively eliminating unprofessional behaviour.

Alternative reactive support surfaces (non-foam and non-air-filled) for preventing pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (also known as injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Reactive surfaces that are not made of foam or air cells can be used for preventing pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-foam and non-air-filled reactive beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any other support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to non-foam or non-air-filled reactive beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses used. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a non-foam or non-air-filled surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 studies (4653 participants) in this review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 198 participants). The average participant age ranged from 37.2 to 85.4 years (median: 72.5 years). Participants were recruited from a wide range of care settings but were mainly from acute care settings. Almost all studies were conducted in Europe and America. Of the 20 studies, 11 (2826 participants) included surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be fully classified. We synthesised data for the following 12 comparisons: (1) reactive water surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (three studies with 414 participants), (2) reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 117 participants), (3) reactive water surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 37 participants), (4) reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 87 participants), (5) reactive fibre surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (four studies with 384 participants), (6) reactive fibre surfaces versus foam surfaces (two studies with 228 participants), (7) reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds (two studies with 415 participants), (8) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 74 participants), (9) reactive gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 135 participants), (10) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 113 participants), (11) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 166 participants) and (12) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 91 participants). Of the 20 studies, 16 (80%) presented findings which were considered to be at high overall risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Pressure ulcer incidence We did not find analysable data for two comparisons: reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (14/205 (6.8%)) may increase the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (3/210 (1.4%) (risk ratio 4.53, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 15.65; 2 studies, 415 participants; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For all other comparisons, it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of participants developing new pressure ulcers as all data were of very low certainty. Included studies did not report time to pressure ulcer incidence for any comparison in this review. Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the included studies provide data on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: there is evidence on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in adverse events between reactive gel surfaces followed by foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (one study with 198 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find any health-related quality of life or cost-effectiveness evidence for any comparison in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is generally uncertain about the differences between non-foam and non-air-filled reactive surfaces and other surfaces in terms of pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse effects, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds may increase the risk of having new pressure ulcers compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and adjudicators of the photographs being blinded to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

ANTECEDENTES: Las úlceras por presión (también conocidas como úlceras y escaras de decúbito) son lesiones localizadas en la piel o en los tejidos blandos subyacentes, o en ambos, causadas por la presión, el cizallamiento o la fricción no aliviados. Las superficies estáticas que no son de espuma o celdas de aire se pueden utilizar para prevenir las úlceras por presión. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos de las camas, los colchones o los sobrecolchones estáticos sin espuma y sin aire en comparación con cualquier otra superficie especial para el manejo de la presión (SEMP) o sobre la incidencia de las úlceras por presión en cualquier población y en cualquier contexto. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: En noviembre de 2019 se hicieron búsquedas en el Registro especializado del Grupo Cochrane de Heridas (Cochrane Wounds), en el Registro Cochrane central de ensayos controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (incluido In­Process & Other Non­Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase y EBSCO CINAHL Plus. También se buscaron estudios en curso y no publicados en los registros de ensayos clínicos, y se examinaron las listas de referencias de los estudios incluidos pertinentes, así como de las revisiones, los metanálisis y los informes de tecnología sanitaria para identificar estudios adicionales. No hubo restricciones en cuanto al idioma, la fecha de publicación ni el contexto de los estudios. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron los ensayos controlados aleatorizados que asignaron a participantes de cualquier edad a camas, colchones o sobrecolchones estáticos sin espuma y sin aire. Los comparadores fueron todas las camas, sobrecolchones o colchones utilizados. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Al menos dos autores de la revisión evaluaron de forma independiente los ensayos según criterios de inclusión predeterminados. Se realizó la extracción de los datos, la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo mediante la herramienta Cochrane "Risk of bias" y la evaluación de la certeza de la evidencia según el método Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Si se comparaba una superficie sin espuma o sin aire con superficies que no estaban claramente especificadas, se registraba y describía el estudio incluido, pero no se tenía en cuenta en ningún análisis de datos. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: En esta revisión se incluyeron 20 estudios (4653 participantes). La mayoría de los estudios eran pequeños (mediana del tamaño muestral de los estudios: 198 participantes). La edad promedio de los participantes varió entre 37,2 y 85,4 años (mediana: 72,5 años). Los participantes se reclutaron en una amplia variedad de ámbitos asistenciales, pero principalmente en ámbitos de cuidados intensivos y de agudos. Casi todos los estudios se realizaron en Europa y América. De los 20 estudios, 11 (2826 participantes) incluían superficies que no estaban bien descritas y, por lo tanto, no se podían clasificar completamente. Se resumieron los datos de las 12 comparaciones siguientes: (1) superficies de agua estáticas versus superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) (tres estudios con 414 participantes), (2) superficies de agua estáticas versus superficies de espuma (un estudio con 117 participantes), (3) superficies de agua estáticas versus superficies de aire estáticas (un estudio con 37 participantes), (4) superficies de agua estáticas versus superficies de fibras estáticas (un estudio con 87 participantes), (5) superficies de fibras estáticas versus superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) (cuatro estudios con 384 participantes), (6) superficies de fibras estáticas versus superficies de espuma (dos estudios con 228 participantes), (7) superficies de gel estáticas en las mesas de operaciones, seguidas de superficies de espuma en las camas de las salas, versus superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) en las mesas de operaciones y posteriormente en las camas de las salas (dos estudios con 415 participantes), (8) superficies de gel estáticas versus superficies de aire estáticas (un estudio con 74 participantes) (9) superficies de gel estáticas versus superficies de espuma (un estudio con 135 participantes), (10) superficies de gel estáticas versus superficies de gel estáticas (un estudio con 113 participantes), (11) superficies de espuma y gel estáticas versus superficies de gel estáticas (un estudio con 166 participantes) y (12) superficies de espuma y gel estáticas versus superficies de espuma (un estudio con 91 participantes). De los 20 estudios, 16 (80%) presentaron resultados que se consideraron con alto riesgo general de sesgo. Desenlace principal: incidencia de las úlceras por presión No se encontraron datos analizables para dos comparaciones: superficies de agua estáticas versus superficies de espuma, ni superficies de agua estáticas versus superficies de fibras estáticas. Las superficies de gel estáticas utilizadas en las mesas de operaciones seguidas de las superficies de espuma aplicadas en las camas de hospital (14/205 [6,8%]) podrían aumentar la proporción de personas que presentan una nueva úlcera por presión en comparación con las superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) aplicadas en las mesas de operaciones y en las camas de hospital (3/210 [1,4%]) (razón de riesgos 4,53; intervalo de confianza del 95%: 1,31 a 15,65; dos estudios, 415 participantes; I2 = 0%; evidencia de certeza baja). Para todas las demás comparaciones, no hay certeza de que haya una diferencia en la proporción de participantes que presentan nuevas úlceras por presión, ya que todos los datos eran de certeza muy baja. Los estudios incluidos no informaron el tiempo hasta la incidencia de las úlceras por presión para ninguna comparación en esta revisión. Desenlaces secundarios Comodidad del paciente asociada con la SEMP: los estudios incluidos proporcionan datos sobre este desenlace para una comparación. No está claro si existe una diferencia en la comodidad del paciente entre las superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) y las superficies de fibras estáticas (un estudio con 187 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Todos los eventos adversos informados: hay evidencia sobre este desenlace para una comparación. No se sabe si existe una diferencia en los eventos adversos entre las superficies de gel estáticas seguidas de superficies de espuma y las superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) aplicadas tanto en las mesas de operaciones como en las camas de hospital (un estudio con 198 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). No se encontró evidencia acerca de la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud ni de la coste­efectividad para ninguna comparación en esta revisión. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Por lo general no se desconoce la evidencia actual sobre las diferencias entre las superficies estáticas sin espuma y sin aire y otras superficies en términos de la incidencia de las úlceras por presión, la comodidad del paciente, los efectos adversos, la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud y la coste­efectividad. Las superficies de gel estáticas utilizadas en las mesas de operaciones, seguidas de las superficies de espuma aplicadas en las camas de hospital, podrían aumentar el riesgo de aparición de nuevas úlceras por presión en comparación con las superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) aplicadas en las mesas de operaciones y en las camas de hospital. Los estudios de investigación futuros en este campo deberían considerar la evaluación de las SEMP más importantes desde la perspectiva de aquellos que toman decisiones. En los estudios futuros se deben considerar los desenlaces de tiempo hasta el evento, la evaluación cuidadosa de los eventos adversos y la evaluación de la coste­efectividad a nivel de ensayo. Los ensayos deben estar diseñados para minimizar el riesgo de sesgo de detección; por ejemplo, con el uso de fotografía digital y el cegamiento de los adjudicatarios de las fotografías a la asignación a los grupos. Una revisión posterior mediante metanálisis en red ampliará los resultados aquí proporcionados.

Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Foam surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of foam beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to foam beds, mattresses or overlays. Comparators were any beds, mattresses or overlays. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a foam surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies (9566 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 101 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 47.0 to 85.3 years (median: 76.0 years). Participants were mainly from acute care settings. We analysed data for seven comparisons in the review: foam surfaces compared with: (1) alternating pressure air surfaces, (2) reactive air surfaces, (3) reactive fibre surfaces, (4) reactive gel surfaces, (5) reactive foam and gel surfaces, (6) reactive water surfaces, and (7) another type of foam surface. Of the 29 included studies, 17 (58.6%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOME: pressure ulcer incidence Low-certainty evidence suggests that foam surfaces may increase the risk of developing new pressure ulcers compared with (1) alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 2.95; I2 = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants), and (2) reactive air surfaces (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.54; I2 = 25%; 4 studies, 229 participants). We are uncertain regarding the difference in pressure ulcer incidence in people treated with foam surfaces and the following surfaces: (1) reactive fibre surfaces (1 study, 68 participants); (2) reactive gel surfaces (1 study, 135 participants); (3) reactive gel and foam surfaces (1 study, 91 participants); and (4) another type of foam surface (6 studies, 733 participants). These had very low-certainty evidence. Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer development for two comparisons. When time to ulcer development is considered using hazard ratios, the difference in the risk of having new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between foam surfaces and alternating pressure air surfaces is uncertain (2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two further studies comparing different types of foam surfaces also reported time-to-event data, suggesting that viscoelastic foam surfaces with a density of 40 to 60 kg/m3 may decrease the risk of having new pressure ulcers over 11.5 days' follow-up compared with foam surfaces with a density of 33 kg/m3 (1 study, 62 participants); and solid foam surfaces may decrease the risk of having new pressure ulcers over one month's follow-up compared with convoluted foam surfaces (1 study, 84 participants). Both had low-certainty evidence. There was no analysable data for the comparison of foam surfaces with reactive water surfaces (one study with 117 participants). Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the review contains data for three comparisons for this outcome. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort measure between foam surfaces and alternating pressure air surfaces (1 study, 76 participants; very low-certainty evidence); foam surfaces and reactive air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and different types of foam surfaces (4 studies, 669 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: the review contains data for two comparisons for this outcome. We are uncertain about differences in adverse effects between foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (3 studies, 2181 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between foam surfaces and reactive air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life: only one study reported data on this outcome. It is uncertain if there is a difference (low-certainty evidence) between foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in health-related quality of life measured with two different questionnaires, the EQ-5D-5L (267 participants) and the PU-QoL-UI (233 participants). Cost-effectiveness: one study reported trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces in preventing pressure ulcer incidence (2029 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests uncertainty about the differences in pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse events and health-related quality of life between using foam surfaces and other surfaces (reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces, reactive foam and gel surfaces, or reactive water surfaces). Foam surfaces may increase pressure ulcer incidence compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive air surfaces. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and by blinding adjudicators of the photographs to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

ANTECEDENTES: Las úlceras por presión (también conocidas como úlceras de decúbito) son lesiones localizadas en la piel o en los tejidos blandos subyacentes, o en ambos, y causadas por la presión, el cizallamiento o la fricción no aliviados. Las superficies de espuma (camas, colchones o sobrecolchones) se utilizan ampliamente con el objetivo de prevenir las úlceras por presión. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos de las camas, los colchones o los sobrecolchones de espuma en comparación con cualquier superficie especial de manejo de presión (SEMP) sobre la incidencia de las úlceras por presión en cualquier población y en cualquier ámbito. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: En noviembre de 2019 se realizaron búsquedas en el Registro especializado del Grupo Cochrane de Heridas (Cochrane Wounds); en el Registro Cochrane central de ensayos controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; CENTRAL); en Ovid MEDLINE (incluido In­Process & Other Non­Indexed Citations); en Ovid Embase y en EBSCO CINAHL Plus. También se buscaron estudios en curso y no publicados en los registros de ensayos clínicos, y se examinaron las listas de referencias de los estudios incluidos pertinentes, así como de las revisiones, los metanálisis y los informes de tecnología sanitaria para identificar estudios adicionales. No hubo restricciones en cuanto al idioma, la fecha de publicación ni el contexto de los estudios. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron los ensayos controlados aleatorizados que asignaron a participantes de cualquier edad a camas, colchones o sobrecolchones de espuma. Los comparadores fueron cualquier cama, colchón o sobrecolchón. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Al menos dos autores de la revisión evaluaron de forma independiente los ensayos según los criterios de inclusión predeterminados. Se realizó la extracción de los datos, la evaluación del "riesgo de sesgo" mediante la herramienta Cochrane "Risk of bias" y la evaluación de la certeza de la evidencia según el método Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Si se comparaba una superficie de espuma con superficies que no estaban claramente especificadas, se registraba y describía el estudio incluido, pero no se tenía en cuenta en ningún análisis de datos. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: En la revisión se incluyeron 29 estudios (9566 participantes). La mayoría de los estudios eran pequeños (mediana del tamaño muestral de los estudios: 101 participantes). El promedio de edad de los participantes varió entre 47,0 y 85,3 años (mediana: 76,0 años). Los participantes procedían principalmente de ámbitos de cuidados intensivos y de agudos. En la revisión se analizaron los datos de siete comparaciones: superficies de espuma comparadas con: (1) superficies de aire de presión alternante, (2) superficies de aire estáticas, (3) superficies de fibra estáticas, (4) superficies de gel estáticas, (5) superficies de espuma y gel estáticas, (6) superficies de agua estáticas y (7) otro tipo de superficie de espuma. De los 29 estudios incluidos, 17 (58,6%) presentaron resultados que se consideraron con alto riesgo general de sesgo. Desenlace principal: incidencia de úlceras por presión Evidencia de certeza baja indica que las superficies de espuma podrían aumentar el riesgo de desarrollar nuevas úlceras por presión en comparación con (1) las superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) (razón de riesgos [RR] 1,59; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,86 a 2,95; I2 = 63%; cuatro estudios, 2247 participantes) y (2) las superficies de aire estáticas (RR 2,40; IC del 95%: 1,04 a 5,54; I2 = 25%; cuatro estudios, 229 participantes). No hay certeza acerca de la diferencia en la incidencia de las úlceras por presión en las personas tratadas con superficies de espuma y las siguientes superficies: (1) superficies de fibras estáticas (un estudio, 68 participantes); (2) superficies de gel estáticas (un estudio, 135 participantes); (3) superficies estáticas de gel y espuma (un estudio, 91 participantes); y (4) otro tipo de superficies de espuma (seis estudios, 733 participantes). Al respecto se cuenta con evidencia de certeza muy baja. Los estudios incluidos cuentan con datos sobre el tiempo hasta la aparición de úlceras por presión para dos comparaciones. Cuando se considera el tiempo hasta la aparición de la úlcera con el uso de los cocientes de riesgos instantáneos, no está clara la diferencia en el riesgo de tener nuevas úlceras por presión, durante 90 días de seguimiento, entre las superficies de espuma y las de aire de presión alternante (dos estudios, 2105 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Otros dos estudios que compararon diferentes tipos de superficies de espuma también proporcionaron datos sobre el tiempo hasta el evento, e indicaron que las superficies de espuma viscoelástica con una densidad de 40 a 60 kg/m3 podrían disminuir el riesgo de presentar nuevas úlceras por presión durante 11,5 días de seguimiento en comparación con las superficies de espuma con una densidad de 33 kg/m3 (un estudio, 62 participantes) y las superficies de espuma sólida podrían disminuir el riesgo de presentar nuevas úlceras por presión durante un mes de seguimiento en comparación con las superficies de espuma alveolar (un estudio, 84 participantes). Ambos con evidencia de certeza baja. No hubo datos que se pudieran analizar para la comparación de las superficies de espuma con las de agua estáticas (un estudio con 117 participantes). Desenlaces secundarios Comodidad del paciente asociada con la SEMP: la revisión contiene datos de tres comparaciones para este desenlace. No se sabe si existe una diferencia en la medida de comodidad del paciente entre las superficies de espuma y las superficies de aire de presión alternante (un estudio, 76 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja); las superficies de espuma y las superficies de aire estáticas (un estudio, 72 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja); y los diferentes tipos de superficies de espuma (cuatro estudios, 669 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Todos los eventos adversos informados: la revisión contiene datos de dos comparaciones para este desenlace. No están claras las diferencias en los efectos adversos entre las superficies de espuma y las superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) (tres estudios, 2181 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja), ni entre las superficies de espuma y las superficies de aire estáticas (un estudio, 72 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Calidad de vida relacionada con la salud: sólo un estudio proporcionó datos sobre este desenlace. No se sabe si existe una diferencia (evidencia de certeza baja) entre las superficies de espuma y las superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud medida con dos cuestionarios diferentes, el EQ­5D­5L (267 participantes) y el PU­QoL­UI (233 participantes). Coste­efectividad: un estudio proporcionó evaluaciones de coste­efectividad a nivel de ensayo. Las superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) son probablemente más coste­efectivas que las superficies de espuma en la prevención de la incidencia de las úlceras por presión (2029 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: La evidencia actual indica que no hay certeza acerca de las diferencias en la incidencia de las úlceras por presión, la comodidad del paciente, los eventos adversos ni la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud entre el uso de superficies de espuma y otras SEMP (superficies de fibras estáticas, superficies de gel estáticas, superficies de espuma y gel estáticas o superficies de agua estáticas). Las superficies de espuma podrían aumentar la incidencia de las úlceras por presión en comparación con las superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) y las superficies de aire estáticas. Las superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) son probablemente más coste­efectivas que las superficies de espuma para prevenir nuevas úlceras por presión. Los estudios de investigación futuros en este campo deberían considerar la evaluación de las SEMP más importantes desde la perspectiva de los responsables de la toma de decisiones. En los estudios futuros se deben considerar los desenlaces de tiempo hasta el evento, la evaluación cuidadosa de los eventos adversos y la evaluación de la coste­efectividad a nivel de ensayo. Los ensayos deben estar diseñados para minimizar el riesgo de sesgo de detección; por ejemplo, con el uso de fotografía digital y el cegamiento de los adjudicatarios de las fotografías a la asignación a los grupos. Una revisión posterior mediante metanálisis en red ampliará los resultados aquí proporcionados.

Beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing and treating pressure ulcers: an overview of Cochrane Reviews and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Specific kinds of beds, overlays and mattresses are widely used with the aim of preventing and treating pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To summarise evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and on increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To assess the relative effects of different types of beds, overlays and mattresses for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To cumulatively rank the different treatment options of beds, overlays and mattresses in order of their effectiveness in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment. METHODS: In July 2020, we searched the Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews reporting the effectiveness of beds, mattresses or overlays for preventing or treating pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. We summarised the reported evidence in an overview of reviews. Where possible, we included the randomised controlled trials from each included review in network meta-analyses. We assessed the relative effectiveness of beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing or treating pressure ulcers and their probabilities of being, comparably, the most effective treatment. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We include six Cochrane Reviews in this overview of reviews, all at low or unclear risk of bias. Pressure ulcer prevention: four reviews (of 68 studies with 18,174 participants) report direct evidence for 27 pairwise comparisons between 12 types of support surface on the following outcomes: pressure ulcer incidence, time to pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Pressure ulcer incidence: our overview includes direct evidence for 27 comparisons that mostly (19/27) have very low-certainty evidence concerning reduction of pressure ulcer risk. We included 40 studies (12,517 participants; 1298 participants with new ulcers) in a network meta-analysis involving 13 types of intervention. Data informing the network are sparse and this, together with the high risk of bias in most studies informing the network, means most network contrasts (64/78) yield evidence of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces (e.g. static air overlays) (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.75), alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (e.g. alternating pressure air mattresses, large-celled ripple mattresses) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and reactive gel surfaces (e.g. gel pads used on operating tables) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.01) may reduce pressure ulcer incidence. The ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness is also of very low certainty for all interventions. It is unclear which treatment is best for preventing ulceration. (2) Time to pressure ulcer incidence: four reviews had direct evidence on this outcome for seven comparisons. We included 10 studies (7211 participants; 699 participants with new ulcers) evaluating six interventions in a network meta-analysis. Again, data from most network contrasts (13/15) are of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces may reduce the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.05). The ranking of all support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in terms of time to healing is uncertain. (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for three comparisons. For preventing pressure ulcers, alternating pressure air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (moderate-certainty evidence). Pressure ulcer treatment: two reviews (of 12 studies with 972 participants) report direct evidence for five comparisons on: complete pressure ulcer healing, time to complete pressure ulcer healing, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Complete pressure ulcer healing: our overview includes direct evidence for five comparisons. There is uncertainty about the relative effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on ulcer healing. The corresponding network meta-analysis (with four studies, 397 participants) had only three direct contrasts and a total of six network contrasts. Again, most network contrasts (5/6) have very low-certainty evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that more people with pressure ulcers may heal completely using reactive air surfaces than using foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We are uncertain which surfaces have the highest probability of being the most effective (all very low-certainty evidence). (2) Time to complete pressure ulcer healing: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have healed pressure ulcers compared with those using foam surfaces in long-term care settings (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use in long-term care settings (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and may increase complete ulcer healing. Compared with foam surfaces, alternating pressure air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and are probably more cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers. Compared with foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk, particularly for people in operating rooms and long-term care settings. There are uncertainties for the relative effectiveness of other support surfaces for preventing and treating pressure ulcers, and their efficacy ranking. More high-quality research is required; for example, for the comparison of reactive air surfaces with alternating pressure air surfaces. Future studies should consider time-to-event outcomes and be designed to minimise any risk of bias.

Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Beds, overlays or mattresses are widely used with the aim of treating pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on pressure ulcer healing in people with pressure ulcers of any stage, in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to pressure-redistributing beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses that were applied for treating pressure ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies (972 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 72 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 64.0 to 86.5 years (median: 82.7 years) and all studies recruited people with existing pressure ulcers (the baseline ulcer area size ranging from 4.2 to 18.6 cm2,median 6.6 cm2). Participants were recruited from acute care settings (six studies) and community and long-term care settings (seven studies). Of the 13 studies, three (224 participants) involved surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be classified. Additionally, six (46.2%) of the 13 studies presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias. We synthesised data for four comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus foam surfaces; reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces; reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and a comparison between two types of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces. We summarise key findings for these four comparisons below. (1) Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus foam surfaces: we are uncertain if there is a difference between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces in the proportion of participants whose pressure ulcers completely healed (two studies with 132 participants; the reported risk ratio (RR) in one study was 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 3.58). There is also uncertainty for the outcomes of patient comfort (one study with 83 participants) and adverse events (one study with 49 participants). These outcomes have very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. (2) Reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference in the proportion of participants with completely healed pressure ulcers between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). When time to complete pressure ulcer healing is considered using a hazard ratio, data from one small study (84 participants) suggests a greater hazard for complete ulcer healing on reactive air surfaces (hazard ratio 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). These results are sensitive to the choice of outcome measure so should be interpreted as uncertain. We are also uncertain whether there is any difference between these surfaces in patient comfort responses (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in adverse events (2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence that reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use (1 study, 87 participants). Included studies did not report health-related quality of life. (3) Reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference between reactive water surfaces and foam surfaces in the proportion of participants with healed pressure ulcers (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.63; 1 study, 101 participants) and in adverse events (1 study, 120 participants). All these have very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, patient comfort, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. (4) Comparison between two types of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference between Nimbus and Pegasus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in the proportion of participants with healed pressure ulcers, in patient comfort responses and in adverse events: each of these outcomes had four studies (256 participants) but very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain about the relative effects of most different pressure-redistributing surfaces for pressure ulcer healing (types directly compared are alternating pressure air surfaces versus foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces, reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and Nimbus versus Pegasus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces). There is also uncertainty regarding the effects of these different surfaces on the outcomes of comfort and adverse events. However, people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have pressure ulcers completely healed than those using foam surfaces over 37.5 days' follow-up, and reactive air surfaces may cost more for each ulcer-free day than foam surfaces. Future research in this area could consider the evaluation of alternating pressure air surfaces versus foam surfaces as a high priority. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.