CPR Quality Officer role to improve CPR quality: A multi-centred international simulation randomised control trial.

Background: An out-of-hospital cardiac arrest requires early recognition, prompt and quality clinical interventions, and coordination between different clinicians to improve outcomes. Clinical team leaders and clinical teams have high levels of cognitive burden. We aimed to investigate the effect of a dedicated Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Quality Officer role on team performance. Methods: This multi-centre randomised control trial used simulation in universities from the UK, Poland, and Norway. Student Paramedics participated in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest scenarios before randomisation to either traditional roles or assigning one member as the CPR Quality Officer. The quality of CPR was measured using QCPR® and Advanced Life Support (ALS) elements were evaluated. Results: In total, 36 teams (108 individuals) participated. CPR quality from the first attempt (72.45%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 64.94 to 79.97) significantly increased after addition of the CPR Quality role (81.14%, 95% CI 74.20 to 88.07, p = 0.045). Improvement was not seen in the control group. The time to first defibrillation had no significant difference in the intervention group between the first attempt (53.77, 95% CI 36.57-70.98) and the second attempt (48.68, 95% CI 31.31-66.05, p = 0.84). The time to manage an obstructive airway in the intervention group showed significant difference (p = 0.006) in the first attempt (168.95, 95% CI 110.54-227.37) compared with the second attempt (136.95, 95% CI 87.03-186.88, p = 0.1). Conclusion: A dedicated CPR Quality Officer in simulated scenarios improved the quality of CPR compressions without a negative impact on time to first defibrillation, managing the airway, or adherence to local ALS protocols.

Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, robotic rehabilitation devices have often been used for motor training. However, to date, no systematic reviews of qualitative studies exploring the end-user experiences of robotic devices in motor rehabilitation have been published. The aim of this study was to review end-users' (patients, carers and healthcare professionals) experiences with robotic devices in motor rehabilitation, by conducting a systematic review and thematic meta-synthesis of qualitative studies concerning the users' experiences with such robotic devices. METHODS: Qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with a qualitative element were eligible for inclusion. Nine electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2020, supplemented with internet searches and forward and backward citation tracking from the included studies and review articles. Data were synthesised thematically following the Thomas and Harden approach. The CASP Qualitative Checklist was used to assess the quality of the included studies of this review. RESULTS: The search strategy identified a total of 13,556 citations and after removing duplicates and excluding citations based on title and abstract, and full text screening, 30 studies were included. All studies were considered of acceptable quality. We developed six analytical themes: logistic barriers; technological challenges; appeal and engagement; supportive interactions and relationships; benefits for physical, psychological, and social function(ing); and expanding and sustaining therapeutic options. CONCLUSIONS: Despite experiencing technological and logistic challenges, participants found robotic devices acceptable, useful and beneficial (physically, psychologically, and socially), as well as fun and interesting. Having supportive relationships with significant others and positive therapeutic relationships with healthcare staff were considered the foundation for successful rehabilitation and recovery.

Saving bones without risking brain-bisphosphonates and risk of stroke: matched case-control study.

We investigated the association between bisphosphonate treatment and the risk of stroke using a large routine clinical dataset. We found no association between bisphosphonate treatment and risk of stroke, after adjusting for large number of clinical and demographic confounders. INTRODUCTION: There is conflicting evidence on the link between bisphosphonates and stroke with studies variously showing increased, decreased or unchanged risk. We investigated the association between bisphosphonate treatment and the risk of stroke using a large routine clinical dataset. METHODS: We used a matched nested case-control study design analysing routinely collected electronic data from patients registered at primary care practices in England participating in the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre. Cases were patients aged 18 years or over, either living or dead, recorded as having had a stroke in the period 1 January 2005 to 31 March 2016. Each case was matched to one control according to age, sex, general practice attended and calendar time. Data were analysed using Stata, version 14.2. and RStudio, version 1.1.463. Conditional logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios for stroke according to bisphosphonate treatment and duration in cases compared with controls. We adjusted for disease risk groups, cardiovascular risk factors, treatments, smoking status, alcohol consumption, ethnicity, bisphosphonate types, fracture and socioeconomic status using IMD (Index of Multiple Deprivation). RESULTS: We included 31,414 cases of stroke with an equal number of matched controls. Overall, 83.2% of cases and controls were aged 65 years or older, and there were similar proportions of females (51.5%) and males (48.5%). Bisphosphonate treatment was not associated with stroke after adjusting for the wide range of confounders considered (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: We found no association between bisphosphonate treatment and risk of stroke, after adjusting for other confounders.