A narrative review of the training structure, role, and safety profile of advanced critical care practitioners in adult intensive services in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: Advanced clinical practitioners are a growing part of the National Health Service workforce in the United Kingdom (UK). The concept stems from the progression of skills, knowledge, and experience of healthcare professionals (including nursing, physiotherapists, paramedics, and pharmacists) to a higher level of practice. The addition of advanced critical care practitioners (ACCPs) to the multidisciplinary team of the UK adult critical care is recent; they form part of the fabric of the advanced clinical practitioner workforce. This is a narrative review of the role of ACCPs, considering the evolution of the role, training, accreditation, and evidence supporting the safety profile in adult intensive care in the UK. METHOD: This is a narrative review. CONCLUSION: ACCPs have evolved from an ad hoc and local training structure, to a UK-wide competency standard and training developed within the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine. This formed in concert with the advanced clinical practitioner concept. As advanced practice is very much multiprofessional in the UK, a single regulator for multiple base professions is likely neither feasible nor realistic. Over the last 5 years, the UK picture of advanced practice has slowly standardised; an ACCP securely fits under the advanced clinical practitioner umbrella. The ACCP workforce has moved from a handful of early adopters, regional hubs, to a position across most critical care units now have or are developing a team of practitioners. The evidence base for the safety profile of ACCPs is evolving and shows parity in outcomes in the areas currently investigated. The ACCP role provides a vision of a multiprofessional workforce for the future of staffing of critical care services that is diverse and inclusive, not with the intention of competing with our medical colleagues.

Disinvestment in the presence of uncertainty: Description of a novel, multi-group, disinvestment trial design and protocol for an application to reduce or cease use of mobilisation alarms for preventing falls in hospitals.

Disinvestment is the removal or reduction of previously provided practices or services, and has typically been undertaken where a practice or service has been clearly shown to be ineffective, inefficient and/or harmful. However, practices and services that have uncertain evidence of effectiveness, efficiency and safety can also be considered as candidates for disinvestment. Disinvestment from these practices and services is risky as they may yet prove to be beneficial if further evidence becomes available. A novel research approach has previously been described for this situation, allowing disinvestment to take place while simultaneously generating evidence previously missing from consideration. In this paper, we describe how this approach can be expanded to situations where three or more conditions are of relevance, and describe the protocol for a trial examining the reduction and elimination of use of mobilisation alarms on hospital wards to prevent patient falls. Our approach utilises a 3-group, concurrent, non-inferiority, stepped wedge, randomised design with an embedded parallel, cluster randomised design. Eighteen hospital wards with high rates of alarm use (≥3%) will be paired within their health service and randomly allocated to a calendar month when they will transition to a "Reduced" (<3%) or "Eliminated" (0%) mobilisation alarm condition. Dynamic randomisation will be used to determine which ward in each pair will be allocated to either the reduced or eliminated condition to promote equivalence between wards for the embedded parallel, cluster randomised component of the design. A project governance committee will set non-inferiority margins. The primary outcome will be rates of falls. Secondary clinical, process, safety, and economic outcomes will be collected and a concurrent economic evaluation undertaken.