EffEctiveness of Prophylactic fOam dressings in the prevention of saCral pressure injuries in at-risk hospitalised patients: the EEPOC trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic dressings are increasingly used to prevent pressure injuries in hospitalised patients. However, evidence regarding the effectiveness of these dressings is still emerging. This trial aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic silicone foam border dressing in preventing sacral pressure injuries in medical-surgical patients. METHODS: This is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. A sample size of 1320 was calculated to have >90% power to detect a 5% difference in the primary outcome at an alpha of 0.05. Adult patients admitted to participating medical-surgical wards are screened for eligibility: ≥18 years, admitted to hospital within the previous 36 h, expected length of stay of ≥24 h, and assessed high risk for hospital-acquired pressure injury. Consenting participants are randomly allocated to either prophylactic silicone foam dressing intervention or usual care without any dressing as the control group via a web-based randomisation service independent of the trial. Patients are enrolled across three Australian hospitals. The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of patients who develop a sacral pressure injury. Secondary outcomes include the time to sacral pressure injury, incidence of severity (stage) of sacral pressure injury, cost-effectiveness of dressings, and process evaluation. Participant outcomes are assessed daily for up to 14 days by blinded independent outcome assessors using de-identified, digitally modified sacral photographs. Those who develop a sacral pressure injury are followed for an additional 14 days to estimate costs of pressure injury treatment. Analysis of clinical outcomes will be based on intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to provide definitive evidence on the effect prophylactic dressings have on the development of hospital-acquired sacral pressure injuries in medical-surgical patients. A parallel economic evaluation of pressure injury prevention and treatment will enable evidence-informed decisions and policy. The inclusion of a process evaluation will help to explain the contextual factors that may have a bearing on trial results including the acceptability of the dressings to patients and staff. The trial commenced 5 March 2020 and has been significantly delayed due to COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR ACTRN12619000763145. Prospectively registered on 22 May 2019.

The Effect of Price Changes and Teaspoon Labelling on Intention to Purchase Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

INTRODUCTION: Childhood obesity is a major public health concern and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are a known contributor. SSB taxation and food labelling have been proposed as policies to reduce consumption by changing purchasing behaviours. The study aimed to analyse caregivers' preferences on commonly purchased SSBs in Australia and to determine the effect of price increases and teaspoon labelling on their purchasing intentions. METHODS: We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to obtain data about choices between SSB and non-SSB alternatives. 563 caregivers, who had young children aged 3-7 years, completed the experiment online. 286 were randomly allocated to receive choice sets with plain labelling while 277 were assigned to teaspoon labelling. Each participant completed nine choice scenarios where they chose between six SSB and non-SSB beverage options or a no-beverage option, with beverage prices varying between scenarios. While hypothetical, price and teaspoon labelling for sugar content for each beverage was obtained from an informal market survey. Responses from the DCE were modelled using random parameters logit within a random utility theory framework. Household income and children's consumption volumes of soft drink were used to explore preference heterogeneity. RESULTS: Using mixed logit as the final model, we found that higher reduction in intended purchases was observed for soft drink and fruit drink in teaspoon labelling than it was in plain labelling. Participants exposed to teaspoon labelling intended to purchase less of flavoured milk and fruit juice compared to those exposed to plain labelling. Compared to baseline prices, a hypothetical 20% increase in SSB prices and the presentation of 'teaspoons of sugar' labelling were predicted to reduce intentional SSB purchases and increase intentional non-SSB purchases. Within each labelling group, there were no significant differences of intentional purchases between the highest and the lowest income quintile, high and low consumers of soft drinks. However, compared to plain labelling, teaspoon labelling was predicted to strongly influence intentional purchases of SSBs and non-SSBs. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a policy to increase SSB price and include teaspoon labelling would lead to a reduced consumption of SSBs and increased consumption of non-SSBs.

The impact of a pharmacist on post-take ward round prescribing and medication appropriateness.

Background Medication communication and prescribing on the post-take ward round following patient admission to hospital can be suboptimal leading to worse patient outcomes. Objective To evaluate the impact of clinical pharmacist participation on the post-take ward round on the appropriateness of medication prescribing, medication communication, and overall patient health care outcomes. Setting Tertiary referral teaching hospital, Brisbane, Australia. Method A pre-post intervention study was undertaken that compared the addition of a senior clinical pharmacist attending the post-take ward was compared to usual wardbase pharmacist service, with no pharmacist present of the post-take ward round. We assessed the proportion of patients with an improvement in medication appropriateness from admission to discharge, using the START/STOPP checklists. Medication communication was assessed by the mean number of brief and in-depth discussions, with health care outcomes measured by comparing length of stay and 28-day readmission rates. Main outcome measures: Medication appropriateness according to the START/STOPP list, number and type of discussions with team members and length of stay and readmission rate. Results Two hundred and sixty patients were recruited (130 pre- and 130-post-intervention), across 23 and 20 post-take ward rounds, respectively. Post-intervention, there was increase in the proportion of patients who had an improvement medication appropriateness (pre-intervention 25.4%, post-intervention 36.9%; p = 0.004), the number of in-depth discussions about patients' medication (1.9 ± 1.7 per patient pre-intervention, 2.7 ± 1.7 per patient post-, p < 0.001), and the number relating to high-risk medications (0.71 ± 1.1 per patient pre-intervention, to 1.2 ± 1.2 per patient post-, p < 0.05). Length of stay and 28-day mortality were unchanged. Conclusion Clinical pharmacist participation on the post-take ward round leads to improved medication-related communication and improved medication appropriateness but did not significantly improve health care outcomes.

Correction to: Recommendations from Two Citizens' Juries on the Surgical Management of Obesity.

The spelling of the name of author K. Chalkidou was incorrect in the original article. It is correct here.

Recommendations from Two Citizens' Juries on the Surgical Management of Obesity.

BACKGROUND: It is important that guidelines and criteria used to prioritise access to bariatric surgery are informed by the values of the tax-paying public in combination with the expertise of healthcare professionals. Citizens' juries are increasingly used around the world to engage the public in healthcare decision-making. This study investigated citizens' juries about prioritising patient access to bariatric surgery in two Australian cities. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to examine public priorities for government expenditure on the surgical management of obesity developed through either a one or three-day citizen jury. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A three-day jury was held in Brisbane and a one-day jury in Adelaide. Jurors were selected in Brisbane (n = 18) and in Adelaide (n = 12) according to pre-specified criteria. Expert witnesses from various medical disciplines and consumers were cross-examined by jurors. RESULTS: The verdicts of the juries were similar in that both juries agreed bariatric surgery was an important option in the management of obesity and related comorbidities. Recommendations about who should receive treatment differed slightly across the juries. Both juries rejected the use of age as a rationing tool, but managed their objections in different ways. Participants' experiences of the jury process were positive, but our observations suggested that many variables may influence the nature of the final verdict. CONCLUSIONS: Citizen's juries, even when shorter in duration, can be an effective tool to guide the development of health policy and priorities. However, our study has identified a range of variables that should be considered when designing and running a jury and when interpreting the verdict.

Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: results from a Citizens' Jury on emergency care services.

BACKGROUND: Policies addressing ED crowding have failed to incorporate the public's perspectives; engaging the public in such policies is needed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at determining the public's recommendations related to alternative models of care intended to reduce crowding, optimising access to and provision of emergency care. METHODS: A Citizens' Jury was convened in Queensland, Australia, to consider priority setting and resource allocation to address ED crowding. Twenty-two jurors were recruited from the electoral roll, who were interested and available to attend the jury from 15 to 17 June 2012. Juror feedback was collected via a survey immediately following the end of the jury. RESULTS: The jury considered that all patients attending the ED should be assessed with a minority of cases diverted for assistance elsewhere. Jurors strongly supported enabling ambulance staff to treat patients in their homes without transporting them to the ED, and allowing non-medical staff to treat some patients without seeing a doctor. Jurors supported (in principle) patient choice over aspects of their treatment (when, where and type of health professional) with some support for patients paying towards treatment but unanimous opposition for patients paying to be prioritised. Most of the jurors were satisfied with their experience of the Citizens' Jury process, but some jurors perceived the time allocated for deliberations as insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the general public may be open to flexible models of emergency care. The jury provided clear recommendations for direct public input to guide health policy to tackle ED crowding.