Using Mindfulness in Nursing Burnout. An Integrative Review.

The purpose of this integrative review is to evaluate if mindfulness is effective in decreasing nursing burnout. Nursing burnout has negatively affected the nursing profession for many years, and since the COVID-19 pandemic, it appears to be worse. Mindfulness is a practice that has been used for decades, however, it is gaining more attention in the nursing realm. Mindfulness consists of being present in a moment without judgment. It can consist of individual exercises that are completed using an instructor in person, in an application on a smartphone or computer, or yoga-based mindful activities. A preliminary literature review was completed using 10 articles on mindfulness in nursing burnout and a comprehensive literature review was completed using 15 articles on mindfulness and nursing burnout. The PRISMA model was used to aid in reporting and reviewing articles along with using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Major findings included understanding that multiple types of mindfulness interventions can be used, burnout promotes poor patient outcomes and disengagement, lack of leadership promotes burnout, and ICU and oncology nurses are more prone to burnout. Initial findings and comprehensive review findings include that mindfulness is an effective tool in relieving nursing burnout and mindfulness can increase job satisfaction. Some limitations are that larger studies are needed for a longer period and more evaluation is needed on which mindfulness intervention tool is more effective than others. Implications for practice include understanding that mindfulness practice is necessary to mitigate nursing burnout

The factors affecting team performance in the NFL: does off-field conduct matter?

This paper contains a statistical analysis of the factors that contribute to team wins in the NFL. The variables examined are divided into offensive, defensive, and special teams categories. In addition, net turnovers, penalties, and off-field conduct, as measured by team arrests, are also included as independent variables. The results show that the quarterback rating has the largest impact on team wins followed by field goal percentage, opponent's passing yards per game, and opponent''s rushing yards per game. Team arrests were not found to have a statistically significant impact on team performance.

Delirium in HIV-infected patients admitted to acute medical wards post universal access to antiretrovirals in South Africa

Background. Delirium is associated with increased mortality and length of hospital stay. Limited data are available from HIV-infected acute hospital admissions in developing countries. We conducted a prospective study of delirium among acute medical admissions in South Africa (SA), a developing country with universal antiretroviral therapy (ART) access and high burdens of tuberculosis (TB) and non-communicable disease.Objectives. To identify the prevalence of, risk factors for and outcomes of delirium in HIV-infected individuals in acute general medical admissions.Methods. Three cohorts of adult acute medical admissions to Groote Schuur and Victoria Wynberg hospitals, Cape Town, SA, were evaluated for prevalent delirium within 24 hours of admission. Reference delirium testing was performed by either consultant physicians or neuropsychologists, using the Confusion Assessment Method.Results. The study included 1 182 acute medical admissions, with 318 (26.9%) HIV-infected. The median (interquartile range) age and CD4 count were 35 (30 - 43) years and 132 (61 - 256) cells/µL, respectively, with 140/318 (44.0%) using ART on admission. The prevalence of delirium was 17.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 13.7 - 22.1) among HIV-infected patients, and delirium was associated with increased inpatient mortality. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, factors associated with delirium were age ≥55 years (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 6.95 (95% CI 2.03 - 23.67); p=0.002), and urea ≥15 mmol/L (aOR 4.83 (95% CI 1.7 - 13.44); p=0.003), while ART use reduced risk (p=0.014). A low CD4 count, an unsuppressed viral load and active TB were not predictors of delirium; nor were other previously reported risk factors such as non-opportunistic acute infections or polypharmacy.Conclusions. Delirium is common and is associated with increased mortality in HIV-infected acute medical admissions in endemic settings, despite increased ART use. Older HIV-infected patients with renal dysfunction are at increased risk for inpatient delirium, while those using ART on admission have a reduced risk

Prevalence and outcome of delirium among acute general medical inpatients in Cape Town, South Africa

Background. Delirium is a common, serious, underdiagnosed condition in medical and surgical inpatients with acute conditions. It is associated with increased risk of mortality and morbidity. Data of geriatric cohorts are largely limited to developed countries.Objectives. To describe prevalence, risk factors and outcomes of delirium among general medical patients admitted to two hospitals in Cape Town, South Africa.Methods. This was a prospective cohort study of patients with acute conditions admitted to a general medical inpatient service in secondary- and tertiary-level public hospitals in the Metro West area of Cape Town. Patients ≥18 years of age were recruited daily from all acute medical admissions. Patients were excluded if they were aphasic or their Glasgow coma scale was <8/15. Delirium was diagnosed using the validated confusion assessment method (CAM) tool and performed by trained neuropsychologists. Demographic data were collected by a clinical team and short- and long-term mortality data were obtained using linkage analysis of hospitalised patients and routinely collected provincial death certification records.Results. The median age of inpatients was 51 (interquartile range 36 - 65) years, 29% were HIV-infected and the overall prevalence of delirium was 12.3%. Multivariate predictors of delirium included the presence of an indwelling urinary catheter (odds ratio (OR) 4.47; confidence interval (CI) 2.43 - 8.23), admission with a central nervous system disease (OR 4.34; CI 2.79 - 7.90), pre-existing cognitive impairment (OR 3.02; CI 1.22 - 7.43) and immobility (OR 1.88; CI 1.01 - 3.51). HIV infection was not associated with increased risk of delirium. Delirium was associated with an increased risk of inhospital (delirium v. no delirium: 29% v. 12%; p<0.01) and 12-month (30% v. 20%; p<0.01) mortality, as well as increased length of hospital stay (7 days v. 5 days; p<0.01).Conclusions. In this cohort of medical inpatients (relatively young and with a high HIV prevalence) 1 of 8 (12.3%) patients was delirious. Delirium was associated with adverse outcomes. Delirium risk factors in this young cohort were similar to those in geriatric cohorts in developed countries, and neither HIV nor opportunistic infections increased risk

Fiction Fix 15

https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/fiction_fix/1016/thumbnail.jp

Fiction Fix 16

https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/fiction_fix/1017/thumbnail.jp

Superiority and cost-effectiveness of monthly extended-release buprenorphine versus daily standard of care medication: a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Daily methadone maintenance or buprenorphine treatment is the standard-of-care (SoC) medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). Subcutaneously injected, extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) may be more effective-but there has been no superiority evaluation.METHODS: This pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness superiority randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at five National Health Service community-based treatment clinics in England and Scotland. Participants (adults aged ≥ 18 years; all meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe OUD at admission to their current maintenance treatment episode) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive continued daily SoC (liquid methadone (usual dose range: 60-120 mg) or sublingual/transmucosal buprenorphine (usual dose range: 8-24 mg) for 24 weeks; or monthly BUP-XR (Sublocade;® two injections of 300 mg, then four maintenance injections of 100 mg or 300 mg, with maintenance dose selected by response and preference) for 24 weeks. In the intent-to-treat population (senior statistician blinded to blinded to treatment group allocation), and with a seven-day grace period after randomisation, the primary endpoint was the count of days abstinent from non-medical opioids between days 8-168 (i.e., weeks 2-24; range: 0-161 days). Safety was reported for the intention-to- treat population. Adopting a broad societal perspective inclusive of criminal justice, NHS and personal social service costs, a trial-based cost-utility analysis estimated the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of BUP-XR versus SoC at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The study was registered EudraCT (2018-004460-63) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05164549), and is completed.FINDINGS: Between Aug 9, 2019 and Nov 2, 2021, 314 participants were randomly allocated to receive SoC (n = 156) or BUP-XR (n = 158). Participants were abstinent from opioids for an adjusted mean of 104.37 days (standard error [SE] 9.89; range: 0-161 days) in the SoC group and an adjusted mean of 123.43 days (SE 4.76; range: 24-161 days) in the BUP-XR group (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.33; p-value 0.004). The incidence of any adverse event was higher in the BUP-XR group than the SoC group (128 [81.0%] of 158 participants versus 67 [42.9%] of 156 participants, respectively-most commonly rapidly-resolving (mild-moderate range) pain from drug administration in the BUP-XR group (121 [26.9%] of 450 adverse events). There were 11 serious adverse events (7.0%) in the 158 participants in the BUP-XR group, and 18 serious adverse events (11.5%) in the 156 participants in the SoC group-none judged to be related to study treatment. The BUP-XR treatment group had a mean incremental cost of £1033 (95% central range [CR] -1189 to 3225) and was associated with a mean incremental QALY of 0.02 (95% CR 0.00-0.05), and an ICER of £47,540 (0.37 probability of being cost-effective at the £30,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold). However, BUP-XR dominated the SoC among participants who were rated more severe at study baseline, and among participants in maintenance treatment for more that 28 days at study enrolment.INTERPRETATION: Evaluated against the daily oral SoC, monthly BUP-XR is clinically superior, delivering greater abstinence from opioids, and with a comparable safety profile. BUP-XR was not cost-effective in a base case cost-utility analysis using the societal perspective, but it was more effective and less costly (dominant) among participants with more severe OUD, or those whose current treatment episode was longer than 28 days. Further trials are needed to evaluate if BUP-XR is associated with better clinical and health economic outcomes over the longer term.FUNDING: Indivior.</p

Extended-release pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (EXPO):protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone

BACKGROUND: Sublingual tablet buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and oral liquid methadone (MET) are the daily, standard-of-care (SOC) opioid agonist treatment medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sizable proportion of the OUD treatment population is not exposed to sufficient treatment to attain the desired clinical benefit. Two promising therapeutic technologies address this deficit: long-acting injectable buprenorphine and personalised psychosocial interventions (PSI). This study will determine (A) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness — monthly injectable, extended-release (BUP-XR) in a head-to-head comparison with BUP-SL and MET, and (B) the effectiveness of BUP-XR with adjunctive PSI versus BUP-SL and MET with PSI. Safety, retention, craving, substance use, quality-adjusted life years, social functioning, and subjective recovery from OUD will be also evaluated. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority RCT, with a qualitative (mixed-methods) evaluation. The study population is adults. The setting is five National Health Service community treatment centres in England and Scotland. At each centre, participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to BUP-XR or SOC. At the London study co-ordinating centre, there will also be allocation of participants to BUP-XR with PSI or SOC with PSI. With 24 weeks of study treatment, the primary outcome is days of abstinence from non-medical opioids during study weeks 2–24 combined with up to 12 urine drug screen tests for opioids. For 90% power (alpha, 5%; 15% inflation for attrition), 304 participants are needed for the BUP-XR versus SOC comparison. With the same planning parameters, 300 participants are needed for the BUP-XR and PSI versus SOC and PSI comparison. Statistical and health economic analysis plans will be published before data-lock on the Open Science Framework. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is the first evaluation of injectable BUP-XR versus the SOC medications BUP-SL and MET, with personalised PSI. If there is evidence for the superiority of BUP-XR over SOC medication, study findings will have substantial implications for OUD clinical practice and treatment policy in the UK and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials register 2018-004460-63. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06595-0

Extended-release pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (EXPO): protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone.

BackgroundSublingual tablet buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and oral liquid methadone (MET) are the daily, standard-of-care (SOC) opioid agonist treatment medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sizable proportion of the OUD treatment population is not exposed to sufficient treatment to attain the desired clinical benefit. Two promising therapeutic technologies address this deficit: long-acting injectable buprenorphine and personalised psychosocial interventions (PSI). This study will determine (A) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness - monthly injectable, extended-release (BUP-XR) in a head-to-head comparison with BUP-SL and MET, and (B) the effectiveness of BUP-XR with adjunctive PSI versus BUP-SL and MET with PSI. Safety, retention, craving, substance use, quality-adjusted life years, social functioning, and subjective recovery from OUD will be also evaluated.MethodsThis is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority RCT, with a qualitative (mixed-methods) evaluation. The study population is adults. The setting is five National Health Service community treatment centres in England and Scotland. At each centre, participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to BUP-XR or SOC. At the London study co-ordinating centre, there will also be allocation of participants to BUP-XR with PSI or SOC with PSI. With 24 weeks of study treatment, the primary outcome is days of abstinence from non-medical opioids during study weeks 2-24 combined with up to 12 urine drug screen tests for opioids. For 90% power (alpha, 5%; 15% inflation for attrition), 304 participants are needed for the BUP-XR versus SOC comparison. With the same planning parameters, 300 participants are needed for the BUP-XR and PSI versus SOC and PSI comparison. Statistical and health economic analysis plans will be published before data-lock on the Open Science Framework. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.DiscussionThis pragmatic randomised controlled trial is the first evaluation of injectable BUP-XR versus the SOC medications BUP-SL and MET, with personalised PSI. If there is evidence for the superiority of BUP-XR over SOC medication, study findings will have substantial implications for OUD clinical practice and treatment policy in the UK and elsewhere.Trial registrationEU Clinical Trials register 2018-004460-63