Family group conference provision in UK local authorities and associations with children looked after rates

Family group conferences (FGCs) in child welfare share decision-making with family members by bringing the immediate and wider family together to make a plan to meet a child’s needs. This paper reports survey findings on FGC provision in the UK in 2022 and explores whether in England the presence of an FGC service and the rate of FGC provision is associated with the rate of children in care, entering care, in kinship foster care and leaving care. Seventy-nine per cent (n = 167) of local authorities in the UK provided FGCs to families, and 14 per cent (n = 29) did not. Services that were more established offered a more diverse range of FGCs. The introduction of FGCs in English local authorities was associated with a higher rate of children in care, but also higher rates of kinship foster care, a key goal of FGCs where it is not possible for children to stay with their parents. Higher rates of FGCs were associated with more children leaving care, possibly due to reunification with birth families. To understand in more detail, the circumstances of children in and leaving care in local authorities with FGCs, individual data linkage studies are needed

Effectiveness of a denture hygiene intervention programme among institutionalized elders

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of a denture hygiene intervention programme in terms of improving denture cleanliness and denture stomatitis. Methods: Residents at seven elderly care homes were invited to participate in a denture hygiene programme. Clinical assessment of denture stomatitis was undertaken and denture cleanliness assessed: (i) qualitatively by the Denture Cleanliness Index ratings and (ii) quantitatively by planimetric assessments of plaque coverage from digital images using Adobe Photoshop®. Individual denture hygiene instruction was provided and denture cleanser (Polident®) supplied. Six weeks later assessments of denture stomatitis and denture cleanliness were undertaken. Results: Fifty-six participants were recruited; most had evidence of denture stomatitis (82.1%, 46) and 62.5% (35) of dentures were classified as ‘very poorly cleaned’. The mean percentage of plaque coverage was 28.11 (SD 19.64) and 37.5% (21) had evidence of plaque covering more than a third of the denture surface. Denture cleanliness was associated with denture stomatitis (P0.05).Conclusion: A 6-week denture hygiene intervention programme was effective at improving denture stomatitis and denture cleanliness among residents of elderly care homes. However, persistence of problems in denture cleanliness and denture stomatitis existed and this warrants further consideration.published_or_final_versio

Effectiveness of a denture hygiene intervention programme among institutionalized elders

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of a denture hygiene intervention programme in terms of improving denture cleanliness and denture stomatitis. Methods: Residents at seven elderly care homes were invited to participate in a denture hygiene programme. Clinical assessment of denture stomatitis was undertaken and denture cleanliness assessed: (i) qualitatively by the Denture Cleanliness Index ratings and (ii) quantitatively by planimetric assessments of plaque coverage from digital images using Adobe Photoshop®. Individual denture hygiene instruction was provided and denture cleanser (Polident®) supplied. Six weeks later assessments of denture stomatitis and denture cleanliness were undertaken. Results: Fifty-six participants were recruited; most had evidence of denture stomatitis (82.1%, 46) and 62.5% (35) of dentures were classified as ‘very poorly cleaned’. The mean percentage of plaque coverage was 28.11 (SD 19.64) and 37.5% (21) had evidence of plaque covering more than a third of the denture surface. Denture cleanliness was associated with denture stomatitis (P0.05).Conclusion: A 6-week denture hygiene intervention programme was effective at improving denture stomatitis and denture cleanliness among residents of elderly care homes. However, persistence of problems in denture cleanliness and denture stomatitis existed and this warrants further consideration.published_or_final_versio

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Family group conferencing for children and families: Evaluation of implementation, context and effectiveness (Family VOICE). Study protocol

Background: Family group conferences (FGCs) in child welfare bring immediate and wider family members together to decide on the best way to meet a child’s needs. Unlike professionally led meetings, the aim is for decisions to be made by or with family members. Qualitative and mixed-method research with FGC participants tends to show positive experiences: most participants feel their voices are heard; FGCs facilitate family-driven solutions and closer relationships—within families and with social workers. Although there is existing literature on FGCs, there is a paucity of robust comparative UK evaluations, i.e., randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies. Comparative studies internationally have focused on a narrow range of outcomes, not recognised the importance of context, and paid little attention to the quality of delivery. Some qualitative studies have considered process and context but there is scant measurement of these. The aims of this study are, firstly, to establish how FGCs improve outcomes for families and what factors vary their quality, and, secondly, to assess longer-term outcomes in terms of service use and associated costs. Methods: Given the importance of process and context, evaluation informed by realist and complex systems approaches is needed. This multi-method evaluation includes a survey of FGC services in all UK local authorities (n = 212) to map service provision; co-design of programme theory and evaluation measures with family members who have experienced an FGC (n = 16–24) and practitioners (n = 16–24) in two sites; a prospective single-arm study of FGC variability and outcomes after six months; and comparison of service use and costs in FGC participants (n≥300 families) and a control group (n≥1000) after two years using a quasi-experiment. Discussion: This is a pragmatic evaluation of an existing intervention, to identify what mechanisms and contexts influence effective process and longer-term outcomes. The study is registered with Research Registry (ref. 7432)