A proposal to support student therapists to develop compassion for self and others through Compassionate Mind Training (CMT)

Purpose: By the very nature of the role, student therapists experience incidents that can be emotionally challenging. In response to such events, they may experience compassion fatigue, stress, burnout, and self-criticism, which in turn alters their ability to provide compassion to both self and others. With this in mind, the aim of this paper is to present a creative framework designed to teach student therapists about Compassion Focused Therapy (CFT) to underpin the worth of Compassionate Mind Training (CMT) designed to increase levels of compassion shown towards self and others. Expected Learning Outcomes: On completion of teaching the 6-step study framework, student therapists will understand variables that influence compassion delivered to both self and others. They will understand how the compassionate mind model works, and consider how cultivating compassion can diminish self-critical dialogue. They will gain understanding of the 3 flows of compassion, and how low levels can lead to burnout, compassion fatigue, or stress, and explain how emotions, such as shame and self-critical thinking impact upon well-being. Practical Implications: The suggested programme will develop the ability in student therapists to ‘be kinder to self’ in times of stress, hence building their resilience. It is recommended that post-delivery of a well prepared teaching plan that addresses the 6-step study framework, that the lecturing team evaluate the effectiveness of the training

Teaching Compassionate Mind Training to help midwives cope with traumatic clinical incidents

Compassionate Mind Training (CMT) is taught to cultivate compassion and teach midwives how to care for themselves. The need to build midwives' resilience is recognised by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), who advocate that mental health coping strategies be embedded into the midwifery curriculum. In this respect, CMT can be used as a resilience-building method to help midwives respond to self-criticism and threat-based emotions with compassion. The underpinnings of CMT involve understanding that people can develop cognitive biases or unhelpful thinking patterns, co-driven by an interplay between genetics and the environment. Within this paper, the underpinning theory of CMT and how it can be used to balance psychological threat, drive, and soothing systems are outlined. To contextualise the application to midwifery practice, a traumatic incident has been discussed. Teaching CMT has the potential to improve professional quality of life, and reduce midwife absence rates and potential attrition from the profession

Compassion for others, self-compassion, quality of life and mental well-being measures and their association with compassion fatigue and burnout in student midwives: A quantitative survey

Backgroundcompassion fatigue and burnout can impact on the performance of midwives, with this quantitative paper exploring the relationship between self-compassion, burnout, compassion fatigue, self-judgement, self-kindness, compassion for others, professional quality of life and well-being of student midwives.Methoda quantitative survey measured relationships using questionnaires: (1) Professional Quality of Life Scale; (2) Self-Compassion Scale; (3) Short Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale; (4) Compassion For Others Scale.Participantsa purposive and convenience sample of student midwives (n=103) studying at university participated in the study.Resultsjust over half of the sample reported above average scores for burnout. The results indicate that student midwives who report higher scores on the self-judgement sub-scale are less compassionate towards both themselves and others, have reduced well-being, and report greater burnout and compassion fatigue. Student midwives who report high on measures of self-compassion and well-being report less compassion fatigue and burnout.Conclusionstudent midwives may find benefit from ‘being kinder to self’ in times of suffering, which could potentially help them to prepare for the emotional demands of practice and study.Implicationsdeveloping, creating and cultivating environments that foster compassionate care for self and others may play a significant role in helping midwives face the rigours of education and clinical practice during their degree programm

A pilot study exploring the relationship between self-compassion, self-judgement, self-kindness, compassion, professional quality of life and wellbeing among UK community nurses

Background: Compassion fatigue and burnout can impact on performance of nurses. This paper explores the relationship between self-compassion, self-judgement, self-kindness, compassion, professional quality of life, and wellbeing among community nurses.Aim: To measure associations between self-compassion, compassion fatigue, wellbeing, and burnout in community nurses.Method: Quantitative data were collected using standardised psychometric questionnaires: (1) Professional Quality of Life Scale; (2) Self-Compassion Scale; (3) short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale; (4) Compassion For Others Scale, used to measure relationships between self-compassion, compassion fatigue, wellbeing, and burnout. Participants: A cross sectional sample of registered community nurses (n=37) studying for a postgraduate diploma at a University in the North of England took part in this study.Results: Results show that community nurses who score high on measures of self-compassion and wellbeing, also report less burnout. Greater compassion satisfaction was also positively associated with compassion for others, and wellbeing, whilst also being negatively correlated with burnout. Conclusion: High levels of self-compassion were linked with lower levels of burnout. Furthermore when community nurses have greater compassion satisfaction they also report more compassion for others, increased wellbeing, and less burnout. The implications of this are discussed alongside suggestions for the promotion of greater compassion

Type 2 diabetes mellitus and osteoarthritis

Objectives: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and osteoarthritis (OA) are common diseases that frequently co-exist, along with overweight/obesity. While the mechanical impact of excess body weight on joints may explain lower limb OA, we sought to explore whether T2DM is linked to OA outside of excess weight and whether T2DM may play a role in OA pathophysiology. The consequence of T2DM on OA outcomes is a question of research interest. Methods: We conducted a critical review of the literature to explore the association between T2DM and OA, whether any association is site-specific for OA, and whether the presence of T2DM impacts on OA outcomes. We also reviewed the literature to assess the safety of anti-OA treatments in patients with T2DM. Results: T2DM has a pathogenic effect on OA through 2 major pathways involving oxidative stress and low-grade chronic inflammation resulting from chronic hyperglycemia and insulin resistance. T2DM is a risk factor for OA progression and has a negative impact on arthroplasty outcomes. Evidence is mounting for safety concerns with some of the most frequently prescribed anti-OA medications, including paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and corticosteroid injections, while other anti-OA medications may be safely prescribed in OA patients with T2DM, such as glucosamine and intra-articular hyaluronic acid. Conclusions: Future research is needed to better understand whether diabetes control and prevention can modulate OA occurrence and progression. The selection of therapy to treat OA symptoms in patients with T2DM may require careful consideration of the evidence based to avoid untoward safety issues.The meeting was funded by the ESCEO, a Belgian not-for-profit organization. The authors thank the Chair for Biomarkers of Chronic Diseases and the International Scientific Partnership Program (ISPP#0111) at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for their suppor

A Need to Meet Patient Expectations

Funding Information: Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Palermo within the Nicola Veronese reports personal fees from IBSA, Mylan, and Fidia outside of the submitted work. Cyrus Cooper reports personal fees from Alliance for Better Bone Health, Amgen, Eli Lilly, GSK, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Takeda, and UCB outside of the submitted work. Jean-Yves Reginster reports CRUI-CARE Agreement. Funding Information:grants from IBSA-Genevrier, Mylan, CNIEL, and Radius Health (through his institution); consulting fees from IBSA-Genevrier, Mylan, CNIEL, Radius Health, and Pierre Fabre; fees for participation in review activities from IBSA-Genevrier, Mylan, CNIEL, Radius Health, and Teva; and payment for lectures from Ag-Novos, CERIN, CNIEL, Dairy Research Council (DRC), Echolight, IBSA-Genevrier, Mylan, Pfizer Consumer Health, Teva, and Theramex outside of the submitted work. Olivier Bruyère reports grants or lecture fees from Amgen, Aptissen, Biophytis, IBSA, MEDA, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, SMB, TRB Chemedica, UCB, and Viatris outside of the submitted work. Ali Mobasheri declares personal fees from Abbott, Abbvie, Achē Laboratórios Farmacêuticos, Galapagos, GSK Consumer Healthcare, Kolon TissueGene, Laboratoires Expansciences, Merck, Pacira Biosciences, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Servier. François Rannou reports grants or lecture fees from Pierre Fabre, Mylan, MSD, Thuasne, IBSA, Pfizer, Genévrier, Expanscience, Scarcell, Skindermic, and Peptinov. Ida K. Haugen reports grants from Pfizer and is a consultant for Novartis outside of the submitted work. Elaine M. Dennison declares grants/fees from Pfizer, Lilly, UCB, and Viatris. Philip G. Conaghan is supported in part by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Leeds Biomedical Research Centre (the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health), and reports consultancies or lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GSK, Grunenthal, Pfizer, Novartis, and UCB. Nasser M. Al-Daaghri, Antonella Fioravanti, Sara Cheleschi, Jean-Pierre Pelletier, Maarten de Wit, Etienne Cavalier, Radmila Matijevic, Germain Honvo, Régis Pierre Radermecker, René Rizzoli, Jaime Branco, Andrea Laslop, María Concepción Prieto Yerro, Alberto Migliore, Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont, and Nicholas R. Fuggle declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common and disabling medical conditions. In the case of moderate to severe pain, a single intervention may not be sufficient to allay symptoms and improve quality of life. Examples include first-line, background therapy with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for OA (SYSADOAs) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Therefore, the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) performed a review of a multimodal/multicomponent approach for knee OA therapy. This strategy is a particularly appropriate solution for the management of patients affected by knee OA, including those with pain and dysfunction reaching various thresholds at the different joints. The multimodal/multicomponent approach should be based, firstly, on different combinations of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. Potential pharmacological combinations include SYSADOAs and NSAIDs, NSAIDs and weak opioids, and intra-articular treatments with SYSADOAs/NSAIDs. Based on the available evidence, most combined treatments provide benefit beyond single agents for the improvement of pain and other symptoms typical of knee OA, although further high-quality studies are required. In this work, we have therefore provided new, patient-centered perspectives for the management of knee OA, based on the concept that a multimodal, multicomponent, multidisciplinary approach, applied not only to non-pharmacological treatments but also to a combination of the currently available pharmacological options, will better meet the needs and expectations of patients with knee OA, who may present with various phenotypes and trajectories.publishersversionpublishe

Effects of a high-dose 24-h infusion of tranexamic acid on death and thromboembolic events in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding (HALT-IT): an international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Tranexamic acid reduces surgical bleeding and reduces death due to bleeding in patients with trauma. Meta-analyses of small trials show that tranexamic acid might decrease deaths from gastrointestinal bleeding. We aimed to assess the effects of tranexamic acid in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. Methods: We did an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 164 hospitals in 15 countries. Patients were enrolled if the responsible clinician was uncertain whether to use tranexamic acid, were aged above the minimum age considered an adult in their country (either aged 16 years and older or aged 18 years and older), and had significant (defined as at risk of bleeding to death) upper or lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Patients were randomly assigned by selection of a numbered treatment pack from a box containing eight packs that were identical apart from the pack number. Patients received either a loading dose of 1 g tranexamic acid, which was added to 100 mL infusion bag of 0·9% sodium chloride and infused by slow intravenous injection over 10 min, followed by a maintenance dose of 3 g tranexamic acid added to 1 L of any isotonic intravenous solution and infused at 125 mg/h for 24 h, or placebo (sodium chloride 0·9%). Patients, caregivers, and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. The primary outcome was death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation; analysis excluded patients who received neither dose of the allocated treatment and those for whom outcome data on death were unavailable. This trial was registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN11225767, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01658124. Findings: Between July 4, 2013, and June 21, 2019, we randomly allocated 12 009 patients to receive tranexamic acid (5994, 49·9%) or matching placebo (6015, 50·1%), of whom 11 952 (99·5%) received the first dose of the allocated treatment. Death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation occurred in 222 (4%) of 5956 patients in the tranexamic acid group and in 226 (4%) of 5981 patients in the placebo group (risk ratio [RR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·82–1·18). Arterial thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction or stroke) were similar in the tranexamic acid group and placebo group (42 [0·7%] of 5952 vs 46 [0·8%] of 5977; 0·92; 0·60 to 1·39). Venous thromboembolic events (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) were higher in tranexamic acid group than in the placebo group (48 [0·8%] of 5952 vs 26 [0·4%] of 5977; RR 1·85; 95% CI 1·15 to 2·98). Interpretation: We found that tranexamic acid did not reduce death from gastrointestinal bleeding. On the basis of our results, tranexamic acid should not be used for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding outside the context of a randomised trial

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication