Interrogating the language of integration: the case of internationally recruited nurses

AIMS: This paper suggested the need to interrogate the notion of 'integration' to facilitate the retention of migrant nurses. BACKGROUND: The growth in internationally recruited nurses in the UK's health system has led to a raft of policies that aim to ensure that such nurses are well 'integrated' into their 'new environment'. It is assumed that integration will improve the quality of internationally recruited nurses' experience in the UK, improve their retention rates and thus improve the quality of health delivery within the UK. However, most of the steps through which integration is sought tend to move between some version of assimilation and 'respect for difference'. CONTRIBUTIONS: This paper aimed to add to existing literature on the integration of internationally recruited nurses in the UK by suggesting three steps towards rethinking 'integration policies'. It suggests the need to recognize migration as only one of the differentiating factors within the nursing sector, to ensure that integration does actually become a two-way process and to be cognizant of the multiple shapes that racism can take. The first two steps will prevent a slip between integration and assimilation while the last will help rethink any anti-racist training that may form part of integration policies. CONCLUSIONS: There are many factors influencing the experiences of internationally recruited nurses and not all of them can be addressed within current integration policies. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Rethinking integration can help improve the experience of internationally recruited nurses

ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care: Soft Tissue Sarcoma in Adults and Bone Sarcoma. A critical review

ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific tumour type. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe. Sarcoma: essential requirements for quality care • Sarcomas – which can be classified into soft tissue and bone sarcomas – are rare, but all rare cancers make up more than 20% of cancers in Europe, and there are substantial inequalities in access to high-quality care. Sarcomas, of which there are many subtypes, comprise a particularly complex and demanding challenge for healthcare systems and providers. This paper presents essential requirements for quality cancer care of soft tissue sarcomas in adults and bone sarcomas. • High-quality care must only be carried out in specialised sarcoma centres (including paediatric cancer centres) which have both a core multidisciplinary team and an extended team of allied professionals, and which are subject to quality and audit procedures. Access to such units is far from universal in all European countries. • It is essential that, to meet European aspirations for high-quality comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations implement the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis and follow-up, to treatment, to improve survival and quality of life for patients. Conclusion Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality service for soft tissue sarcomas in adults and bone sarcomas. The ECCO expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a ‘one size fits all’ system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary teams is guaranteed to all patients with sarcoma

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

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

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

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health 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

Changing Ethnic Identities

The British population includes over 3 million people with origins outside Europe. New cultures are taking root in and adapting to Britain and, as part of the new trend in 'identity politics', British race relations are increasingly being shaped by new forms of minority ethnic and religious assertiveness.<p></p> What are these new forms of identities? To what extent are they rooted in cultural difference? Or are they mainly a reaction to racism? Do different minority groups emphasise different aspects of their heritage, and how do they reconcile a commitment to those heritages with being British? This book represents the first comparative study based on original fieldwork covering two generations of Caribbeans and the main South Asian groups on what their ethnic background means to them. It examines the basis of ethnic identity in family life, community languages, religions, marriage choices and in experiences of racial exclusion and forms of political solidarity. It highlights the changes that have taken place and are taking place between the migrant and British-born generation, and challenges those who think in terms of the simplistic oppositions of British-Alien or Black-White. The authors conclude that we need a new view of Britishness and the varieties and forms that it can encompass; a Britishness which allows minorities to make a claim upon it, and to be accepted without having to conform to a narrow cultural norm.<p></p&gt

Nursing in a Multi-Ethnic NHS

Approximately 8% of NHS nursing and midwifery staff are from ethnic minority groups. This major study of their careers found large gaps between equal opportunity policies on the one hand, and actual practices on the other. Drawing conclusions from both a qualitative and quantitative study of over 14,000 staff, the book shows that many ethnic minority and white nurses feel that the allocation of training and promotion opportunities was unfair. Racial harassment of ethnic minority nursing staff by patients and colleagues was widespread. Nurses id not think that the management was doing enough to tackle the problem of racial harassment and they were forced to accept it as part of the job'. Some groups of ethnic minority nurses, in particular black nurses, has not advanced as far up the grading structure as their white colleagues, even after controlling for other career factors such as qualifications an length of time in the profession. The authors conclude that significant gaps between written policies and nurses' experiences nee to be addressed, and the policy implications are discusses.</p

Nursing in a Multi-Ethnic NHS

Approximately 8% of NHS nursing and midwifery staff are from ethnic minority groups. This major study of their careers found large gaps between equal opportunity policies on the one hand, and actual practices on the other. Drawing conclusions from both a qualitative and quantitative study of over 14,000 staff, the book shows that many ethnic minority and white nurses feel that the allocation of training and promotion opportunities was unfair. Racial harassment of ethnic minority nursing staff by patients and colleagues was widespread. Nurses id not think that the management was doing enough to tackle the problem of racial harassment and they were forced to accept it as part of the job'. Some groups of ethnic minority nurses, in particular black nurses, has not advanced as far up the grading structure as their white colleagues, even after controlling for other career factors such as qualifications an length of time in the profession. The authors conclude that significant gaps between written policies and nurses' experiences nee to be addressed, and the policy implications are discusses.</p