Celebrating 40 Years of the Midwest Nursing Research Society

The Midwest Nursing Research Society (MNRS) recently held its 40th annual conference and celebrated four decades of nursing research in the Midwest. MNRS continues to be one of the largest nursing research societies in the United States. Over the years, a vast majority of programmatic initiatives included education and tangible support for novice and experienced nurse researchers. In this article, the background for development of MNRS is reviewed with examination of driving forces that led to its creation. Three past presidents, Dr. Joyce Fitzpatrick, the first President of MNRS (1980- 1981); Dr. Nancy Bergstrom, the eighth President (1993-1995); and Dr. Sally Lusk, the 14th President (2005-2007), discuss challenges, opportunities, and the exceptional progress made toward fostering excellence in nursing research for the Midwest and contributing to nursing science on a national and global scale. Lessons from the past as well as opportunities for the future are addressed

Development of the interRAI Pressure Ulcer Risk Scale (PURS) for use in long-term care and home care settings

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In long-term care (LTC) homes in the province of Ontario, implementation of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment and The Braden Scale for predicting pressure ulcer risk were occurring simultaneously. The purpose of this study was, using available data sources, to develop a bedside MDS-based scale to identify individuals under care at various levels of risk for developing pressure ulcers in order to facilitate targeting risk factors for prevention.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data for developing the interRAI Pressure Ulcer Risk Scale (interRAI PURS) were available from 2 Ontario sources: three LTC homes with 257 residents assessed during the same time frame with the MDS and Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk, and eighty-nine Ontario LTC homes with 12,896 residents with baseline/reassessment MDS data (median time 91 days), between 2005-2007. All assessments were done by trained clinical staff, and baseline assessments were restricted to those with no recorded pressure ulcer. MDS baseline/reassessment samples used in further testing included 13,062 patients of Ontario Complex Continuing Care Hospitals (CCC) and 73,183 Ontario long-stay home care (HC) clients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A data-informed Braden Scale cross-walk scale using MDS items was devised from the 3-facility dataset, and tested in the larger longitudinal LTC homes data for its association with a future new pressure ulcer, giving a c-statistic of 0.676. Informed by this, LTC homes data along with evidence from the clinical literature was used to create an alternate-form 7-item additive scale, the interRAI PURS, with good distributional characteristics and c-statistic of 0.708. Testing of the scale in CCC and HC longitudinal data showed strong association with development of a new pressure ulcer.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>interRAI PURS differentiates risk of developing pressure ulcers among facility-based residents and home care recipients. As an output from an MDS assessment, it eliminates duplicated effort required for separate pressure ulcer risk scoring. Moreover, it can be done manually at the bedside during critical early days in an admission when the full MDS has yet to be completed. It can be calculated with established MDS instruments as well as with the newer interRAI suite instruments designed to follow persons across various care settings (interRAI Long-Term Care Facilities, interRAI Home Care, interRAI Palliative Care).</p

TEAM-UP for quality: a cluster randomized controlled trial protocol focused on preventing pressure ulcers through repositioning frequency and precipitating factors

Background: Pressure ulcers/injuries (PrUs), a critical concern for nursing homes (NH), are responsible for chronic wounds, amputations, septic infections, and premature deaths. PrUs occur most commonly in older adults and NH residence is a risk factor for their development, with at least one of every nine U.S. NH residents experiencing a PrU and many NHs having high incidence and prevalence rates, in some instances well over 20%. PrU direct treatment costs are greater than prevention costs, making prevention-focused protocols critical. Current PrU prevention protocols recommend repositioning residents at moderate, high, and severe risk every 2 h. The advent of visco- elastic (VE) high-density foam support-surfaces over the past decade may now make it possible to extend the repositioning interval to every 3 or 4 h without increasing PrU development. The TEAM-UP (Turn Everyone And Move for Ulcer Prevention) study aims to determine: 1) whether repositioning interval can be extended for NH residents without compromising PrU incidence and 2) how changes in medical severity interact with changes in risk level and repositioning schedule to predict PrU development. Methods: In this proposed cluster randomized study, 9 NHs will be randomly assigned to one of three repositioning intervals (2, 3, or 4 h) for a 4-week period. Each enrolled site will use a single NH-wide repositioning interval as the standard of care for residents at low, moderate, and high risk of PrU development (N = 951) meeting the following criteria: minimum 3-day stay, without PrUs, no adhesive allergy, and using VE support surfaces (mattresses). An FDA-cleared patient monitoring system that records position/movement of these residents via individual wireless sensors will be used to visually cue staff when residents need repositioning and document compliance with repositioning protocols. Discussion: This study will advance knowledge about repositioning frequency and clinically assessed PrU risk level in relation to PrU incidence and medical severity. Outcomes of this research will contribute to future guidelines for more precise preventive nursing practices and refinement of PrU prevention guidelines. Trial registration: Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02996331

Effect of Varying Repositioning Frequency on Pressure Injury Prevention in Nursing Home Residents: TEAM-UP Trial Results

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness of three nursing-home-wide repositioning intervals (2-, 3-, or 4-hour) without compromising pressure injury (PrI) incidence in 4 weeks. METHODS: An embedded pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in nine nursing homes (NHs) that were randomly assigned to one of three repositioning intervals. Baseline (12 months) and 4-week intervention data were provided during the TEAM-UP (Turn Everyone And Move for Ulcer Prevention) study. Intervention residents were without current PrIs, had PrI risk (Braden Scale score) ≥10 (not severe risk), and used viable 7-inch high-density foam mattresses. Each arm includes three NHs with an assigned single repositioning interval (2-, 3-, or 4-hour) as standard care during the intervention. A wireless patient monitoring system, using wearable single-use patient sensors, cued nursing staff by displaying resident repositioning needs on conveniently placed monitors. The primary outcome was PrI incidence; the secondary outcome was staff repositioning compliance fidelity. RESULTS: From May 2017 to October 2019, 1,100 residents from nine NHs were fitted with sensors; 108 of these were ineligible for some analyses because of missing baseline data. The effective sample size included 992 residents (mean age, 78 ± 13 years; 63% women). The PrI incidence during the intervention was 0.0% compared with 5.24% at baseline, even though intervention resident clinical risk scores were significantly higher (P < .001). Repositioning compliance for the 4-hour repositioning interval (95%) was significantly better than for the 2-hour (80%) or 3-hour (90%) intervals (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that current 2-hour protocols can be relaxed for many NH residents without compromising PrI prevention. A causal link was not established between repositioning interval treatments and PrI outcome; however, no new PrIs developed. Compliance improved as repositioning interval lengthened

Subjective Distresses of Nasogastric Tube Feeding

Health care professionals assume that tube feeding is an unpleasant, distressing experience for patients, which is only partially substantiated by experience. Thirty patients were interviewed via a tube feeding and hospital experience checklist (a 47–item interview schedule). Common experiences were operationally defined as those felt by at least 50%; subjectively distressful experiences were those identified by patients as causing distress. The most common and most distressful experiences of nasogastric tube feeding were: sensory irritations and sensory deprivation. The psychosensory irritation experiences were: thirst, sore nose or throat, dry mouth, runny nose, a tube in the nose, taking food through a tube, breathing through the mouth, breathing with a tube in the nose, taking food in a treatment type container, and taking food with a different texture and smell than usual. The psychosensory deprivation experiences were: an unsatisfied appetite for certain foods, deprivation of tasting, chewing, swallowing food, and drinking liquids, limited mobility, and deprivation of regular food. Except for burping, gastrointestinal symptoms were not common though they were usually distressful. This information has been used to develop teaching programs which are being tested for effectiveness in reducing distress associated with nasogastric tube feeding.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68702/2/10.1177_014860717900300204.pd

Assumption without representation: the unacknowledged abstraction from communities and social goods

We have not clearly acknowledged the abstraction from unpriceable “social goods” (derived from communities) which, different from private and public goods, simply disappear if it is attempted to market them. Separability from markets and economics has not been argued, much less established. Acknowledging communities would reinforce rather than undermine them, and thus facilitate the production of social goods. But it would also help economics by facilitating our understanding of – and response to – financial crises as well as environmental destruction and many social problems, and by reducing the alienation from economics often felt by students and the public

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

Enteral and Parenteral Feedings: Effects on Hourly Plasma Glucose, Insulin, Glucagon and Growth Hormone Fluctuations in Rhesus Monkeys.

In clinical practice, nurses and other health professionals are responsible for administering and monitoring enteral and parenteral feedings. The purposes of this study were to compare the effects of route of feeding (intravenous versus intragastric) and method of feeding (oral, intermittent intragastric or continuous intragastric) on hour-to-hour fluctuations in plasma glucose (GLU), insulin (IRI), glucagon (IRG), and growth hormone (IGH). Five healthy male adult chair-restrained monkeys with chronically implanted intragastric and intravenous cannulae were studied while receiving voluntary oral (FREE), continuous (CIGE) or intermittent (IIGE) intragastric infusions of a liquid diet (Ensure('(REGTM))) and continuous intragastric (CIGA) and intravenous (CIVA) infusions of dextrose plus amino acids. After a 2-day adjustment period 25 consecutive hourly blood samples were withdrawn and assayed. The plasma responses to FREE versus IIGE were different despite a similar caloric intake. While mean plasma GLU and IRG were similar, the mean plasma IRI levels were 60% and plasma IGH levels 12% greater during IIGE than during FREE. The pattern of eating (more frequent, smaller and varied size meals) during FREE may be responsible for these differences since larger, evenly spaced meals were infused during IIGE and IRI and IGH are known to be stimulated by meal eating. CIGE and IIGE resulted in similar plasma GLU and IGH levels. The mean plasma IRI level was 28% and the IRG level 70% greater during IIGE than during the CIGE despite equicaloric 24-hour dietary infusions. Clinically, the CIGE protocol may provide an advantage for patients who under acute stress would benefit from having nearly constant rather than widely fluctuating IRI levels. Intragastric feedings had a more positive effect than intravenous feedings. Two of 3 monkeys studied during CIVA had hyperglycemia and glycosuria in the presence of plasma IRI levels which were 2 to 4 times greater than the levels during any of the intragastric feeding protocol (CIGE, CIGA, IIGE). Contrary to current literature, higher IRI levels resulted from CIVA than from CIGA. The data suggest that while the pancreas is able to respond to CIVA by releasing large quantities of insulin, persistent hyperglycemia may be due to an insulin insensitivity which develops in response to intravenous infusions.Ph.D.NursingUniversity of Michiganhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/158582/1/8204595.pd