Disability and long-term breathlessness: a cross-sectional, population study

Introduction: Disability, resulting from altered interactions between individuals and their environment, is a worldwide issue causing inequities and suffering. Many diseases associated with breathlessness cause disability but the relationship between disability and the severity of breathlessness itself is unknown. This study evaluated associations between disability using the World Health Organisation’s Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 and levels of long-term breathlessness limiting exertion.Methods: This population-based, cross-sectional online survey (n=10,033) reflected the most recent national census (2016) by age, sex, state/territory of residence and rurality. Assessments included self-reported disability (WHODAS 2.0 12-item (range 12 (no disability) to 60 (most severe disability)) assessed in six domains) and long-term breathlessness limiting exertion (modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) breathlessness scale; 0-4 (4-most severe)). Days in the last month affected by breathlessness were reported. Results: Of respondents (52% female; mean age 45), mean total disability score was 20.9 (SD 9.5). 42% (n=4,245) had mMRC >0 (mMRC1 31%;n=3,139; mMRC2 8%;n=806; mMRC3,4 3%;n=300. Every level of long-term breathlessness limiting exertion was associated with greater levels of disability (total p<0.001; each domain p<0.001). The most compromised domains were Mobility and Participation. In the last 30 days, people with severe breathlessness (mMRC 3-4): experienced disability (20 days); reduced activities/work (10 days); and completely forwent activities (another 5 days).Conclusions: Disability should be in the definition of persistent breathlessness as it is systematically associated with long-term breathlessness limiting exertion in a grade-dependent, multi-dimensional manner. Disability should be assessed in people with long-term breathlessness to optimise their social wellbeing and health

Antimicrobial resistance among migrants in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are rising globally and there is concern that increased migration is contributing to the burden of antibiotic resistance in Europe. However, the effect of migration on the burden of AMR in Europe has not yet been comprehensively examined. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and synthesise data for AMR carriage or infection in migrants to Europe to examine differences in patterns of AMR across migrant groups and in different settings. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus with no language restrictions from Jan 1, 2000, to Jan 18, 2017, for primary data from observational studies reporting antibacterial resistance in common bacterial pathogens among migrants to 21 European Union-15 and European Economic Area countries. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to report data on carriage or infection with laboratory-confirmed antibiotic-resistant organisms in migrant populations. We extracted data from eligible studies and assessed quality using piloted, standardised forms. We did not examine drug resistance in tuberculosis and excluded articles solely reporting on this parameter. We also excluded articles in which migrant status was determined by ethnicity, country of birth of participants' parents, or was not defined, and articles in which data were not disaggregated by migrant status. Outcomes were carriage of or infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms. We used random-effects models to calculate the pooled prevalence of each outcome. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016043681. FINDINGS: We identified 2274 articles, of which 23 observational studies reporting on antibiotic resistance in 2319 migrants were included. The pooled prevalence of any AMR carriage or AMR infection in migrants was 25·4% (95% CI 19·1-31·8; I2 =98%), including meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (7·8%, 4·8-10·7; I2 =92%) and antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (27·2%, 17·6-36·8; I2 =94%). The pooled prevalence of any AMR carriage or infection was higher in refugees and asylum seekers (33·0%, 18·3-47·6; I2 =98%) than in other migrant groups (6·6%, 1·8-11·3; I2 =92%). The pooled prevalence of antibiotic-resistant organisms was slightly higher in high-migrant community settings (33·1%, 11·1-55·1; I2 =96%) than in migrants in hospitals (24·3%, 16·1-32·6; I2 =98%). We did not find evidence of high rates of transmission of AMR from migrant to host populations. INTERPRETATION: Migrants are exposed to conditions favouring the emergence of drug resistance during transit and in host countries in Europe. Increased antibiotic resistance among refugees and asylum seekers and in high-migrant community settings (such as refugee camps and detention facilities) highlights the need for improved living conditions, access to health care, and initiatives to facilitate detection of and appropriate high-quality treatment for antibiotic-resistant infections during transit and in host countries. Protocols for the prevention and control of infection and for antibiotic surveillance need to be integrated in all aspects of health care, which should be accessible for all migrant groups, and should target determinants of AMR before, during, and after migration. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, the Wellcome Trust, and UK National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare-associated Infections and Antimictobial Resistance at Imperial College London

Advancing clinical facilitator capability to support graduate nurses: Outputs from social learning processes embedded in action research cycles

Aim: This study in the first instance, seeks to identify encounters that commonly occur between graduates, facilitators and others; and second, to explicate skills and behaviours needed by facilitators to effectively guide graduates to perform at expected standards. Background: In Australia, nursing graduates are expected to assimilate quickly and adapt to workplace practices within short timeframes. Clinical facilitators are provided to support transition to the workplace. However, providing support is only understood in broad terms. Design: Two consecutive action research cycles informed by extended Vygotskian learning concepts guided the study. The first cycle recorded and categorised critical encounters with graduates which were subsequently subjected to a thematic analysis to identify common circumstances where clinical facilitators are required to provide support to graduates. The second cycle articulated behaviours useful to clinical faciltators to foster graduate nurse learning, for optimal management of challenges experienced in routine daily practice. Method: Registered nurses involved in graduate clinical facilitation at a large (780 bed adult facility) and a medium (448 bed adult, paediatric, maternity) acute hospital participated in the study. This graduate facilitation team through situated learning and a series of joint activity designed an EXCEL spreadsheet on which they recorded their observations and experiences with faciltating graduates transition to practice. Results: From 1615 reported challenging interactions in the first cycle, saturation of emerging themes was reached with a random subset of 142. Six common areas of intensive needs for graduates were recorded, namely, resilience, technical support, emergent need, time management, advocate for graduate and catastrophe. The second cycle articulated processes for managing identified need areas in the form of flow charts. In practice, the flow charts provide a means for ‘scaffolding’ supervision and suggest conversations useful to facilitators to successfully support graduate nurses. Conclusion: This research has successfully explicated a largely ‘undefined’ area of nursing work, that is, making the invisible work of clinical facilitators ‘visible’ through the construction of flow charts. Specifically, advances have been made in articulating contextual, constructive support that nurses who facilitate the assimilation of graduates need to bring to interactions with graduates.</p

Understanding persistent breathlessness: impact on patients and optimal approaches to symptomatic reduction–an overview

Introduction: Persistent breathlessness (breathlessness persisting despite optimal treatment for the underlying condition and resulting in disability) is a prevalent syndrome associated with chronic and life-limiting conditions. Improving the clinical recognition and assessment of persistent breathlessness is essential to ensure people are provided with the best treatment for optimal symptom control. Areas covered: This overview focuses on the impact of persistent breathlessness on patients, carers and the health system. It highlights the importance of identifying persistent breathlessness in clinical consultations, suggests steps to recognize this syndrome and discusses the evidence for non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments in this context. Future research directions are also suggested. Expert opinion: Persistent breathlessness is often invisible because 1) people may not engage with the health system and 2) both clinicians and patients are reluctant to discuss breathlessness in clinical consultations. Improving the recognition and assessment of this syndrome is critical to facilitate meaningful conversations between patients and clinicians and ensure patient-centered care. Non-pharmacological strategies are key to improving symptom management and health outcomes. Regular, low-dose, sustained-release morphine may help further reduce breathlessness in people who remain symptomatic despite disease-specific and non-pharmacological therapies

Invisibility of breathlessness in clinical consultations: a cross-sectional, national online survey

Breathlessness diminishes the physical, mental and social wellbeing of people living long-term with this disabling symptom [1]. Identifying its impacts on patients and their families helps to inform appropriate non-pharmacological and pharmacological management [2, 3]. A randomised controlled trial suggests that clinicians are less likely to identify or manage chronic breathlessness than chronic pain [4]. Previous population studies estimate 9.5% of adults experience breathlessness [5], with 1 in 100 individuals being seriously impacted daily [6]. We conducted a population study aimed at identifying the proportion of people with breathlessness who report this symptom in clinical consultations. If discussed, we explored whether patients or clinicians (physicians; nurses) initiated the conversation and, if not discussed, whether patients would welcome such discussions