Cardiovascular Management of Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: From Pretransplantation to Survivorship: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation can cure various disorders but poses cardiovascular risks, especially for elderly patients and those with cardiovascular diseases. Cardiovascular evaluations are crucial in pretransplantation assessments, but guidelines are lacking. This American Heart Association scientific statement summarizes the data on transplantation-related complications and provides guidance for the cardiovascular management throughout transplantation. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation consists of 4 phases: pretransplantation workup, conditioning therapy and infusion, immediate posttransplantation period, and long-term survivorship. Complications can occur during each phase, with long-term survivors facing increased risks for late effects such as cardiovascular disease, secondary malignancies, and endocrinopathies. In adults, arrhythmias such as atrial fibrillation and flutter are the most frequent acute cardiovascular complication. Acute heart failure has an incidence ranging from 0.4% to 2.2%. In pediatric patients, left ventricular systolic dysfunction and pericardial effusion are the most common cardiovascular complications. Factors influencing the incidence and risk of complications include pretransplantation therapies, transplantation type (autologous versus allogeneic), conditioning regimen, comorbid conditions, and patient age. The pretransplantation cardiovascular evaluation consists of 4 steps: (1) initial risk stratification, (2) exclusion of high-risk cardiovascular disease, (3) assessment of cardiac reserve, and (4) optimization of cardiovascular reserve. Clinical risk scores could be useful tools for the risk stratification of adult patients. Long-term cardiovascular management of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation survivors includes optimizing risk factors, monitoring, and maintaining a low threshold for evaluating cardiovascular causes of symptoms. Future research should prioritize refining risk stratification and creating evidence-based guidelines and strategies to optimize outcomes in this growing patient population

Reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in clinical research published in leading nursing journals : a retrospective observational study

Background: Ethical considerations play a prominent role in the protection of human subjects in clinical research. To date the disclosure of ethical protection in clinical research published in the international nursing journals has not been explored. Our research objective was to investigate the reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in clinical research published in leading international nursing journals. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study. All clinical research published in the five leading international nursing journals from the SCI Journal Citation Reports between 2015 and 2017 were retrieved to evaluate for evidence of ethical review. Results: A total of 2041 citations have been identified from the contents of all the five leading nursing journals that were published between 2015 and 2017. Out of these, 1284 clinical studies have been included and text relating to ethical review has been extracted. From these, most of prospective clinical studies (87.5%) discussed informed consent. Only half of those (52.9%) reported that written informed consent had been obtained; few (3.6%) reported oral consent, and few (6.8%) used other methods such as online consent or completion and return of data collection (such as surveys) to denote assent. Notably, 36.2% of those did not describe the method used to obtain informed consent and merely described that “consent was obtained from participants or participants agreed to join in the research”. Furthermore, whilst most of clinical studies (93.7%) mentioned ethical approval; 92.5% of those stated the name of ethical committee and interestingly, only 37.1% of those mentioned the ethical approval reference. The rates of reporting ethical approval were different between different study type, country, and whether financial support was received (all P<0.05). Conclusion: The reporting of ethics in leading international nursing journals demonstrates progress, but improvement of the transparency and the standard of ethical reporting in nursing clinical research is required

Who needs what from a national health research system: Lessons from reforms to the English Department of Health's R&D system

This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Health research systems consist of diverse groups who have some role in health research, but the boundaries around such a system are not clear-cut. To explore what various stakeholders need we reviewed the literature including that on the history of English health R&D reforms, and we also applied some relevant conceptual frameworks. We first describe the needs and capabilities of the main groups of stakeholders in health research systems, and explain key features of policymaking systems within which these stakeholders operate in the UK. The five groups are policymakers (and health care managers), health professionals, patients and the general public, industry, and researchers. As individuals and as organisations they have a range of needs from the health research system, but should also develop specific capabilities in order to contribute effectively to the system and benefit from it. Second, we discuss key phases of reform in the development of the English health research system over four decades - especially that of the English Department of Health's R&D system - and identify how far legitimate demands of key stakeholder interests were addressed. Third, in drawing lessons we highlight points emerging from contemporary reports, but also attempt to identify issues through application of relevant conceptual frameworks. The main lessons are: the importance of comprehensively addressing the diverse needs of various interacting institutions and stakeholders; the desirability of developing facilitating mechanisms at interfaces between the health research system and its various stakeholders; and the importance of additional money in being able to expand the scope of the health research system whilst maintaining support for basic science. We conclude that the latest health R&D strategy in England builds on recent progress and tackles acknowledged weaknesses. The strategy goes a considerable way to identifying and more effectively meeting the needs of key groups such as medical academics, patients and industry, and has been remarkably successful in increasing the funding for health research. There are still areas that might benefit from further recognition and resourcing, but the lessons identified, and progress made by the reforms are relevant for the design and coordination of national health research systems beyond England.This article is available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund

The effect of a training programme on school nurses’ knowledge, attitudes, and depression recognition skills: The QUEST cluster randomised controlled trial

Background Mental health problems in children and young people are a vital public health issue. Only 25% of British school children with diagnosed mental health problems have specialist mental health services contact; front-line staff such as school nurses play a vital role in identifying and managing these problems, and accessing additional services for children, but there appears limited specific training and support for this aspect of their role. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of a bespoke short training programme, which incorporated interactive and didactic teaching with printed and electronic resources. Hypothesized outcomes were improvements in school nurses’ knowledge, attitudes, and recognition skills for depression. Design A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Participants and setting 146 school nurses from 13 Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in London were randomly allocated to receive the training programme. Methods School nurses from 7 PCTs (n = 81) were randomly allocated to receive the training intervention and from 6 PCTs (n = 65) for waiting list control. Depression detection was measured by response to vignettes, attitudes measured with the Depression Attitude Questionnaire, and knowledge by the QUEST knowledge measure. These outcomes were measured at baseline and (following training) 3 months and nine months later, after which nurses in the control group received the training programme. Results At 3 months, 115 nurses completed outcome measures. Training was associated with significant improvements in the specificity of depression judgements (52.0% for the intervention group and 47.2% for the control group, P = 0.039), and there was a non-significant increase in sensitivity (64.5% compared to 61.5% P = 0.25). Nurses’ knowledge about depression improved (standardised mean difference = 0.97 [95% CI 0.58 to 1.35], P < 0.001); and confidence about their professional role in relation to depression increased. There was also a significant change in optimism about depression outcomes, but no change in tendency to defer depression management to specialists. At 9-month follow-up, improved specificity in depression identification and improved knowledge were maintained. Conclusions This school nurse development programme, designed to convey best practice for the identification and care of depression, delivered significant improvements in some aspects of depression recognition and understanding, and was associated with increased confidence in working with young people experiencing mental health problems

Systems Thinking for Managing COVID-19 in Health Care Systems: Seven Key Messages

This article provides the most current guidelines for nurse educators and nurses to use systems thinking to manage COVID-19 in health systems. A working definition of systems thinking is offered, with a review of basic knowledge and care in the context of the system awareness model (SAM). Seven key messages assist nurse educators and nurses in the management of COVID-19 patients culminating in leadership of complex health care systems using systems thinking

Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation in the commissioning and joint planning of public health interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms: a qualitative case design using a cocreation approach

Background: Considerable resources are spent on research to establish what works to improve the nation’s health. If the findings from this research are used, better health outcomes can follow, but we know that these findings are not always used. In public health, evidence of what works may not ‘fit’ everywhere, making it difficult to know what to do locally. Research suggests that evidence use is a social and dynamic process, not a simple application of research findings. It is unclear whether it is easier to get evidence used via a legal contracting process or within unified organisational arrangements with shared responsibilities. Objective: To work in cocreation with research participants to investigate how research is utilised and knowledge mobilised in the commissioning and planning of public health services to reduce alcohol-related harms. Design, setting and participants: Two in-depth, largely qualitative, cross-comparison case studies were undertaken to compare real-time research utilisation in commissioning across a purchaser–provider split (England) and in joint planning under unified organisational arrangements (Scotland) to reduce alcohol-related harms. Using an overarching realist approach and working in cocreation, case study partners (stakeholders in the process) picked the topic and helped to interpret the findings. In Scotland, the topic picked was licensing; in England, it was reducing maternal alcohol consumption. Methods: Sixty-nine interviews, two focus groups, 14 observations of decision-making meetings, two local feedback workshops (n = 23 and n = 15) and one national workshop (n = 10) were undertaken. A questionnaire (n = 73) using a Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale was issued to test the transferability of the 10 main findings. Given the small numbers, care must be taken in interpreting the findings. Findings: Not all practitioners have the time, skills or interest to work in cocreation, but when there was collaboration, much was learned. Evidence included professional and tacit knowledge, and anecdotes, as well as findings from rigorous research designs. It was difficult to identify evidence in use and decisions were sometimes progressed in informal ways and in places we did not get to see. There are few formal evidence entry points. Evidence (prevalence and trends in public health issues) enters the process and is embedded in strategic documents to set priorities, but local data were collected in both sites to provide actionable messages (sometimes replicating the evidence base). Conclusions: Two mid-range theories explain the findings. If evidence has saliency (relates to ‘here and now’ as opposed to ‘there and then’) and immediacy (short, presented verbally or visually and with emotional appeal) it is more likely to be used in both settings. A second mid-range theory explains how differing tensions pull and compete as feasible and acceptable local solutions are pursued across stakeholders. Answering what works depends on answering for whom and where simultaneously to find workable (if temporary) ‘blends’. Gaining this agreement across stakeholders appeared more difficult across the purchaser–provider split, because opportunities to interact were curtailed; however, more research is needed. Funding: This study was funded by the Health Services and Delivery Research programme of the National Institute for Health Research

Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR): study protocol for a phase II randomised feasibility study of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation package following hip fracture

Objective: To conduct a rigorous feasibility study for a future definitive parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation of an enhanced rehabilitation package for hip fracture.Setting: Recruitment from 3 acute hospitals in North Wales. Intervention delivery in the community.Participants: Older adults (aged ≥65) who received surgical treatment for hip fracture, lived independently prior to fracture, had mental capacity (assessed by clinical team) and received rehabilitation in the North Wales area.Intervention: Remote randomisation to usual care (control) or usual care+enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention), including six additional home-based physiotherapy sessions delivered by a physiotherapist or technical instructor, novel information workbook and goal-setting diary.Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary: Barthel Activities of Daily Living (BADL). Secondary measures included Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale (NEADL), EQ-5D, ICECAP capability, a suite of self-efficacy, psychosocial and service-use measures and costs. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up by blinded researchers.Results: 62 participants were recruited, 61 randomised (control 32; intervention 29) and 49 (79%) completed 3-month follow-up. Minimal differences occurred between the 2 groups for most outcomes, including BADL (adjusted mean difference 0.5). The intervention group showed a medium-sized improvement in the NEADL relative to the control group, with an adjusted mean difference between groups of 3.0 (Cohen's d 0.63), and a trend for greater improvement in self-efficacy and mental health, but with small effect sizes. The mean cost of delivering the intervention was £231 per patient. There was a small relative improvement in quality-adjusted life year in the intervention group. No serious adverse events relating to the intervention were reported.Conclusions: The trial methods were feasible in terms of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the rehabilitation package should be tested in a phase III RCT