Knowledge mobilization in bridging patient‐practitioner‐researcher boundaries : a systematic integrative review

Aim To review when, how, and in what context knowledge mobilization (KMb) has crossed patient‐practitioner‐researcher boundaries. Background KMb is essential in contemporary health care, yet little is known about how patients are engaged. Design Integrative review. Data sources Ten academic databases and grey literature. Review methods We followed integrative review methodology to identify publications from 2006–2019 which contributed to understanding of cross‐boundary KMb. We extracted data using a bespoke spreadsheet and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) framework. We used meta‐summary to organize key findings. Results Thirty‐three papers collectively provide new insights into ‘when’ and ‘how’ KMb has crossed patient‐researcher‐practitioner boundaries and the impact this has achieved. Knowledge is mobilized to improve care, promote health, or prevent ill health. Most studies focus on creating or re‐shaping knowledge to make it more useful. Knowledge is mobilized in small community groups, in larger networks, and intervention studies. Finding the right people to engage in activities is crucial, as activities can be demanding and time‐consuming. Devolving power to communities and using local people to move knowledge can be effective. Few studies report definitive outcomes of KMb. Conclusion Cross‐boundary KMb can and does produce new and shared knowledge for health care. Positive outcomes can be achieved using diverse public engagement strategies. KMb process and theory is an emerging discipline, further research is needed on effective cross‐boundary working and on measuring the impact of KMb. Impact This review provides new and nuanced understandings of how KMb theory has been used to bridge patient‐researcher‐practitioner boundaries. We have assessed ‘how’, ‘when’, and in what context patients, practitioners and researchers have attempted to mobilize knowledge and identified impact. We have developed a knowledge base about good practice and what can and potentially should be avoided in cross‐boundary KMb

Uncovering treatment burden as a key concept for stroke care: a systematic review of qualitative research

<b>Background</b> Patients with chronic disease may experience complicated management plans requiring significant personal investment. This has been termed ‘treatment burden’ and has been associated with unfavourable outcomes. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the qualitative literature on treatment burden in stroke from the patient perspective.<p></p> <b>Methods and findings</b> The search strategy centred on: stroke, treatment burden, patient experience, and qualitative methods. We searched: Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and PsycINFO. We tracked references, footnotes, and citations. Restrictions included: English language, date of publication January 2000 until February 2013. Two reviewers independently carried out the following: paper screening, data extraction, and data analysis. Data were analysed using framework synthesis, as informed by Normalization Process Theory. Sixty-nine papers were included. Treatment burden includes: (1) making sense of stroke management and planning care, (2) interacting with others, (3) enacting management strategies, and (4) reflecting on management. Health care is fragmented, with poor communication between patient and health care providers. Patients report inadequate information provision. Inpatient care is unsatisfactory, with a perceived lack of empathy from professionals and a shortage of stimulating activities on the ward. Discharge services are poorly coordinated, and accessing health and social care in the community is difficult. The study has potential limitations because it was restricted to studies published in English only and data from low-income countries were scarce.<p></p> <b>Conclusions</b> Stroke management is extremely demanding for patients, and treatment burden is influenced by micro and macro organisation of health services. Knowledge deficits mean patients are ill equipped to organise their care and develop coping strategies, making adherence less likely. There is a need to transform the approach to care provision so that services are configured to prioritise patient needs rather than those of health care systems

Optimising care for patients with cognitive impairment and dementia following hip fracture

The global shift in demographics towards aging populations is leading to a commensurate increase in age-related disease and frailty. It is essential to optimise health services to meet current needs and prepare for anticipated future demands. This paper explores issues impacting on people living with cognitive impairment and/or dementia who experience a hip fracture and are cared for in acute settings. This is important given the high mortality and morbidity associated with this population. Given the current insufficiency of clear evidence on optimum rehabilitation of this patient group, this paper explored three key themes namely: recognition of cognitive impairment, response by way of training and education of staff to optimise care for this patient group and review of the importance of outcomes measures. Whilst there is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the optimal ways of caring for patients living with dementia following hip fracture, this paper concludes that future research should improve understanding of healthcare staff education to improve the outcomes for this important group of patients

Decision-making in cancer care for people living with dementia

Objective: Increasing numbers of people are expected to live with comorbid cancer and dementia. Cancer treatment decision-making for these individuals is complex, particularly for those lacking capacity, requiring support across the cancer care pathway. There is little research to inform practice in this area. This ethnographic study reports on the cancer decision-making experiences of people with cancer and dementia, their families, and healthcare staff. Methods: Participant observations, informal conversations, semi-structured interviews, and medical note review, in two NHS trusts. Seventeen people with dementia and cancer, 22 relatives and 19 staff members participated. Results: Decision-making raised complex ethical dilemmas and challenges and raised concerns for families and staff around whether correct decisions had been made. Whose decision it was and to what extent a person with dementia and cancer was able to make decisions was complex, requiring careful and ongoing consultation and close involvement of relatives. The potential impact dementia might have on treatment understanding and toleration required additional consideration by clinicians when evaluating treatment options. Conclusions: Cancer treatment decision-making for people with dementia is challenging, should be an ongoing process and has emotional impacts for the individual, relatives, and staff. Longer, flexible, and additional appointments may be required to support decision-making by people with cancer and dementia. Evidence-based decision-making guidance on how dementia impacts cancer prognosis, treatment adherence and efficacy is required

A retrospective analysis of normal saline and lactated ringers as resuscitation fluid in sepsis

BackgroundThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign suggested preferential resuscitation with balanced crystalloids, such as Lactated Ringer’s (LR), although the level of recommendation was weak, and the quality of evidence was low. Past studies reported an association of unbalanced solutions, such as normal saline (NS), with increased AKI risks, metabolic acidosis, and prolonged ICU stay, although some of the findings are conflicting. We have compared the outcomes with the preferential use of normal saline vs. ringer’s lactate in a cohort of sepsis patients.MethodWe performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients visiting the ED of 19 different Mayo Clinic sites between August 2018 to November 2020 with sepsis and receiving at least 30 mL/kg fluid in the first 6 h. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on the type of resuscitation fluid (LR vs. NS) and propensity-matching was done based on clinical characteristics as well as fluid amount (with 5 ml/kg). Single variable logistic regression (categorical outcomes) and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare the primary and secondary outcomes between the 2 groups.ResultsOut of 2022 patients meeting our inclusion criteria; 1,428 (70.6%) received NS, and 594 (29.4%) received LR as the predominant fluid (>30 mL/kg). Patients receiving predominantly NS were more likely to be male and older in age. The LR cohort had a higher BMI, lactate level and incidence of septic shock. Propensity-matched analysis did not show a difference in 30-day and in-hospital mortality rate, mechanical ventilation, oxygen therapy, or CRRT requirement. We did observe longer hospital LOS in the LR group (median 5 vs. 4 days, p = 0.047 and higher requirement for ICU post-admission (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51–0.96; p = 0.026) in the NS group. However, these did not remain statistically significant after adjustment for multiple testing.ConclusionIn our matched cohort, we did not show any statistically significant difference in mortality rates, hospital LOS, ICU admission after diagnosis, mechanical ventilation, oxygen therapy and RRT between sepsis patients receiving lactated ringers and normal saline as predominant resuscitation fluid. Further large-scale prospective studies are needed to solidify the current guidelines on the use of balanced crystalloids