Using patient narratives to design an intervention to reduce noise in the Intensive Care Unit

Patient narratives can be used to guide improvements in health care. The authors found that including patients and staff on the design team keeps the focus meaningful and ensures that interventions are acceptable and deliverable

Mobilisation in the EveNing to TreAt deLirium (MENTAL):protocol for a mixed-methods feasibility randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION: Delirium is common in critically ill patients and is associated with longer hospital stays, increased mortality and higher healthcare costs. A number of risk factors have been identified for the development of delirium in intensive care, two of which are sleep disturbance and immobilisation. Non-pharmacological interventions for the management of intensive care unit (ICU) delirium have been advocated, including sleep protocols and early mobilisation. However, there is a little published evidence evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of evening mobilisation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Mobilisation in the EveNing to TreAt deLirium (MENTAL) is a two-centre, mixed-methods feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT). Sixty patients will be recruited from ICUs at two acute NHS trusts and randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive additional evening mobilisation, delivered between 19:00 and 21:00, or standard care. The underpinning hypothesis is that the physical exertion associated with evening mobilisation will promote better sleep, subsequently having the potential to reduce delirium incidence. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a future, multicentre RCT. The primary outcome measures, which will determine feasibility, are recruitment and retention rates, and intervention fidelity. Acceptability of the intervention will be evaluated through semi-structured interviews of participants and staff. Secondary outcome measures include collecting baseline, clinical and outcome data to inform the power calculations of a future definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained through the Wales Research and Ethics Committee 6 (22/WA/0106). Participants are required to provide written informed consent. We aim to disseminate the findings through international conferences, international peer-reviewed journals and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05401461

LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS (LOCOMOTION): protocol for a mixed-methods study in the UK

Introduction: Long COVID, a new condition whose origins and natural history are not yet fully established, currently affects 1.5 million people in the UK. Most do not have access to specialist long COVID services. We seek to optimise long COVID care both within and outside specialist clinics, including improving access, reducing inequalities, helping self-management and providing guidance and decision support for primary care. We aim to establish a ‘gold standard’ of care by systematically analysing current practices, iteratively improving pathways and systems of care. Methods and analysis: This mixed-methods, multisite study is informed by the principles of applied health services research, quality improvement, co-design, outcome measurement and learning health systems. It was developed in close partnership with patients (whose stated priorities are prompt clinical assessment; evidence-based advice and treatment and help with returning to work and other roles) and with front-line clinicians. Workstreams and tasks to optimise assessment, treatment and monitoring are based in three contrasting settings: workstream 1 (qualitative research, up to 100 participants), specialist management in 10 long COVID clinics across the UK, via a quality improvement collaborative, experience-based co-design and targeted efforts to reduce inequalities of access, return to work and peer support; workstream 2 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), patient self-management at home, technology-supported monitoring and validation of condition-specific outcome measures and workstream 3 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), generalist management in primary care, harnessing electronic record data to study population phenotypes and develop evidence-based decision support, referral pathways and analysis of costs. Study governance includes an active patient advisory group. Ethics and dissemination: LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS study is sponsored by the University of Leeds and approved by Yorkshire & The Humber—Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/YH/0276). Participants will provide informed consent. Dissemination plans include academic and lay publications, and partnerships with national and regional policymakers. Trial registration number: NCT05057260, ISRCTN15022307

Effects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo