ELISA detection of phenazepam, etizolam, pyrazolam, flubromazepam, diclazepam and delorazepam in blood using Immunalysis® benzodiazepine kit

Phenazepam and etizolam were the first uncontrolled benzodiazepines available for sale in the UK. Pyrazolam, flubromazepam and diclazepam are not used medicinally anywhere in the world; they are produced exclusively for the uncontrolled, recreational market. It is important to know whether potentially abused drugs like these can be detected in routine toxicological screening tests. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the Immunalysis® Benzodiazepines ELISA kit could detect phenazepam, etizolam, pyrazolam, flubromazepam, diclazepam and its metabolite delorazepam. Their cross-reactivity was assessed by comparing the absorbance of the drug with that of oxazepam, the reference standard. This study found that these uncontrolled benzodiazepines cross-react sufficiently to produce a positive result with the Immunalysis® Benzodiazepine ELISA kit. Cross-reactivity ranged from 79 to 107% for phenazepam, etizolam, pyrazolam, flubromazepam, diclazepam and delorazepam fortified into blood. The results show that it is possible to detect these newer benzodiazepines with traditional forensic toxicology laboratory tools and it is important to include these benzodiazepines in the confirmation tests

Prioritising models of healthcare service delivery for a more sustainable health system: a Delphi study of Australian health policy, clinical practice and management, academic and consumer stakeholders

Published online: 18 March 2021Objectives. Healthcare expenditure is growing at an unsustainable rate in developed countries. A recent scoping review identified several alternative healthcare delivery models with the potential to improve health system sustainability. Our objective was to obtain input and consensus from an expert Delphi panel about which alternative models they considered most promising for increasing value in healthcare delivery in Australia and to contribute to shaping a research agenda in the field. Methods. The panel first reviewed a list of 84 models obtained through the preceding scoping review and contributed additional ideas in an open round. In a subsequent scoring round, the panel rated the priority of each model in terms of its potential to improve health care sustainability in Australia. Consensus was assumed when 50% of the panel rated a model as (very) high priority (consensus on high priority) or as not a priority or low priority (consensus on low priority). Results. Eighty-two of 149 invited participants (55%) representing all Australian states/territories and wide expertise completed round one; 71 completed round two. Consensus on high priority was achieved for 59 alternative models; 14 were rated as (very) high priority by 70% of the panel. Top priorities included improving medical service provision in aged care facilities, providing single-point-access multidisciplinary care for people with chronic conditions and providing tailored early discharge and hospital at home instead of in-patient care. No consensus was reached on 47 models, but no model was deemed low priority. Conclusions. Input froman expert stakeholder panel identified healthcare deliverymodels not previously synthesised in systematic reviews that are a priority to investigate. Strong consensus exists among stakeholders regarding which models require the most urgent attention in terms of (cost-)effectiveness research. These findings contribute to shaping a research agenda on healthcare delivery models and where stakeholder engagement in Australia is likely to be high. What is known about the topic? Healthcare expenditure is growing at an unsustainable rate in high-income countries worldwide. A recent scoping review of systematic reviews identified a substantial body of evidence about the effects of a wide range of models of healthcare service delivery that can inform health system improvements. Given the large number of systematic reviews available on numerous models of care, a method for gaining consensus on the models of highest priority for implementation (where evidence demonstrates this will lead to beneficial effects and resource savings) or for further research (where evidence about effects is uncertain) in the Australian context is warranted. What does this paper add? This paper describes a method for reaching consensus on high-priority alternative models of service delivery in Australia. Stakeholders with leadership roles in health policy and government organisations, hospital and primary care networks, academic institutions and consumer advocacy organisations were asked to identify and rate alternative models based on their knowledge of the healthcare system. We reached consensus among 70% of stakeholders that improving medical care in residential aged care facilities, providing single-point-access multidisciplinary care for patients with a range of chronic conditions and providing early discharge and hospital at home instead of in-patient stay for people with a range of conditions are of highest priority for further investigation. What are the implications for practitioners? Decision makers seeking to optimise the efficiency and sustainability of healthcare service delivery in Australia could consider the alternative models rated as high priority by the expert stakeholder panel in this Delphi study. These models reflect the most promising alternatives for increasing value in the delivery of health care in Australia based on stakeholders’ knowledge of the health system. Although they indicate areas where stakeholder engagement is likely to be high, further research is needed to demonstrate the effectiveness and costeffectiveness of some of these models.Polina Putrik, Rebecca Jessup, Rachelle Buchbinder, Paul Glasziou, Jonathan Karnon and Denise A. O’Conno

Recruitment difficulties in a primary care cluster randomised trial:investigating factors contributing to general practitioners' recruitment of patients

BACKGROUND: Recruitment of patients by health professionals is reported as one of the most challenging steps when undertaking studies in primary care settings. Numerous investigations of the barriers to patient recruitment in trials which recruit patients to receive an intervention have been published. However, we are not aware of any studies that have reported on the recruitment barriers as perceived by health professionals to recruiting patients into cluster randomised trials where patients do not directly receive an intervention. This particular subtype of cluster trial is commonly termed a professional-cluster trial. The aim of this study was to investigate factors that contributed to general practitioners recruitment of patients in a professional-cluster trial which evaluated the effectiveness of an intervention to increase general practitioners adherence to a clinical practice guideline for acute low-back pain. METHOD: General practitioners enrolled in the study were posted a questionnaire, consisting of quantitative items and an open-ended question, to assess possible reasons for poor patient recruitment. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise quantitative items and responses to the open-ended question were coded into categories. RESULTS: Seventy-nine general practitioners completed at least one item (79/94 = 84%), representing 68 practices (85% practice response rate), and 44 provided a response to the open-ended question. General practitioners recalled inviting a median of two patients with acute low-back pain to participate in the trial over a seven-month period; they reported that they intended to recruit patients, but forgot to approach patients to participate; and they did not perceive that patients had a strong interest or disinterest in participating. Additional open-ended comments were generally consistent with the quantitative data. CONCLUSION: A number of barriers to the recruitment of patients with acute low-back pain by general practitioners in a professional-cluster trial were identified. These barriers were similar to those that have been identified in the literature surrounding the recruitment of patients in individual patient randomised trials. To advance the evidence base for patient recruitment strategies in primary care settings, trialists undertaking professional-cluster trials need to develop and evaluate patient recruitment strategies that minimise the efforts required by practice staff to recruit patients, while also meeting privacy and ethical responsibilities and minimising the risk of selection bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000098538 (date registered 14/03/2006)

Consumer understanding of terms used in imaging reports requested for low back pain: a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES: To investigate (1) self-reported societal comprehension of common and usually non-serious terms found in lumbar spine imaging reports and (2) its relationship to perceived seriousness, likely persistence of low back pain (LBP), fear of movement, back beliefs and history and intensity of LBP. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey of the general public. SETTING: Five English-speaking countries: UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (age >18 years) with or without a history of LBP recruited in April 2019 with quotas for country, age and gender. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported understanding of 14 terms (annular fissure, disc bulge, disc degeneration, disc extrusion, disc height loss, disc protrusion, disc signal loss, facet joint degeneration, high intensity zone, mild canal stenosis, Modic changes, nerve root contact, spondylolisthesis and spondylosis) commonly found in lumbar spine imaging reports. For each term, we also elicited worry about its seriousness, and whether its presence would indicate pain persistence and prompt fear of movement. RESULTS: From 774 responses, we included 677 (87.5%) with complete and valid responses. 577 (85%) participants had a current or past history of LBP of whom 251 (44%) had received lumbar spine imaging. Self-reported understanding of all terms was poor. At best, 235 (35%) reported understanding the term ‘disc degeneration’, while only 71 (10.5%) reported understanding the term ‘Modic changes’. For all terms, a moderate to large proportion of participants (range 59%–71%), considered they indicated a serious back problem, that pain might persist (range 52%–71%) and they would be fearful of movement (range 42%–57%). CONCLUSION: Common and usually non-serious terms in lumbar spine imaging reports are poorly understood by the general population and may contribute to the burden of LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619000545167

Organising health care services for people with an acquired brain injury: an overview of systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background Acquired brain injury (ABI) is the leading cause of disability worldwide yet there is little information regarding the most effective way to organise ABI health care services. The aim of this review was to identify the most up-to-date high quality evidence to answer specific questions regarding the organisation of health care services for people with an ABI. Methods We conducted a systematic review of English papers using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. We included the most recently published high quality systematic reviews and any randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before after studies or interrupted time series studies published subsequent to the systematic review. We searched for papers that evaluated pre-defined organisational interventions for adults with an ABI. Organisational interventions of interest included fee-for-service care, integrated care, integrated care pathways, continuity of care, consumer engagement in governance and quality monitoring interventions. Data extraction and appraisal of included reviews and studies was completed independently by two reviewers. Results A total of five systematic reviews and 21 studies were included in the review; eight of the papers (31%) included people with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) or ABI and the remaining papers (69%) included only participants with a diagnosis of stroke. We found evidence supporting the use of integrated care to improve functional outcome and reduce length of stay and evidence supporting early supported discharge teams for reducing morbidity and mortality and reducing length of stay for stroke survivors. There was little evidence to support case management or the use of integrated care pathways for people with ABI. We found evidence that a quality monitoring intervention can lead to improvements in process outcomes in acute and rehabilitation settings. We were unable to find any studies meeting our inclusion criteria regarding fee-for-service care or engaging consumers in the governance of the health care organisation. Conclusions The review found evidence to support integrated care, early supported discharge and quality monitoring interventions however, this evidence was based on studies conducted with people following stroke and may not be appropriate for all people with an ABI

Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation (Review)

Background Rehabilitation based upon research evidence gives stroke survivors the best chance of recovery. There is substantial research to guide practice in stroke rehabilitation, yet uptake of evidence by healthcare professionals is typically slow and patients often do not receive evidence‐based care. Implementation interventions are an important means to translate knowledge from research to practice and thus optimise the care and outcomes for stroke survivors. A synthesis of research evidence is required to guide the selection and use of implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation. Objectives To assess the effects of implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence‐based practices (including clinical assessments and treatments recommended in evidence‐based guidelines) in stroke rehabilitation and to assess the effects of implementation interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change compared to non‐tailored interventions in stroke rehabilitation. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases to 17 October 2019. We searched OpenGrey, performed citation tracking and reference checking for included studies and contacted authors of included studies to obtain further information and identify potentially relevant studies. Selection criteria We included individual and cluster randomised trials, non‐randomised trials, interrupted time series studies and controlled before‐after studies comparing an implementation intervention to no intervention or to another implementation approach in stroke rehabilitation. Participants were qualified healthcare professionals working in stroke rehabilitation and the patients they cared for. Studies were considered for inclusion regardless of date, language or publication status. Main outcomes were healthcare professional adherence to recommended treatment, patient adherence to recommended treatment, patient health status and well‐being, healthcare professional intention and satisfaction, resource use outcomes and adverse effects. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any implementation intervention compared to no intervention. Main results Nine cluster randomised trials (12,428 patient participants) and three ongoing trials met our selection criteria. Five trials (8865 participants) compared an implementation intervention to no intervention, three trials (3150 participants) compared one implementation intervention to another implementation intervention, and one three‐arm trial (413 participants) compared two different implementation interventions to no intervention. Eight trials investigated multifaceted interventions; educational meetings and educational materials were the most common components. Six trials described tailoring the intervention content to identified barriers to change. Two trials focused on evidence‐based stroke rehabilitation in the acute setting, four focused on the subacute inpatient setting and three trials focused on stroke rehabilitation in the community setting. We are uncertain if implementation interventions improve healthcare professional adherence to evidence‐based practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with no intervention as the certainty of the evidence was very low (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.64; 2 trials, 39 clusters, 1455 patient participants; I2 = 0%). Low‐certainty evidence indicates implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation may lead to little or no difference in patient adherence to recommended treatment (number of recommended performed outdoor journeys adjusted mean difference (MD) 0.5, 95% CI –1.8 to 2.8; 1 trial, 21 clusters, 100 participants) and patient psychological well‐being (standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.02, 95% CI –0.54 to 0.50; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1273 participants; I2 = 0%) compared with no intervention. Moderate‐certainty evidence indicates implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation probably lead to little or no difference in patient health‐related quality of life (MD 0.01, 95% CI –0.02 to 0.05; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1242 participants; I2 = 0%) and activities of daily living (MD 0.29, 95% CI –0.16 to 0.73; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1272 participants; I2 = 0%) compared with no intervention. No studies reported the effects of implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation on healthcare professional intention to change behaviour or satisfaction. Five studies reported economic outcomes, with one study reporting cost‐effectiveness of the implementation intervention. However, this was assessed at high risk of bias. The other four studies did not demonstrate the cost‐effectiveness of interventions. Tailoring interventions to identified barriers did not alter results. We are uncertain of the effect of one implementation intervention versus another given the limited very low‐certainty evidence. Authors' conclusions We are uncertain if implementation interventions improve healthcare professional adherence to evidence‐based practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with no intervention as the certainty of the evidence is very low