Facilitating guideline implementation in primary health care practices

Introduction: Many patients continue to receive suboptimal services, inappropriate, unsafe, and costly care. Underutilization of research by health professionals is a common problem in the primary care setting. Although many theoretical frameworks can be used to help address such evidence-practice gaps, health care professionals may not be aware of the benefits of frameworks or of the most appropriate ones for their context and thus, may be faced with the challenge of selecting and using the most relevant one. Aim: The aim of this article was to describe the process used to adapt a knowledge translation framework to meet the local needs of health professionals working in one large primary care setting. Methods: The authors developed a 5-step approach for guideline implementation. This approach was informed by prior research and the authors’ experiences in supporting multidisciplinary teams of health care professionals during the implementation of evidence-based clinical guidelines into primary care practices. To ensure that the 5-step approach was practical and suitable for the context of guideline implementation by multidisciplinary teams in primary health care, the implementation team adapted the “knowledge-to-action” framework using a multistep process. Results: The implementation approach consisted of the following 5 steps: identification, context analysis, development of implementation plan, evaluation, and sustainability. All 5 steps were described alongside details about a national low back pain project. Discussion: This article describes a collaborative, grassroots process that addressed an identified need in one complex context by adapting a knowledge translation framework to meet the local needs of health professionals working in primary care settings. Existing implementation frameworks may be too complex or abstract for use in busy clinical contexts. The 5-step approach presented in this paper resulted in practical steps that are more readily understood by health care professionals and staff on “the ground”. © The Author(s) 2020

Novel models to predict elevated intracranial pressure during intensive care and long-term neurological outcome after TBI

status: publishe

Huge variability in restrictions of mobilization for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage - A European survey of practice.

INTRODUCTION One of the major goals of neurointensive care is to prevent secondary injuries following aSAH. Bed rest and patient immobilization are practiced in order to decrease the risk of DCI. RESEARCH QUESTION To explore the current practices in place concerning the management of patients with aSAH, specifically, protocols and habits regarding restrictions of mobilization and HOB positioning. MATERIAL AND METHODS A survey was designed, modified, and approved by the panel of the Trauma & Critical Care section of the EANS to cover the practice of restrictions of patient mobilization and HOB positioning in patients with aSAH. RESULTS Twenty-nine physicians from 17 countries completed the questionnaire. The majority (79.3%) stated that non-secured aneurysm and the presence of an EVD were the factors related to the establishment of restriction of mobilization. The average duration of the restriction varied widely ranging between 1 and 21 days. The presence of an EVD (13.8%) was found to be the main reason to recommend restriction of HOB elevation. The average duration of restriction of HOB positioning ranged between 3 and 14 days. Rebleeding or complications related to CSF over-drainage were found to be related to these restrictions. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Restriction of patient mobilization regimens vary widely in Europe. Current limited evidence does not support an increased risk of DCI rather the early mobilization might be beneficial. Large prospective studies and/or the initiative of a RCT are needed to understand the significance of early mobilization on the outcome of patients with aSAH

Feasibility of individualised severe traumatic brain injury management using an automated assessment of optimal cerebral perfusion pressure: the COGiTATE phase II study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Individualising therapy is an important challenge for intensive care of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Targeting a cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) tailored to optimise cerebrovascular autoregulation has been suggested as an attractive strategy on the basis of a large body of retrospective observational data. The objective of this study is to prospectively assess the feasibility and safety of such a strategy compared with fixed thresholds which is the current standard of care from international consensus guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CPPOpt Guided Therapy: Assessment of Target Effectiveness (COGiTATE) is a prospective, multicentre, non-blinded randomised, controlled trial coordinated from Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht (The Netherlands). The other original participating centres are Cambridge University NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge (UK), and University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven (Belgium). Adult severe TBI patients requiring intracranial pressure monitoring are randomised within the first 24 hours of admission in neurocritical care unit. For the control arm, the CPP target is the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines target (60-70 mm Hg); for the intervention group an automated CPP target is provided as the CPP at which the patient's cerebrovascular reactivity is best preserved (CPPopt). For a maximum of 5 days, attending clinicians review the CPP target 4-hourly. The main hypothesis of COGiTATE are: (1) in the intervention group the percentage of the monitored time with measured CPP within a range of 5 mm Hg above or below CPPopt will reach 36%; (2) the difference in between groups in daily therapy intensity level score will be lower or equal to 3. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained for each participating centre. The results will be presented at international scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02982122

International comparative study of low back pain care pathways and analysis of key interventions

Purpose Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem worldwide. Significant practice variation exists despite guidelines, including strong interventionist focus by some practitioners. Translation of guidelines into pathways as integrated treatment plans is a next step to improve implementation. The goal of the present study was to analyze international examples of LBP pathways in order to identify key interventions as building elements for care pathway for LBP and radicular pain. Methods International examples of LBP pathways were searched in literature and grey literature. Authors of pathways were invited to fill a questionnaire and to participate in an in-depth telephone interview. Pathways were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed, to enable the identification of key interventions to serve as pathway building elements. Results Eleven international LBP care pathways were identified. Regional pathways were strongly organized and included significant training efforts for primary care providers and an intermediate level of caregivers in between general practitioners and hospital specialists. Hospital pathways had a focus on multidisciplinary collaboration and stepwise approach trajectories. Key elements common to all pathways included the consecutive screening for red flags, radicular pain and psychosocial risk factors, the emphasis on patient empowerment and self-management, the development of evidence-based consultable protocols, the focus on a multidisciplinary work mode and the monitoring of patient-reported outcome measures. Conclusion Essential building elements for the construction of LBP care pathways were identified from a transversal analysis of key interventions in a study of 11 international examples of LBP pathways

Comparison of high versus low frequency cerebral physiology for cerebrovascular reactivity assessment in traumatic brain injury: a multi-center pilot study

Current accepted cerebrovascular reactivity indices suffer from the need of high frequency data capture and export for post-acquisition processing. The role for minute-by-minute data in cerebrovascular reactivity monitoring remains uncertain. The goal was to explore the statistical time-series relationships between intra-cranial pressure (ICP), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and pressure reactivity index (PRx) using both 10-s and minute data update frequency in TBI. Prospective data from 31 patients from 3 centers with moderate/severe TBI and high-frequency archived physiology were reviewed. Both 10-s by 10-s and minute-by-minute mean values were derived for ICP and MAP for each patient. Similarly, PRx was derived using 30 consecutive 10-s data points, updated every minute. While long-PRx (L-PRx) was derived via similar methodology using minute-by-minute data, with L-PRx derived using various window lengths (5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 min; denoted L-PRx_5, etc.). Time-series autoregressive integrative moving average (ARIMA) and vector autoregressive integrative moving average (VARIMA) models were created to analyze the relationship of these parameters over time. ARIMA modelling, Granger causality testing and VARIMA impulse response function (IRF) plotting demonstrated that similar information is carried in minute mean ICP and MAP data, compared to 10-s mean slow-wave ICP and MAP data. Shorter window L-PRx variants, such as L-PRx_5, appear to have a similar ARIMA structure, have a linear association with PRx and display moderate-to-strong correlations (r ~ 0.700, p Peer reviewe

Early surgery versus conservative treatment in patients with traumatic intracerebral hematoma:a CENTER-TBI study

Purpose: Evidence regarding the effect of surgery in traumatic intracerebral hematoma (t-ICH) is limited and relies on the STITCH(Trauma) trial. This study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of early surgery to conservative treatment in patients with a t-ICH. Methods: In a prospective cohort, we included patients with a large t-ICH (&lt; 48 h of injury). Primary outcome was the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) at 6 months, analyzed with multivariable proportional odds logistic regression. Subgroups included injury severity and isolated vs. non-isolated t-ICH. Results: A total of 367 patients with a large t-ICH were included, of whom 160 received early surgery and 207 received conservative treatment. Patients receiving early surgery were younger (median age 54 vs. 58 years) and more severely injured (median Glasgow Coma Scale 7 vs. 10) compared to those treated conservatively. In the overall cohort, early surgery was not associated with better functional outcome (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.1, (95% CI, 0.6–1.7)) compared to conservative treatment. Early surgery was associated with better outcome for patients with moderate TBI and isolated t-ICH (AOR 1.5 (95% CI, 1.1–2.0); P value for interaction 0.71, and AOR 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3–2.5); P value for interaction 0.004). Conversely, in mild TBI and those with a smaller t-ICH (&lt; 33 cc), conservative treatment was associated with better outcome (AOR 0.6 (95% CI, 0.4–0.9); P value for interaction 0.71, and AOR 0.8 (95% CI, 0.5–1.0); P value for interaction 0.32). Conclusions: Early surgery in t-ICH might benefit those with moderate TBI and isolated t-ICH, comparable with results of the STITCH(Trauma) trial.</p

Characteristics of Patients Who Survived < 3 Months or > 2 Years After Surgery for Spinal Metastases: Can We Avoid Inappropriate Patient Selection?

PURPOSE: Survival after metastatic cancer has improved at the cost of increased presentation with metastatic spinal disease. For patients with pathologic spinal fractures and/or spinal cord compression, surgical intervention may relieve pain and improve quality of life. Surgery is generally considered to be inappropriate if anticipated survival is < 3 months. The aim of this international multicenter study was to analyze data from patients who died within 3 months or 2 years after surgery, to identify preoperative factors associated with poor or good survival, and to avoid inappropriate selection of patients for surgery in the future. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1,266 patients underwent surgery for impending pathologic fractures and/or neurologic deficits and were prospectively observed. Data collected included tumor characteristics, preoperative fitness (American Society of Anesthesiologists advisory [ASA]), neurologic status (Frankel scale), performance (Karnofsky performance score [KPS]), and quality of life (EuroQol five-dimensions questionnaire [EQ-5D]). Outcomes were survival at 3 months and 2 years postsurgery. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to find preoperative factors associated with short-term and long-term survival. RESULTS: In univariable analysis, age, emergency surgery, KPS, EQ-5D, ASA, Frankel, and Tokuhashi/Tomita scores were significantly associated with short survival. In multivariable analysis, KPS and age were significantly associated with short survival (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.62; and OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.27, respectively). Associated with longer survival in univariable analysis were age, number of levels included in surgery, KPS, EQ-5D, Frankel, and Tokuhashi/Tomita scores. In multivariable analysis, the number of levels included in surgery (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.38) and primary tumor type were significantly associated with longer survival. CONCLUSION: Poor performance status at presentation is the strongest indicator of poor short-term survival, whereas low disease load and favorable tumor histology are associated with longer-term survival