Evaluation of a COVID ‐19 fundamental nursing care guideline versus usual care: The COVID‐NURSE cluster randomized controlled trial

Aim: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID‐19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health‐related quality of life and cost‐effectiveness. Design: Parallel two‐arm, cluster‐level randomized controlled trial. Methods: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID‐19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient‐reported co‐primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention‐to‐treat analyses. Results: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570–572 (98.1%–98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between‐group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between‐group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co‐primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the ‘other’ ethnicity subgroup. Conclusion: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non‐white British patients' experience of care. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required. Impact: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non‐white British patients' experience of care. Reporting Method: CONSORT and CONSERVE. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID‐19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings

The evolving SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Africa: Insights from rapidly expanding genomic surveillance

INTRODUCTION Investment in Africa over the past year with regard to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sequencing has led to a massive increase in the number of sequences, which, to date, exceeds 100,000 sequences generated to track the pandemic on the continent. These sequences have profoundly affected how public health officials in Africa have navigated the COVID-19 pandemic. RATIONALE We demonstrate how the first 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 sequences from Africa have helped monitor the epidemic on the continent, how genomic surveillance expanded over the course of the pandemic, and how we adapted our sequencing methods to deal with an evolving virus. Finally, we also examine how viral lineages have spread across the continent in a phylogeographic framework to gain insights into the underlying temporal and spatial transmission dynamics for several variants of concern (VOCs). RESULTS Our results indicate that the number of countries in Africa that can sequence the virus within their own borders is growing and that this is coupled with a shorter turnaround time from the time of sampling to sequence submission. Ongoing evolution necessitated the continual updating of primer sets, and, as a result, eight primer sets were designed in tandem with viral evolution and used to ensure effective sequencing of the virus. The pandemic unfolded through multiple waves of infection that were each driven by distinct genetic lineages, with B.1-like ancestral strains associated with the first pandemic wave of infections in 2020. Successive waves on the continent were fueled by different VOCs, with Alpha and Beta cocirculating in distinct spatial patterns during the second wave and Delta and Omicron affecting the whole continent during the third and fourth waves, respectively. Phylogeographic reconstruction points toward distinct differences in viral importation and exportation patterns associated with the Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants and subvariants, when considering both Africa versus the rest of the world and viral dissemination within the continent. Our epidemiological and phylogenetic inferences therefore underscore the heterogeneous nature of the pandemic on the continent and highlight key insights and challenges, for instance, recognizing the limitations of low testing proportions. We also highlight the early warning capacity that genomic surveillance in Africa has had for the rest of the world with the detection of new lineages and variants, the most recent being the characterization of various Omicron subvariants. CONCLUSION Sustained investment for diagnostics and genomic surveillance in Africa is needed as the virus continues to evolve. This is important not only to help combat SARS-CoV-2 on the continent but also because it can be used as a platform to help address the many emerging and reemerging infectious disease threats in Africa. In particular, capacity building for local sequencing within countries or within the continent should be prioritized because this is generally associated with shorter turnaround times, providing the most benefit to local public health authorities tasked with pandemic response and mitigation and allowing for the fastest reaction to localized outbreaks. These investments are crucial for pandemic preparedness and response and will serve the health of the continent well into the 21st century

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Supporting the midwifery practice-based curriculum: the role of the link lecturer

BACKGROUND: It is essential that Approved Education Institutions (AEIs) support practice learning to the education standards required by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC, 2009). Evaluating whether midwife lecturers bring a unique contribution to the outcomes of preregistration midwifery education programmes was investigated through a national research project (Fraser et al., 2011). The study task addressed in this paper was to establish which roles and responsibilities of lecturers have most impact on student learning and capability as midwives and provide best support for mentors' teaching and assessment decisions. METHODS: Data were collected through United Kingdom (UK) wide survey of Lead Midwives for Education, midwife lecturers and questionnaires and focus groups of student midwives from six case study sites. An activity analysis tool was completed by lecturers in these sites, as well as individual interviews with LMEs and Programme Leads. FINDINGS: The nature of midwife lecturers' engagement with practice is variable and is determined by the particular organisation model used. There is an overall agreement that midwife lecturers have a vital role in supporting the practice based curriculum. Key findings highlight the link lecturer role in supporting students, participating in assessments, supporting mentors and maintaining clinical credibility. Enhancements and deterrents to undertaking the link role are also outlined. These findings are relevant to health care programmes worldwide where clinical practice is an essential component. Implications: contribution to knowledge development about models to support and enhance practice-based learning

Intimate Partner Abuse Could We Have Known? A Qualitative Analysis of Data from Women Who Survived an Attempted Homicide by an Intimate Partner

OBJECTIVE: To examine in-depth the lives of women whose partners attempted to kill them, and to identify patterns that may aid in the clinician’s ability to predict, prevent, or counsel about femicide or attempted femicide. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of 30 in-depth interviews. SETTING: Six U.S. cities. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty women, aged 17–54 years, who survived an attempted homicide by an intimate partner. RESULTS: All but 2 of the participants had previously experienced physical violence, controlling behavior, or both from the partner who attempted to kill them. The intensity of the violence, control, and threats varied greatly, as did the number of risk factors measured by the Danger Assessment, defining a wide spectrum of prior abuse. Approximately half (14/30) of the participants did not recognize that their lives were in danger. Women often focused more on relationship problems involving money, alcohol, drugs, possessiveness, or infidelity, than on the risk to themselves from the violence. The majority of the attempts (22/30) happened around the time of a relationship change, but the relationship was often ending because of problems other than violence

Carolyn Gillelyn, Doris Young, Joyce Banks-Davidson, Patricia Brassel, Jackie Faye Roberts Ammons

On Feb. 25, 1970, more than 60 African American students were arrested following a nonviolent protest staged in front of Fulton Chapel during a performance of the international music revue Up with People. Many of the students were detained at the State Penitentiary at Parchman. Eight students were expelled from the University. Fifty years later, the University of Mississippi commemorated these events with two days of remembrance, including speakers, panel discussions, a staged reading, and a luncheon. The events were sponsored by the Arch Dalrymple III Department of History and the Center for the Study of Southern Culture, with support from the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement and the Office of the Provost.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/blkpower_photo/1005/thumbnail.jp

Influence of Concomitant Extracranial Injury on Functional and Cognitive Recovery From Mild Versus Moderateto Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of extracranial injury (ECI) on 6-month outcome in patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) versus moderate-to-severe TBI. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: Patients with TBI (n = 135) or isolated orthopedic injury (n = 25) admitted to a UK major trauma center and healthy volunteers (n = 99). DESIGN: Case-control observational study. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes: (a) Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE), (b) depression, (c) quality of life (QOL), and (d) cognitive impairment including verbal fluency, episodic memory, short-term recognition memory, working memory, sustained attention, and attentional flexibility. RESULTS: Outcome was influenced by both TBI severity and concomitant ECI. The influence of ECI was restricted to mild TBI; GOSE, QOL, and depression outcomes were significantly poorer following moderate-to-severe TBI than after isolated mild TBI (but not relative to mild TBI plus ECI). Cognitive impairment was driven solely by TBI severity. General health, bodily pain, semantic verbal fluency, spatial recognition memory, working memory span, and attentional flexibility were unaffected by TBI severity and additional ECI. CONCLUSION: The presence of concomitant ECI ought to be considered alongside brain injury severity when characterizing the functional and neurocognitive effects of TBI, with each presenting challenges to recovery.Funding: This work was partially funded by a Medical Research Council (MRC, UK) Program Grant (Acute brain injury: heterogeneity of mechanisms, therapeutic targets and outcome effects [G9439390 ID 65883]), the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7-270259-TBIcare), the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Cambridge, the Technology Platform funding provided by the UK Department of Health and an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK) Pathways to Impact award. PJH was supported by the NIHR (Research Professorship and Cambridge BRC). JPP received funding from Academy of Finland – Grant #322381, Government’s Special Financial Transfer tied to academic research in Health Sciences (Finland), the Emil Aaltonen Foundation, the Finnish Brain Foundation and the Maire Taponen Foundation. BJS receives funding from the NIHR Brain Injury MedTech Co-operative, Cambridge and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (Mental Health Theme). DKM was supported by the NIHR through the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre grant and a Senior Investigator Award. VFJN was funded by a Health Foundation/Academy of Medical Sciences Clinician Scientist Fellowship. Acknowledgements: The NIHR/Wellcome Trust Cambridge Clinical Research Facility provided nursing support to aid in the patient recruitment and data collection within the Emergency Department