Does radiography advanced practice improve patient outcomes and health service quality? A systematic review

yesObjectives To investigate the impact of radiographer advanced practice on patient outcomes and health service quality. Methods Using the World Health Organisation definition of quality, this review followed the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. A range of databases were searched using a defined search strategy. Included studies were assessed for quality using a tool specifically developed for reviewing studies of diverse designs and data were systematically extracted using electronic data extraction proforma. Results 407 articles were identified and reviewed against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Nine studies were included in the final review, the majority (n=7) focussing on advanced radiography practice within the UK. Advanced practice activities considered were radiographer reporting, leading patient review clinics and barium enema examinations. The papers were generally considered to be of low to moderate quality with most evaluating advanced practice within a single centre. With respect to specific quality dimensions, included studies considered cost reduction, patient morbidity, time to treatment and patient satisfaction. No papers reported data relating to time to diagnosis, time to recovery or patient mortality. Conclusions Radiographer advanced practice is an established activity both in the UK and internationally. However, evidence of the impact of advanced practice in terms of patient outcomes and service quality is limited. Advances in knowledge This systematic review is the first to examine the evidence base surrounding advanced radiography practice and its impact on patient outcomes and health service quality. Powered b

Sleep quality, the neglected outcome variable in clinical studies focusing on locomotor system; a construct validation study

Background: In addition to general health and pain, sleep is highly relevant to judging the well-being of an individual. Of these three important outcome variables, however, sleep is neglected in most outcome studies. Sleep is a very important resource for recovery from daily stresses and strains, and any alteration of sleep will likely affect mental and physical health, especially during disease. Sleep assessment therefore should be standard in all population-based or clinical studies focusing on the locomotor system. Yet current sleep assessment tools are either too long or too specific for general use. Methods: Based on a literature review and subsequent patient-based rating of items, an expert panel designed a four-item questionnaire about sleep. Construct validation of the questionnaire in a random sample of the German-speaking Swiss population was performed in 2003. Reliability, correlation, and tests for internal consistency and validity were analyzed. Results: Overall, 16,634 (70%) out of 23,763 eligible individuals participated in the study. Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.72 to 0.87, and a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83 indicates good internal consistency. Results show a moderate to good correlation between sleep disturbances and health perception, and between sleep disturbances and overall pain. Conclusions: The Sleep Standard Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ-Sleep) is a reliable and short tool with confirmed construct validity for sleep assessment in population-based observational studies. It is easy to administer and therefore suitable for postal surveys of the general population. Criterion validity remains to be determined

Dementia and Physical Activity (DAPA) - an exercise intervention to improve cognition in people with mild to moderate dementia: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Dementia is more common in older than in younger people, and as a result of the ageing of the population in developed countries, it is becoming more prevalent. Drug treatments for dementia are limited, and the main support offered to people with dementia and their families is generally services to mitigate against loss of function. Physical exercise is a candidate non-pharmacological treatment for dementia. Methods/Design: DAPA is a randomised controlled trial funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme to estimate the effect of a 4-month, moderate- to hard-intensity exercise training programme and subsequent advice to remain active, on cognition (primary outcome) at 12 months in people with mild to moderate dementia. Community-dwelling participants (with their carers where possible), who are able to walk 3 metres without human assistance, able to undertake an exercise programme and do not have any unstable or terminal illness are recruited. Participants are then randomised by an independent statistician using a computerised random number generator to usual care or exercise at a 2:1 ratio in favour of exercise. The exercise intervention comprises 29, 1-hour-long exercise classes, run twice weekly at suitable venues such as leisure centres, which include aerobic exercise (on static bikes) and resistance exercise (using weights). Goals for independent exercise are set while the classes are still running, and supported thereafter with phone calls. The primary outcome is measured using ADAS-cog. Secondary outcome measures include behavioural symptoms, functional ability, quality of life and carer burden. Primary and secondary outcomes will be measured at baseline and at 6 and 12 months after randomisation, by researchers masked to participant randomisation in the participants' own homes. An economic evaluation will be carried out in parallel to the RCT, as will a qualitative study capturing the experiences of participants, carers and staff delivering the intervention. Discussion: The DAPA study will be the first large, randomised trial of the cognitive effects of exercise on people with dementia. The intervention is designed to be capable of being delivered within the constraints of NHS service provision, and the economic evaluation will allow assessment of its cost-effectiveness. Trial registration: DAPA was registered with the ISRCTN database on 29 July 2011, registration number ISRCTN32612072. © 2016 Atherton et al

Study design and methods of the BoTULS trial: a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical effect and cost effectiveness of treating upper limb spasticity due to stroke with botulinum toxin type A

Background Following a stroke, 55–75% of patients experience upper limb problems in the longer term. Upper limb spasticity may cause pain, deformity and reduced function, affecting mood and independence. Botulinum toxin is used increasingly to treat focal spasticity, but its impact on upper limb function after stroke is unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of botulinum toxin type A plus an upper limb therapy programme in the treatment of post stroke upper limb spasticity. Methods Trial design : A multi-centre open label parallel group randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Participants : Adults with upper limb spasticity at the shoulder, elbow, wrist or hand and reduced upper limb function due to stroke more than 1 month previously. Interventions : Botulinum toxin type A plus upper limb therapy (intervention group) or upper limb therapy alone (control group). Outcomes : Outcome assessments are undertaken at 1, 3 and 12 months. The primary outcome is upper limb function one month after study entry measured by the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Secondary outcomes include: spasticity (Modified Ashworth Scale); grip strength; dexterity (Nine Hole Peg Test); disability (Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index); quality of life (Stroke Impact Scale, Euroqol EQ-5D) and attainment of patient-selected goals (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure). Health and social services resource use, adverse events, use of other antispasticity treatments and patient views on the treatment will be compared. Participants are clinically reassessed at 3, 6 and 9 months to determine the need for repeat botulinum toxin type A and/or therapy. Randomisation : A web based central independent randomisation service. Blinding : Outcome assessments are undertaken by an assessor who is blinded to the randomisation group. Sample size : 332 participants provide 80% power to detect a 15% difference in treatment successes between intervention and control groups. Treatment success is defined as improvement of 3 points for those with a baseline ARAT of 0–3 and 6 points for those with ARAT of 4–56

Antibiotics and antiseptics for pressure ulcers

Background: Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. A range of treatments with antimicrobial properties, including impregnated dressings, are widely used in the treatment of pressure ulcers. A clear and current overview is required to facilitate decision making regarding use of antiseptic or antibiotic therapies in the treatment of pressure ulcers. This review is one of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the use of antiseptics and antibiotics in different types of wounds. It also forms part of a suite of reviews investigating the use of different types of dressings and topical treatments in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Objectives: To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics, and topical antiseptics on the healing of infected and uninfected pressure ulcers being treated in any clinical setting. Search methods: In October 2015 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid EMBASE, and EBSCOCINAHL Plus.We also searched three clinical trials registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials which enrolled adults with pressure ulcers of stage II or above were included in the review. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Main results: We included 12 trials (576 participants); 11 had two arms and one had three arms. All assessed topical agents, none looked at systemic antibiotics. The included trials assessed the following antimicrobial agents: povidone iodine, cadexomer iodine, gentian violet, lysozyme, silver dressings, honey, pine resin, polyhexanide, silver sulfadiazine, and nitrofurazone with ethoxy-diaminoacridine. Comparators included a range of other dressings and ointments without antimicrobial properties and alternative antimicrobials. Each comparison had only one trial, participant numbers were low and follow-up times short. The evidence varied from moderate to very low quality. Six trials reported the primary outcome of wound healing. All except one compared an antiseptic with a non-antimicrobial comparator. There was some moderate and low quality evidence that fewer ulcers may heal in the short term when treated with povidone iodine compared with non-antimicrobial alternatives (protease-modulating dressings (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.98) and hydrogel (RR 0.64, 95%CI 0.43 to 0.97)); and no clear difference between povidone iodine and a third non-antimicrobial treatment (hydrocolloid) (low quality evidence). Pine resin salve may heal more pressure ulcers than hydrocolloid (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.05) (low quality evidence). There is no clear difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care, and between honey a combined antiseptic and antibiotic treatment (very low quality evidence). Six trials reported adverse events (primary safety outcome). Four reported no adverse events; there was very low quality evidence from one showing no clear evidence of a difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care; in one trial it was not clear whether data were appropriately reported. There was limited reporting of secondary outcomes. The five trials that reported change in wound size as a continuous outcome did not report any clear evidence favouring any particular antiseptic/anti-microbial treatments. For bacterial resistance, one trial found some evidence of more MRSA eradication in participants with ulcer treated with a polyhexanide dressing compared with a polyhexanideswab (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.13); patients in the dressing group also reported less pain (MD −2.03, 95% CI −2.66 to −1.40). There was no clear evidence of a difference between interventions in infection resolution in three other comparisons. Evidence for secondary outcomes varied from moderate to very low quality; where no GRADE assessment was possible we identified substantial limitations which an assessment would have taken into account. Authors’ conclusions: The relative effects of systemic and topical antimicrobial treatments on pressure ulcers are not clear. Where differences in wound healing were found, these sometimes favoured the comparator treatment without antimicrobial properties. The trials are small, clinically heterogenous, generally of short duration, and at high or unclear risk of bias. The quality of the evidence ranges from moderate to very low; evidence on all comparisons was subject to some limitations