Time, timing, talking and training : findings from an exploratory action research study to improve quality of end of life care for minority ethnic kidney patients

Background. With an ageing and increasingly diverse population at risk from rising levels of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, including kidney complications, there is a need to provide quality care at all stages in the care pathway including at the end of life and to all patients. Aim. This study purposively explored South Asian patients' experiences of kidney end of life care to understand how services can be delivered in a way that meets diverse patient needs. Methods. Within an action research design 14 focus groups (45 care providers) of kidney care providers discussed the recruitment and analysis of individual interviews with 16 South Asian kidney patients (eight men, eight women). Emergent themes from the focus groups were analysed thematically. The research took place at four UK centres providing kidney care to diverse populations: West London, Luton, Leicester and Bradford. Results. Key themes related to time and the timing of discussions about end of life care and the factors that place limitations on patients and providers in talking about end of life care. Lack of time and confidence of nurses in areas of kidney care, individual attitudes and workforce composition influence whether and how patients have access to end of life care through kidney services. Conclusion. Training, team work and time to discuss overarching issues (including timing and communication about end of life) with colleagues could support service providers to facilitate access and delivery of end of life care to this group of patients.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Exploring access to end of life care for ethnic minorities with end stage kidney disease through recruitment in action research

BACKGROUND: Variation in provision of palliative care in kidney services and practitioner concerns to provide equitable access led to the development of this study which focussed on the perspectives of South Asian patients and their care providers. As people with a South Asian background experience a higher risk of Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM) and end stage kidney failure (ESKF) compared to the majority population but wait longer for a transplant, there is a need for end of life care to be accessible for this group of patients. Furthermore because non English speakers and people at end of life are often excluded from research there is a dearth of research evidence with which to inform service improvement. This paper aims to explore issues relating to the process of recruitment of patients for a research project which contribute to our understanding of access to end of life care for ethnic minority patients in the kidney setting. METHODS: The study employed an action research methodology with interviews and focus groups to capture and reflect on the process of engaging with South Asian patients about end of life care. Researchers and kidney care clinicians on four NHS sites in the UK recruited South Asian patients with ESKF who were requiring end of life care to take part in individual interviews; and other clinicians who provided care to South Asian kidney patients at end of life to take part in focus groups exploring end of life care issues. In action research planning, action and evaluation are interlinked and data were analysed with emergent themes fed back to care providers through the research cycle. Reflections on the process of patient recruitment generated focus group discussions about access which were analysed thematically and reported here. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were recruited to interview and 45 different care providers took part in 14 focus groups across the sites. The process of recruiting patients to interview and subsequent focus group data highlighted some of the key issues concerning access to end of life care. These were: the identification of patients approaching end of life; and their awareness of end of life care; language barriers and informal carers' roles in mediating communication; and contrasting cultures in end of life kidney care. CONCLUSIONS: Reflection on the process of recruitment in this action research study provided insight into the complex scenario of end of life in kidney care. Some of the emerging issues such as the difficulty identifying patients are likely to be common across all patient groups, whilst others concerning language barriers and third party communication are more specific to ethnic minorities. A focus on South Asian ethnicity contributes to better understanding of patient perspectives and generic concepts as well as access to end of life kidney care for this group of patients in the UK. Action research was a useful methodology for achieving this and for informing future research to include informal carers and other ethnic groups.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Prevalence of adult ADHD in an all-female prison unit.

There is increasing evidence suggesting a link between ADHD and criminality, including a strong association between ADHD symptoms and the likelihood of being on probation or in prison. Most studies investigating the prevalence of ADHD in prison populations have focused on adult male offenders. In the current study, 69 female prisoners were screened for both childhood and adult ADHD symptoms using the Barkley Adult ADHD Rating Scale-IV. The results indicate that 41 % of the prisoners met the diagnostic criteria for ADHD in childhood and continued to meet criteria for ADHD as adults. More importantly, young female prisoners (aged 18-25) were significantly more likely to report symptoms of ADHD than older prisoners. Prisoners who reported symptoms of ADHD also reported high levels of impairment associated with these symptoms. A better understanding of the prevalence of ADHD in female prison units can highlight specific areas for intervention during rehabilitation, as well as the management of serious incidents within prison

Management of systemic sclerosis: British Society for Rheumatology guideline scope

This guideline will provide a practical roadmap for management of SSc that builds upon the previous treatment guideline to incorporate advances in evidence-based treatment and increased knowledge about assessment, classification and management. General approaches to management as well as treatment of specific complications will be covered, including lung, cardiac, renal and gastrointestinal tract disease, as well as RP, digital vasculopathy, skin manifestations, calcinosis and impact on quality of life. It will include guidance related to emerging approved therapies for interstitial lung disease and account for National Health Service England prescribing policies and national guidance relevant to SSc. The guideline will be developed using the methods and processes outlined in Creating Clinical Guidelines: Our Protocol. This development process to produce guidance, advice and recommendations for practice has National Institute for Health and Care Excellence accreditation

Taking Stock: Incompetent at incontinence – why are we ignoring the needs of incontinence sufferers?

How would you cope if you had no control over how you urinated or defecated and regularly or constantly leaked urine or faeces? How would this make you feel? How would you deal with the smell, with the indignity? What if you were a young teenager, traumatized by very stressful events and returned to bed-wetting as a result? And what would you do if you didn’t have the money to buy spare underwear or incontinence protection products or those are simply not available to you? Could you manage if you were suddenly displaced in an emergency and did not have access to a toilet, shower or bathing facilities, or your usual materials and coping mechanisms? What if you lived in a camp and your toilet or bathing shelter was a 5 minute walk away and had a long line in front of it? Would you be able to stand in line at food distribution or water collection points, go to school, or look for or undertake work

Management of systemic sclerosis: British Society for Rheumatology guideline scope

This guideline will provide a practical roadmap for management of SSc that builds upon the previous treatment guideline to incorporate advances in evidence-based treatment and increased knowledge about assessment, classification and management. General approaches to management as well as treatment of specific complications will be covered, including lung, cardiac, renal and gastrointestinal tract disease, as well as RP, digital vasculopathy, skin manifestations, calcinosis and impact on quality of life. It will include guidance related to emerging approved therapies for interstitial lung disease and account for National Health Service England prescribing policies and national guidance relevant to SSc. The guideline will be developed using the methods and processes outlined in Creating Clinical Guidelines: Our Protocol. This development process to produce guidance, advice and recommendations for practice has National Institute for Health and Care Excellence accreditation

IMPRoving Outcomes for children exposed to domestic ViolencE (IMPROVE): an evidence synthesis

BackgroundExposure to domestic violence and abuse (DVA) during childhood and adolescence increases the risk of negative outcomes across the lifespan.ObjectivesTo synthesise evidence on the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of interventions for children exposed to DVA, with the aim of making recommendations for further research.Design(1) A systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; (2) a systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; (3) a network meta-analysis (NMA) of controlled trials and cost-effectiveness analysis; (4) an overview of current UK provision of interventions; and (5) consultations with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.SettingsNorth America (11), the Netherlands (1) and Israel (1) for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; the USA (4) and the UK (1) for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; and the UK for the overview of current UK provision of interventions and consultations with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.ParticipantsA total of 1345 children for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; 100 children, 202 parents and 39 professionals for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; and 16 young people, six parents and 20 service providers and commissioners for the consultation with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.InterventionsPsychotherapeutic, advocacy, parenting skills and advocacy, psychoeducation, psychoeducation and advocacy, guided self-help.Main outcome measuresInternalising symptoms and externalising behaviour, mood, depression symptoms and diagnosis, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and self-esteem for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions and NMA; views about and experience of interventions for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions and consultations.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Citation Index, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Services Abstracts, Social Care Online, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, World Health Organization trials portal and clinicaltrials.gov.Review methodsA narrative review; a NMA and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis; and a qualitative synthesis.ResultsThe evidence base on targeted interventions was small, with limited settings and types of interventions; children were mostly &lt; 14 years of age, and there was an absence of comparative studies. The interventions evaluated in trials were mostly psychotherapeutic and psychoeducational interventions delivered to the non-abusive parent and child, usually based on the child’s exposure to DVA (not specific clinical or broader social needs). Qualitative studies largely focused on psychoeducational interventions, some of which included the abusive parent. The evidence for clinical effectiveness was as follows: 11 trials reported improvements in behavioural or mental health outcomes, with modest effect sizes but significant heterogeneity and high or unclear risk of bias. Psychoeducational group-based interventions delivered to the child were found to be more effective for improving mental health outcomes than other types of intervention. Interventions delivered to (non-abusive) parents and to children were most likely to be effective for improving behavioural outcomes. However, there is a large degree of uncertainty around comparisons, particularly with regard to mental health outcomes. In terms of evidence of cost-effectiveness, there were no economic studies of interventions. Cost-effectiveness was modelled on the basis of the NMA, estimating differences between types of interventions. The outcomes measured in trials were largely confined to children’s mental health and behavioural symptoms and disorders, although stakeholders’ concepts of success were broader, suggesting that a broader range of outcomes should be measured in trials. Group-based psychoeducational interventions delivered to children and non-abusive parents in parallel were largely acceptable to all stakeholders. There is limited evidence for the acceptability of other types of intervention. In terms of the UK evidence base and service delivery landscape, there were no UK-based trials, few qualitative studies and little widespread service evaluation. Most programmes are group-based psychoeducational interventions. However, the funding crisis in the DVA sector is significantly undermining programme delivery.ConclusionsThe evidence base regarding the acceptability, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for children exposed to DVA is underdeveloped. There is an urgent need for more high-quality studies, particularly trials, that are designed to produce actionable, generalisable findings that can be implemented in real-world settings and that can inform decisions about which interventions to commission and scale. We suggest that there is a need to pause the development of new interventions and to focus on the systematic evaluation of existing programmes. With regard to the UK, we have identified three types of programme that could be justifiably prioritised for further study: psycho-education delivered to mothers and children, or children alone; parent skills training in combination with advocacy: and interventions involving the abusive parent/caregiver. We also suggest that there is need for key stakeholders to come together to explicitly identify and address the structural, practical and cultural barriers that may have hampered the development of the UK evidence base to date.Future work recommendationsThere is a need for well-designed, well-conducted and well-reported UK-based randomised controlled trials with cost-effectiveness analyses and nested qualitative studies. Development of consensus in the field about core outcome data sets is required. There is a need for further exploration of the acceptability and effectiveness of interventions for specific groups of children and young people (i.e. based on ethnicity, age, trauma exposure and clinical profile). There is also a need for an investigation of the context in which interventions are delivered, including organisational setting and the broader community context, and the evaluation of qualities, qualifications and disciplines of personnel delivering interventions. We recommend prioritisation of psychoeducational interventions and parent skills training delivered in combination with advocacy in the next phase of trials, and exploratory trials of interventions that engage both the abusive and the non-abusive parent.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004348 and PROSPERO CRD420130043489.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.</jats:sec