Danish translation and adaptation of the Context Assessment Index (CAI) with implications for evidence-based practice

Background: Healthcare contexts are rapidly changing with growing demand for health services to accommodate an ageing population and financial pressures. Assessment of context in healthcare set-tings has been the subject of increasing debate. The Context Assessment Index (CAI) examines three interconnected contextual elements derived from the PARIHS-Framework with the purpose of providing practitioners with an understanding of the context in which they work. Aims: 1: To describe the translation of the CAI into Danish and adapt the instrument for use in Danish hospitals. 2: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Danish version of the CAI. Methods: Translation and adaption included an expert panel and a translation/back-translation pro-cess. The CAI was then sent to 4416 nurses in the Region Zealand, Denmark. There are two alternative measurement models to explain the factor structure of the CAI, the five-factor model and the three-factor model. In order to provide the best explanation for the data both measurement models were examined using confirmatory factor analysis. Results: The CAI was translated and modified based on expert review and usability testing. 2261 nurses completed the CAI. For both models, factor loadings and fit statistics were acceptable, appropriate and statistically significant, and the measurement models were confirmed (5-factor model RMSEA 0.07, CFI=0.923; 3-factor model RMSEA 0.07, CFI=0.924). Cronbach alpha scores showed the models to have broadly acceptable scores (5-factor 0.64 – 0.89; 3-factor model 0.72 – 0.89). Linking Evidence to Action: The three-factor model can advantageously be used when the PARIHS framework is part of the project. In a translation process, differences in cultural specificity, language, and working environment have to be considered. By understanding the context of practice, nurses may enable person-centered care and improve patient outcomes.https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.1234716pubpub

A Stewardship Cost Perspective on the Governance of Delegation Relationships:The Case of Social Franchising

We explore how nonprofits can effectively govern delegation relationships. We extend stewardship theory by conceptualizing stewardship costs—costs in delegation relationships based on stewardship behavior. As stewards are theorized as other-regarding, self-actualizing, and intrinsically motivated, so far, literature almost exclusively points to the positive performance potential of stewardship behavior. Addressing this shortcoming, we develop propositions showing how stewardship selection costs rooted in the psychological characteristics of stewardship behavior and stewardship management costs rooted in situational factors of stewardship behavior occur during relationship formation and maintenance, and how they counteract the potential to increase performance. We identify and systematize opportunity costs of delayed growth, limited growth potential, and lost standardization gains, as well as increased selection and management costs. To demonstrate the theoretical potential and empirical relevance of our framework, we illustrate our arguments by referring to social franchising, a scaling strategy considered relevant for nonprofits as well as social enterprises

Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p<0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p<0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p<0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP >5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification

Using trained dogs and organic semi-conducting sensors to identify asymptomatic and mild SARS-CoV-2 infections: an observational study

Background A rapid, accurate, non-invasive diagnostic screen is needed to identify people with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We investigated whether organic semi-conducting (OSC) sensors and trained dogs could distinguish between people infected with asymptomatic or mild symptoms, and uninfected individuals, and the impact of screening at ports-of-entry. Methods Odour samples were collected from adults, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status confirmed using RT-PCR. OSC sensors captured the volatile organic compound (VOC) profile of odour samples. Trained dogs were tested in a double-blind trial to determine their ability to detect differences in VOCs between infected and uninfected individuals, with sensitivity and specificity as the primary outcome. Mathematical modelling was used to investigate the impact of bio-detection dogs for screening. Results About, 3921 adults were enrolled in the study and odour samples collected from 1097 SARS-CoV-2 infected and 2031 uninfected individuals. OSC sensors were able to distinguish between SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals and uninfected, with sensitivity from 98% (95% CI 95–100) to 100% and specificity from 99% (95% CI 97–100) to 100%. Six dogs were able to distinguish between samples with sensitivity ranging from 82% (95% CI 76–87) to 94% (95% CI 89–98) and specificity ranging from 76% (95% CI 70–82) to 92% (95% CI 88–96). Mathematical modelling suggests that dog screening plus a confirmatory PCR test could detect up to 89% of SARS-CoV-2 infections, averting up to 2.2 times as much transmission compared to isolation of symptomatic individuals only. Conclusions People infected with SARS-CoV-2, with asymptomatic or mild symptoms, have a distinct odour that can be identified by sensors and trained dogs with a high degree of accuracy. Odour-based diagnostics using sensors and/or dogs may prove a rapid and effective tool for screening large numbers of people

Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of COVID -19: coreporting of common outcomes from PAN-COVID and AAP-SONPM registries

Objective Few large cohort studies have reported data on maternal, fetal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection in pregnancy. We report the outcome of infected pregnancies from a collaboration formed early during the pandemic between the investigators of two registries, the UK and Global Pregnancy and Neonatal outcomes in COVID‐19 (PAN‐COVID) study and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Section on Neonatal–Perinatal Medicine (SONPM) National Perinatal COVID‐19 Registry. Methods This was an analysis of data from the PAN‐COVID registry (1 January to 25 July 2020), which includes pregnancies with suspected or confirmed maternal SARS‐CoV‐2 infection at any stage in pregnancy, and the AAP‐SONPM National Perinatal COVID‐19 registry (4 April to 8 August 2020), which includes pregnancies with positive maternal testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 from 14 days before delivery to 3 days after delivery. The registries collected data on maternal, fetal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes. The PAN‐COVID results are presented overall for pregnancies with suspected or confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and separately in those with confirmed infection. Results We report on 4005 pregnant women with suspected or confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (1606 from PAN‐COVID and 2399 from AAP‐SONPM). For obstetric outcomes, in PAN‐COVID overall and in those with confirmed infection in PAN‐COVID and AAP‐SONPM, respectively, maternal death occurred in 0.5%, 0.5% and 0.2% of cases, early neonatal death in 0.2%, 0.3% and 0.3% of cases and stillbirth in 0.5%, 0.6% and 0.4% of cases. Delivery was preterm (< 37 weeks' gestation) in 12.0% of all women in PAN‐COVID, in 16.1% of those women with confirmed infection in PAN‐COVID and in 15.7% of women in AAP‐SONPM. Extreme preterm delivery (< 27 weeks' gestation) occurred in 0.5% of cases in PAN‐COVID and 0.3% in AAP‐SONPM. Neonatal SARS‐CoV‐2 infection was reported in 0.9% of all deliveries in PAN‐COVID overall, in 2.0% in those with confirmed infection in PAN‐COVID and in 1.8% in AAP‐SONPM; the proportions of neonates tested were 9.5%, 20.7% and 87.2%, respectively. The rates of a small‐for‐gestational‐age (SGA) neonate were 8.2% in PAN‐COVID overall, 9.7% in those with confirmed infection and 9.6% in AAP‐SONPM. Mean gestational‐age‐adjusted birth‐weight Z‐scores were −0.03 in PAN‐COVID and −0.18 in AAP‐SONPM. Conclusions The findings from the UK and USA registries of pregnancies with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were remarkably concordant. Preterm delivery affected a higher proportion of women than expected based on historical and contemporaneous national data. The proportions of pregnancies affected by stillbirth, a SGA infant or early neonatal death were comparable to those in historical and contemporaneous UK and USA data. Although maternal death was uncommon, the rate was higher than expected based on UK and USA population data, which is likely explained by underascertainment of women affected by milder or asymptomatic infection in pregnancy in the PAN‐COVID study, although not in the AAP‐SONPM study. The data presented support strong guidance for enhanced precautions to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in pregnancy, particularly in the context of increased risks of preterm delivery and maternal mortality, and for priority vaccination of pregnant women and women planning pregnancy. Copyright © 2021 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd