Perinatal Excellence to Reduce Injury in Preterm Birth (PERIPrem) through Quality Improvement

Perinatal Excellence to Reduce Injury in Premature Birth (PERIPrem) is an 11-element perinatal care bundle designed to improve outcomes for preterm babies, in line with the National Health Service (NHS) Long Term plan. Designed in collaboration with 12 NHS Trusts (secondary care hospitals), South West and West of England Academic Health Science Networks, South West Neonatal Operational Delivery Network, parent partners and clinical experts, implementation was via bespoke quality improvement (QI) methodology. Before project initiation, there was regional variation in uptake of elements, evidenced by baseline audit. Optimisation of the preterm infant is complex; eligibility for treatments is dependent on gestation and local policies. Preterm infants experience variability in care dependent on the place of birth, and there remains an implementation gap for several effective, evidence-based treatments. The PERIPrem ambition is to reduce severe brain injury and death caused by prematurity by at least 50% through the delivery of a perinatal care bundle. The PERIPrem approach resulted in improved element implementation by 26% (from 3% to 29%) between 2019 and 2021, with dyads significantly more likely to receive the full bundle in 2021 compared with 2019 (probability=0.96 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.99), p<0.001). When examining the impact on psychological safety and team-working of PERIPrem, linear mixed models indicated an improvement in team function (p=0.021), situation monitoring (p=0.029) and communication within teams (p=0.002). Central to success was the development of a committed multiorganisational collaborative that continues to drive perinatal improvement using a common language and streamlining processes. In addition to saving the lives of the most vulnerable babies, PERIPrem aims to improve the chances of disability-free lives and is successfully nurturing high-functioning perinatal teams with enhanced QI skills

Patient-relevant outcomes following elective, aseptic revision knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

Abstract Background The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of revision knee arthroplasty (rKA) compared to non-operative treatment for the management of patients with elective, aseptic causes for a failed knee arthroplasty. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsychINFO were searched from inception to 1st December 2020 for studies on patients considering elective, aseptic rKA. Patient-relevant outcomes (PROs) were defined as implant survivorship, joint function, quality of life (QoL), complications and hospital admission impact. Results No studies compared elective, aseptic rKA to non-operative management. Forty uncontrolled studies reported on PROs following elective, aseptic rKA (434434 rKA). Pooled estimates for implant survivorship were: 95.5% (95% CI 93.2–97.7%) at 1 year [seven studies (5524 rKA)], 90.8% (95% CI 87.6–94.0%) at 5 years [13 studies (5754 rKA)], 87.4% (95% CI 81.7–93.1%) at 10 years [nine studies (2188 rKA)], and 83.2% (95% CI 76.7–89.7%) at 15 years [two studies (452 rKA)]. Twelve studies (2382 rKA) reported joint function and/or QoL: all found large improvements from baseline to follow-up. Mortality rates were low (0.16% to 2% within 1 year) [four studies (353064 rKA)]. Post-operative complications were common (9.1 to 37.2% at 90 days). Conclusion Higher-quality evidence is needed to support patients with decision-making in elective, aseptic rKA. This should include studies comparing operative and non-operative management. Implant survivorship following elective, aseptic rKA was ~ 96% at 1 year, ~ 91% at 5 years and ~ 87% at 10 years. Early complications were common after elective, aseptic rKA and the rates summarised here can be shared with patients during informed consent. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD4202019692

Political Control versus Bureaucratic Values: Reframing the Debate

The literature on political control of bureaucracy reveals that bureaucracies are highly responsive to political forces. This paper argues that the political control literature misses evidence from other academic literature that bears directly on this phenomenon. Specifically, researchers need to consider the values of the bureaucracy in any effort to assess the degree of political control. An empirical test is presented using a data set from public education. Results show bureaucratic values to be far more influential in explaining bureaucratic outputs and outcomes than political factors. These findings suggest that a reinterpretation of previous empirical research is urgently in order