The design and implementation of an obstetric triage system for unscheduled pregnancy related attendances: a mixed methods evaluation

Abstract Background No standardised system of triage exists in Maternity Care and local audit identified this to be problematic. We designed, implemented and evaluated an Obstetric Triage System in a large UK maternity unit. This includes a standard clinical triage assessment by a midwife, within 15 min of attendance, leading to assignment to a category of clinical urgency (on a 4-category scale). This guides timing of subsequent standardised immediate care for the eight most common reasons for attendance. A training programme was integral to the introduction. Methods A mixed methods evaluation was conducted. A structured audit of 994 sets of maternity notes before and after implementation identified the number of women seen within 15 min of attendance. Secondary measures reviewed included time to subsequent care and attendance. An inter-operator reliability study using scenarios was completed by midwives. A focus group and two questionnaire studies were undertaken to explore midwives’ views of the system and to evaluate the training. In addition a national postal survey of practice in UK maternity units was undertaken in 2015. Results The structured audit of 974/992 (98%) of notes demonstrated an increase in the number of women seen within 15 min of attendance from 39% before implementation to 54% afterwards (RR (95% CI) 1.4 (1.2, 1.7) p = <0.0001). Excellent inter-operator reliability (ICC 0.961 (95% CI 0.91–0.99)) was demonstrated with breakdown showing consistently good rates. Thematic analysis of focus group data (n = 12) informed the development of the questionnaire which was sent to all appropriate midwives. The response rate was 53/79 (67%) and the midwives reported that the new system helped them manage the department and improved safety. The National Survey (response rate 85/135 [63%]) demonstrated wide variation in where women are seen and staffing models in place. The majority of units 69/85 (81%) did not use a triage system based on clinical assessment to prioritise care. Conclusions This obstetric triage system has excellent inter- operator reliability and appears to be a reliable way of assessing the clinical priority of women as well as improving organisation of the department. Our survey has demonstrated the widespread need for implementation of such a system

Improving the quality and content of midwives’ discussions with low-risk women about their options for place of birth: Co-production and evaluation of an intervention package

Objective: Women's planned place of birth is gaining increasing importance in the UK, however evidence suggests that there is variation in the content of community midwives’ discussions with low risk women about their place of birth options. The objective of this study was to develop an intervention to improve the quality and content of place of birth discussions between midwives and low-risk women and to evaluate this intervention in practice. Design: The study design comprised of three stages: (1) The first stage included focus groups with midwives to explore the barriers to carrying out place of birth discussions with women. (2) In the second stage, COM-B theory provided a structure for co-produced intervention development with midwives and women representatives; priority areas for change were agreed and the components of an intervention package to standardise the quality of these discussions were decided. (3) The third stage of the study adopted a mixed methods approach including questionnaires, focus groups and interviews with midwives to evaluate the implementation of the co-produced package in practice. Setting: A maternity NHS Trust in the West Midlands, UK. Participants: A total of 38 midwives took part in the first stage of the study. Intervention design (stage 2) included 58 midwives, and the evaluation (stage 3) involved 66 midwives. Four women were involved in the intervention design stage of the study in a Patient and Public Involvement role (not formally consented as participants). Findings: In the first study stage participants agreed that pragmatic, standardised information on the safety, intervention and transfer rates for each birth setting (obstetric unit, midwifery-led unit, home) was required. In the second stage of the study, co-production between researchers, women and midwives resulted in an intervention package designed to support the implementation of these changes and included an update session for midwives, a script, a leaflet, and ongoing support through a named lead midwife and regular team meetings. Evaluation of this package in practice revealed that midwives’ knowledge and confidence regarding place of birth substantially improved after the initial update session and was sustained three months post-implementation. Midwives viewed the resources as useful in prompting discussions and aiding communication about place of birth options. Key conclusions and implications for practice: Co-production enabled development of a pragmatic intervention to improve the quality of midwives’ place of birth discussions with low-risk women, supported by COM-B theory. These findings highlight the importance of co-production in intervention development and suggest that the place of birth package could be used to improve place of birth discussions to facilitate informed choice at other Trusts across the UK

The STAR trial protocol: a randomised multi-stage phase II/III study of Sunitinib comparing temporary cessation with allowing continuation, at the time of maximal radiological response, in the first-line treatment of locally advanced/ metastatic Renal Can

Abstract Background: Over recent years a number of novel therapies have shown promise in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Internationally the standard of care of first-line therapy is sunitinib™, after a clear survival benefit was demonstrated over interferon-α. Convention dictates that sunitinib is continued until evidence of disease progression, assuming tolerability, although there is no evidence that this approach is superior to intermittent periods of treatment. The purpose of the STAR trial is to compare the standard treatment strategy (conventional continuation strategy, CCS) with a novel drug free interval strategy (DFIS) which includes planned treatment breaks

Ethnic and socioeconomic variation in incidence of congenital heart defects

Introduction: Ethnic differences in the birth prevalence of congenital heart defects (CHDs) have been reported; however, studies of the contemporary UK population are lacking. We investigated ethnic variations in incidence of serious CHDs requiring cardiac intervention before 1 year of age. Methods: All infants who had a cardiac intervention in England and Wales between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2010 were identified in the national congenital heart disease surgical audit and matched with paediatric intensive care admission records to create linked individual child records. Agreement in reporting of ethnic group by each audit was evaluated. For infants born 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2009, we calculated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for CHDs by ethnicity and investigated age at intervention, antenatal diagnosis and area deprivation. Results: We identified 5350 infants (2940 (55.0%) boys). Overall CHD incidence was significantly higher in Asian and Black ethnic groups compared with the White reference population (incidence rate ratios (IRR) (95% CIs): Asian 1.5 (1.4 to 1.7); Black 1.4 (1.3 to 1.6)); incidence of specific CHDs varied by ethnicity. No significant differences in age at intervention or antenatal diagnosis rates were identified but affected children from non-White ethnic groups were more likely to be living in deprived areas than White children. Conclusions: Significant ethnic variations exist in the incidence of CHDs, including for specific defects with high infant mortality. It is essential that healthcare provision mitigates ethnic disparity, including through timely identification of CHDs at screening, supporting parental choice and effective interventions. Future research should explore the factors underlying ethnic variation and impact on longer-term outcomes

Report of the CCFA Pediatric Bone, Growth and Muscle Health Workshop, New York City, November 11-12, 2011, With Updates

Growth retardation, delayed puberty, decreased bone mass, altered bone architecture, hypovitaminosis D and skeletal muscle mass deficits are common in children with inflammatory bowel diseases. The Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America sponsored a multidisciplinary workshop on the subject of Bone and Skeletal Growth in Pediatric IBD, held in New York City in November 2011. The topic of the workshop was a key recommendation of the Foundation's Pediatric Challenges meeting in 2005. The Litwin Foundation provided a generous grant to support this crucial research and workshop through the CCFA. The workshop featured 15 presentations by researchers from the United States, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, and the United Kingdom and a number of posters elucidating diverse aspects of the problem of growth retardation and compromised bone health in pediatric Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. The workshop comprised original, basic, and clinical research and relevant reviews of underlying genetics, molecular biology, endocrinology, immunology, and bone physiology research. Investigators funded by CCFA and the Litwin Family Foundation are marked by an asterisk after their name in the text. Workshop presentations fell under 3 broad categories: Mechanisms of Suppression and Growth of Bone Cell Function by Inflammation, Impact of IBD on Growth and Bone Health, and Approaches to Address Growth Failure and Low Bone Mass in Children with IBD, summarized herein. We have cited the publications that resulted from this granting mechanism in the appropriate section and references for pertinent updates on each topic

Compassionate use of new drugs in children and adolescents with multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: early experiences and challenges

N

Evaluating expert-based habitat suitability information of terrestrial mammals with GPS-tracking data

Aim Macroecological studies that require habitat suitability data for many species often derive this information from expert opinion. However, expert-based information is inherently subjective and thus prone to errors. The increasing availability of GPS tracking data offers opportunities to evaluate and supplement expert-based information with detailed empirical evidence. Here, we compared expert-based habitat suitability information from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with habitat suitability information derived from GPS-tracking data of 1,498 individuals from 49 mammal species. Location Worldwide. Time period 1998-2021. Major taxa studied Forty-nine terrestrial mammal species. Methods Using GPS data, we estimated two measures of habitat suitability for each individual animal: proportional habitat use (proportion of GPS locations within a habitat type), and selection ratio (habitat use relative to its availability). For each individual we then evaluated whether the GPS-based habitat suitability measures were in agreement with the IUCN data. To that end, we calculated the probability that the ranking of empirical habitat suitability measures was in agreement with IUCN's classification into suitable, marginal and unsuitable habitat types. Results IUCN habitat suitability data were in accordance with the GPS data (> 95% probability of agreement) for 33 out of 49 species based on proportional habitat use estimates and for 25 out of 49 species based on selection ratios. In addition, 37 and 34 species had a > 50% probability of agreement based on proportional habitat use and selection ratios, respectively. Main conclusions We show how GPS-tracking data can be used to evaluate IUCN habitat suitability data. Our findings indicate that for the majority of species included in this study, it is appropriate to use IUCN habitat suitability data in macroecological studies. Furthermore, we show that GPS-tracking data can be used to identify and prioritize species and habitat types for re-evaluation of IUCN habitat suitability data

Safety of Treatment Regimens Containing Bedaquiline and Delamanid in the endTB Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Safety of treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB) can be an obstacle to treatment completion. Evaluate safety of longer MDR/RR-TB regimens containing bedaquiline and/or delamanid. METHODS: Multicentre (16 countries), prospective, observational study reporting incidence and frequency of clinically relevant adverse events of special interest (AESIs) among patients who received MDR/RR-TB treatment containing bedaquiline and/or delamanid. The AESIs were defined a priori as important events caused by bedaquiline, delamanid, linezolid, injectables, and other commonly used drugs. Occurrence of these events was also reported by exposure to the likely causative agent. RESULTS: Among 2296 patients, the most common clinically relevant AESIs were peripheral neuropathy (26.4%), electrolyte depletion (26.0%), and hearing loss (13.2%) with an incidence per 1000 person months of treatment, 1000 person-months of treatment 21.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 19.8-23.2), 20.7 (95% CI: 19.1-22.4), and 9.7 (95% CI: 8.6-10.8), respectively. QT interval was prolonged in 2.7% or 1.8 (95% CI: 1.4-2.3)/1000 person-months of treatment. Patients receiving injectables (N = 925) and linezolid (N = 1826) were most likely to experience events during exposure. Hearing loss, acute renal failure, or electrolyte depletion occurred in 36.8% or 72.8 (95% CI: 66.0-80.0) times/1000 person-months of injectable drug exposure. Peripheral neuropathy, optic neuritis, and/or myelosuppression occurred in 27.8% or 22.8 (95% CI: 20.9-24.8) times/1000 patient-months of linezolid exposure. CONCLUSIONS: AEs often related to linezolid and injectable drugs were more common than those frequently attributed to bedaquiline and delamanid. MDR-TB treatment monitoring and drug durations should reflect expected safety profiles of drug combinations. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02754765