Improving information management in primary care: the proof is in the pudding

Generalists in both the USA and UK have been at the forefront of improving information management skills, defined here as the abilities required to locate and utilise synthesised information for patient care that is accessible, current, relevant and valid.1 Over the past decade, a variety of interventions designed to improve knowledge and skills relative to information management has been implemented. The goals of training are for learners to demonstrate long-term retention of knowledge and skills gained and to be able to transfer this learning from the context of training into different situations and contexts, such as those encountered in the workplace. Thus, to conclude that learning has taken place, it is essential to study performance after learners have acquired knowledge and skills to see how well those have been retained and generalised. The current study builds on previous work conducted by the authors that described and evaluated an intervention designed to improve information management knowledge, skills and use of Web based resources by participants from generalist primary care practices. This cross-over study found that both groups of participants - those who received training initially and those who received training later - showed the same improvements when assessed 15 months and three months, respectively, after training. Given the definition of learning as 'relatively permanent', we wondered if these improvements would last. Participants in the original three phases of the study completed questionnaires during each phase; for the current study they were asked to complete a fourth questionnaire administered 27 and 15 months, respectively, after their original training. All variables showed non-significant differences between participants' scores at the end of the original study, where learning was assessed as having occurred, and the current administration of the questionnaire. Demonstrated long-term retention of knowledge and skills and generalisation to the workplace show that the goals of training have been met

Advance care planning in cystic fibrosis: Current practices, challenges, and opportunities

AbstractBackgroundStudies in cystic fibrosis (CF) report late attention to advance care planning (ACP). The purpose of this study was to examine ACP with patients receiving care at US adult CF care programs.MethodsChart abstraction was used to examine ACP with adults with CF dying from respiratory failure between 2011 and 2013.ResultsWe reviewed 210 deaths among 67 CF care programs. Median age at death was 29years (range 18–73). Median FEV1 in the year preceding death was 33% predicted (range 13–100%); 68% had severe lung disease with FEV1p=pp=0.55). The frequency of ACP varied significantly among the 29 programs contributing data from four or more deaths.ConclusionsACP in CF often occurs late in the disease course. Important decisions default to surrogates when opportunities for ACP are missed. Provision of ACP varies significantly among adult CF care programs. Careful evaluation of opportunities to enhance ACP and implementation of recommended approaches may lead to better practices in this important aspect of CF care

Patient focused registries can improve health, care, and science.

Eugene Nelson and colleagues call for registries of care data to be transformed into patient centred interactive learning systemsThis work is supported by funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Grants: #71211 and 72313), the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (Grant #OCONNO04Q10), and the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America Quality of Care Initiative (Grant #3372). TSM was funded by the Multidisciplinary Clinical Research Center for Musculoskeletal Diseases at Dartmouth (P60 AR-062799, A. Tosteson, PI), sponsored by the National Institute for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. EE was funded by The Swedish Research Council for Health, Work Life and Welfare (#2014-4238). MDW is supported by a Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator award (WT09789).This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BMJ Group via https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i331

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Introduction Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies. Methods We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women. Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection—as compared with uninfected pregnant women—were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12). Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias. Conclusions This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies. METHODS We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection-as compared with uninfected pregnant women-were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol