Extreme stress events in a forensic hospital setting: prevalence, impact, and protective factors in staff

The current research explored the prevalence of stressful events in a forensic hospital setting, and their impact on staff. A systematic review of the literature on responses following exposure to extreme stress comprised 46 articles. This was followed by a Delphi study of professionals based in a forensic hospital (n = 43) to explore views on the factors that affect responses to extreme stress. This comprised three rounds to build consensus. Finally, a study of forensic hospital staff was conducted (n = 153, 47% male) to capture current trauma symptoms. The systematic review indicated three superordinate themes: outcomes adversely impacting staff and patients; personal characteristics moderating the impact of events; and organisational and interpersonal support moderating the impact of events. The Delphi supported these themes and noted the importance of factors external to the workplace and internal factors, such as self-blame. The final study demonstrated how a fifth of the workforce showed at least some trauma symptomology. Those who experienced less burnout reported lower trauma symptoms, while staff who experienced higher levels of secondary trauma at work reported higher levels of trauma symptoms. A higher level of resilience was related to lower levels of trauma symptomology. Findings are discussed in relation to the importance of recognising trauma in staff and implementing strategies to reduce and/or buffer the impact of stress on wellbeing. In doing so, the research presents a new model for consideration and development, the Impact and Amelioration of extreme stress events Model (IA-Model)

Toxicity and patient-reported outcomes of a phase 2 randomized trial of prostate and pelvic lymph node versus prostate only radiotherapy in advanced localised prostate cancer (PIVOTAL)

Purpose To establish the toxicity profile of high-dose pelvic lymph node intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to assess whether it is safely deliverable at multiple centers. Methods and Materials In this phase 2 noncomparative multicenter trial, 124 patients with locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer were randomized between prostate-only IMRT (PO) (74 Gy/37 fractions) and prostate and pelvic lymph node IMRT (P&P; 74 Gy/37 fractions to prostate, 60 Gy/37 fractions to pelvis). The primary endpoint was acute lower gastrointestinal (GI) Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity at week 18, aiming to exclude a grade 2 or greater (G2+) toxicity-free rate of 80% in the P&P group. Key secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes and late toxicity. Results One hundred twenty-four participants were randomized (62 PO, 62 P&P) from May 2011 to March 2013. Median follow-up was 37.6 months (interquartile range [IQR], 35.4-38.9 months). Participants had a median age of 69 years (IQR, 64-74 years) and median diagnostic prostate-specific androgen level of 21.6 ng/mL (IQR, 11.8-35.1 ng/mL). At week 18, G2+ lower GI toxicity-free rates were 59 of 61 (96.7%; 90% confidence interval [CI], 90.0-99.4) for the PO group and 59 of 62 (95.2%; 90% CI, 88.0-98.7) for the P&P group. Patients in both groups reported similarly low Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire symptoms and Vaizey incontinence scores. The largest difference occurred at week 6 with 4 of 61 (7%) and 16 of 61 (26%) PO and P&P patients, respectively, experiencing G2+ toxicity. At 2 years, the cumulative proportion of RTOG G2+ GI toxicity was 16.9% (95% CI, 8.9%-30.9%) for the PO group and 24.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-57.9%) for the P&P group; in addition, RTOG G2+ bladder toxicity was 5.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-14.9%) for the PO group and 5.6% (95% CI, 1.8%-16.7%) for the P&P group. Conclusions PIVOTAL demonstrated that high-dose pelvic lymph node IMRT can be delivered at multiple centers with a modest side effect profile. Although safety data from the present study are encouraging, the impact of P&P IMRT on disease control remains to be established

Seven features of safety in maternity units: a framework based on multisite ethnography and stakeholder consultation

Background: Reducing avoidable harm in maternity services is a priority globally. As well as learning from mistakes, it is important to produce rigorous descriptions of ‘what good looks like’. Objective: We aimed to characterise features of safety in maternity units and to generate a plain language framework that could be used to guide learning and improvement. Methods: We conducted a multisite ethnography involving 401 hours of non-participant observations 33 semistructured interviews with staff across six maternity units, and a stakeholder consultation involving 65 semistructured telephone interviews and one focus group. Results: We identified seven features of safety in maternity units and summarised them into a framework, named For Us (For Unit Safety). The features include: (1) commitment to safety and improvement at all levels, with everyone involved; (2) technical competence, supported by formal training and informal learning; (3) teamwork, cooperation and positive working relationships; (4) constant reinforcing of safe, ethical and respectful behaviours; (5) multiple problem-sensing systems, used as basis of action; (6) systems and processes designed for safety, and regularly reviewed and optimised; (7) effective coordination and ability to mobilise quickly. These features appear to have a synergistic character, such that each feature is necessary but not sufficient on its own: the features operate in concert through multiple forms of feedback and amplification. Conclusions: This large qualitative study has enabled the generation of a new plain language framework—For Us—that identifies the behaviours and practices that appear to be features of safe care in hospital-based maternity units

Validity and reliability of telephone administration of the patient-specific functional scale for the assessment of recovery from snakebite envenomation

Objectives: Although more than 1.8 million people survive snakebite envenomation each year, their recovery is understudied. Obtaining long-term follow-up is challenging in both high- and low-resource settings. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) is an easily administered, well-accepted patient-reported outcome that is validated for assessing limb recovery from snakebite envenomation. We studied whether the PSFS is valid and reliable when administered by telephone. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial. We analyzed the results of PSFS collected in-person on days 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 and by telephone on days 10, 17, and 24. We assessed the following scale psychometric properties: (a) content validity (ceiling and floor effects), (b) internal structure and consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), and (c) temporal and external validity using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Temporal stability was assessed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient and agreement between adjacent in-person and telephonic assessments with Cohen’s kappa. Bland Altman analysis was used to assess differential bias in low and high score results. Results: Data from 74 patients were available for analysis. Floor effects were seen in the early post-injury time points (median: 3 (IQR: 0, 5) at 3 days post-enrollment) and ceiling effects in the late time points (median: 9 (IQR: 8, 10). Internal consistency was good to excellent with both in-person (Cronbach α: 0.91 (95%CI 0.88, 0.95)) and telephone administration (0.81 (0.73, 0.89). Temporal stability was also good (ICC: 0.83 (0.72, 0.89) in-person, 0.80 (0.68, 0.88) telephone). A strong linear correlation was found between in-person and telephone administration (Spearman’s �: 0.83 (CI: 0.78, 0.84), consistency was assessed as excellent (Cohen’s κ 0.81 (CI: 0.78, 0.84), and Bland Altman analysis showed no systematic bias. Conclusions: Telephone administration of the PSFS provides valid, reliable, and consistent data for the assessment of recovery from snakebite envenomation

LEARN: A multi-centre, cross-sectional evaluation of Urology teaching in UK medical schools

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the status of UK undergraduate urology teaching against the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Undergraduate Syllabus for Urology. Secondary objectives included evaluating the type and quantity of teaching provided, the reported performance rate of General Medical Council (GMC)-mandated urological procedures, and the proportion of undergraduates considering urology as a career. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LEARN was a national multicentre cross-sectional study. Year 2 to Year 5 medical students and FY1 doctors were invited to complete a survey between 3rd October and 20th December 2020, retrospectively assessing the urology teaching received to date. Results are reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). RESULTS: 7,063/8,346 (84.6%) responses from all 39 UK medical schools were included; 1,127/7,063 (16.0%) were from Foundation Year (FY) 1 doctors, who reported that the most frequently taught topics in undergraduate training were on urinary tract infection (96.5%), acute kidney injury (95.9%) and haematuria (94.4%). The most infrequently taught topics were male urinary incontinence (59.4%), male infertility (52.4%) and erectile dysfunction (43.8%). Male and female catheterisation on patients as undergraduates was performed by 92.1% and 73.0% of FY1 doctors respectively, and 16.9% had considered a career in urology. Theory based teaching was mainly prevalent in the early years of medical school, with clinical skills teaching, and clinical placements in the later years of medical school. 20.1% of FY1 doctors reported no undergraduate clinical attachment in urology. CONCLUSION: LEARN is the largest ever evaluation of undergraduate urology teaching. In the UK, teaching seemed satisfactory as evaluated by the BAUS undergraduate syllabus. However, many students report having no clinical attachments in Urology and some newly qualified doctors report never having inserted a catheter, which is a GMC mandated requirement. We recommend a greater emphasis on undergraduate clinical exposure to urology and stricter adherence to GMC mandated procedures

Quantifying neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 in dried blood spots (DBS) and paired sera

The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was initially managed by non-pharmaceutical interventions such as diagnostic testing, isolation of positive cases, physical distancing and lockdowns. The advent of vaccines has provided crucial protection against SARS-CoV-2. Neutralising antibody (nAb) responses are a key correlate of protection, and therefore measuring nAb responses is essential for monitoring vaccine efficacy. Fingerstick dried blood spots (DBS) are ideal for use in large-scale sero-surveillance because they are inexpensive, offer the option of self-collection and can be transported and stored at ambient temperatures. Such advantages also make DBS appealing to use in resource-limited settings and in potential future pandemics. In this study, nAb responses in sera, venous blood and fingerstick blood stored on filter paper were measured. Samples were collected from SARS-CoV-2 acutely infected individuals, SARS-CoV-2 convalescent individuals and SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated individuals. Good agreement was observed between the nAb responses measured in eluted DBS and paired sera. Stability of nAb responses was also observed in sera stored on filter paper at room temperature for 28 days. Overall, this study provides support for the use of filter paper as a viable sample collection method to study nAb responses.</p