The new NMC standards: Changes to student supervision and assessment

In 2018, the Nursing and Midwifery Council published several documents relating to new standards of proficiency for registered nurses, standards for student supervision and assessment, and standards for non-medical prescribing programmes. In addition, the Code of conduct for nurses and nursing associates was updated. This article explains the changes that have been made both to pre-registration student supervision and assessment and to non-medical prescribing programmes, and discusses how this may affect diabetes specialist nursing services. These changes need to be implemented by September 2020

Should Diabetes specialist Nurses be Advanced Clinical Practitioners?

The NHS is facing enormous general healthcare demands due to changing demographics and financial constraints, and thus there is a need for workforce redesign. Advanced clinical practice roles have been introduced to help alleviate the pressures and facilitate healthcare interventions in a timely manner. However, until recently, the definition of advanced practice and the competencies required have been undefined. In 2017, Health Education England published the Multi-Professional Framework for Advanced Practice in England to provide consistency on these roles. This was followed by establishment of the Centre for Advancing Practice, with the aim of accrediting advanced practice education programmes and facilitating the supported ePortfolio route to recognise education and training equivalence. The role of diabetes specialist nurses within the multidisciplinary team is undisputed and has evolved and diversified to meet the ongoing challenges of diabetes care; however, does this count as advanced practice? This article explores advanced clinical practice, considers the similarities and differences between specialist and advanced practice and outlines how these relate to diabetes specialist nurses

Lack of confidence among trainee doctors in the management of diabetes: the Trainees Own Perception of Delivery of Care (TOPDOC) Diabetes Study

Background: There is an increased prevalence of diabetes. Doctors in training, irrespective of specialty, will have patients with diabetes under their care

When and How Can Endpoints Be Changed after Initiation of a Randomized Clinical Trial?

Contains fulltext : 52680.pdf ( ) (Open Access)OBJECTIVES: It is unclear whether insulin-like growth factor (IGF) function is involved in the pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Unpublished data and reports in patient organization newsletters suggest that Acclydine, a food supplement, could be effective in the treatment of CFS by increasing biologically active IGF1 levels. Here we aimed to measure the IGF1 and IGF binding protein (IGFBP) 3 status of CFS patients compared to age- and gender-matched neighborhood controls, and to assess the effect of Acclydine on fatigue severity, functional impairment, and biologically active IGF1 level (IGFBP3/IGF1 ratio). DESIGN: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. SETTING: Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-seven adult patients who fulfilled the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for CFS. IGF status of 22 CFS patients was compared to that of 22 healthy age- and gender-matched neighborhood control individuals. INTERVENTION: Acclydine or placebo for 14 wk. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were fatigue severity (Checklist Individual Strength, subscale fatigue severity [CIS-fatigue]), functional impairment (Sickness Impact Profile-8 [SIP-8]), and biologically active IGF1 serum concentrations. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: There was no difference in IGF status in 22 CFS patients compared to healthy age- and gender-matched control individuals. Treatment with Acclydine did not result in significant differences compared with the placebo group on any of the outcome measures: CIS-fatigue +1.1 (95% CI -4.4 to +6.5, p = 0.70), SIP-8 +59.1 (95% CI -201.7 to +319.8, p = 0.65), and IGFBP3/IGF1 ratio -0.5 (95% CI -2.8 to +1.7, p = 0.63). CONCLUSION: We found no differences in IGF1 status in CFS patients compared to healthy matched neighborhood controls. In addition, the results of this clinical trial do not demonstrate any benefit of Acclydine over placebo in the treatment of CFS