Use of the Therapy Outcome Measure in community intermediate care: results of a service evaluation

Background/AimsOutcome measures are essential in clinical practice to demonstrate patient improvement and secure funding for services. The purpose of this service evaluation was to explore levels of patient improvement as measured by the Therapy Outcome Measure in a community intermediate care team.MethodsA total of 232 patients who completed a course of therapy treatment with a community intermediate care team between December 2021 and February 2023 were scored on admission and at discharge using the Therapy Outcome Measure. Changes in scores from admission to discharge were summarised as percentages or median (interquartile range). The authors assessed if receiving input from intermediate care support workers had an impact on the improvement. Additionally, the authors explored if there was a relationship between change in scores and the number of therapy sessions.ResultsAcross the four Therapy Outcome Measure domains (impairment, activity, participation and wellbeing) the proportion of patients exhibiting a 0.5-point or more increase in scores ranged between 43.5% and 52.2%. Between 0.9% and 3% of patients showed a deterioration in scores and between 47.0% and 54.3% experienced no change in score. Regarding intermediate care support worker input vs no intermediate care support worker input, the proportion of patients that improved by 0.5 points or more was significantly different between the two groups in the impairment domain (67.2% and 43.9% respectively, P=0.003). There were very weak correlations found between the number of therapy sessions and the level of improvement.ConclusionsThe Therapy Outcome Measure may be a useful tool for community teams to assess patient outcome measures. More studies are required in other community therapy teams to allow for comparison between services.Implications for practiceThe results of this service evaluation may assist allied health professionals in selecting an appropriate outcome measure to use with their patients and the data may also be useful for benchmarking purposes

A multicentre review comparing long term outcomes of endoscopic vein harvesting versus open vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass surgery [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Background: Utilisation of the Endoscopic Vein Harvesting (EVH) technique has been increasing for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the last two decades. Some surgeons remain concerned about the long-term patency of the long saphenous vein harvested endoscopically compared to traditional Open Vein Harvesting (OVH). The aim of this study was to perform a retrospective analysis of the outcomes between EVH and OVH from three UK centres with 10 years follow-up. Methods: 27,024 patients underwent CABG with long saphenous vein harvested by EVH (n=13,794) or OVH (n=13,230) in three UK centres between 2007 and 2019. Propensity modelling was used to calculate the Inverse Probability of Treatment Weights (IPTW). The primary endpoint was mortality from all causes and secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and incidence of repeat coronary re-vascularisation for symptomatic patients. IPTW was used to balance the two intervention groups for baseline and preoperative co-morbidities. Results: Median follow-up time was 4.54 years for EVH and 6.00 years for OVH. Death from any cause occurred in 13.8% of the EVH group versus 20.8% in the OVH group over the follow-up period. The hazard ratio of death (EVH to OVH) was 0.823 (95% CI: 0.767, 0.884). Length of hospital stay was similar between the groups (p=0.86). Post-operative pulmonary complications were more common in EVH vs OVH (14.7% vs. 12.8%, p<0.001), but repeat coronary re-vascularisation was similar between the groups. Conclusion: This large retrospective multicentre analysis indicates that EVH has a lower risk of mortality compared with OVH during the follow-up period of the study. The observed benefits of EVH may outweigh the risks but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. We hope this review gives confidence to other cardiac centres that offering an EVH approach to conduit harvesting does not affect long term patient outcomes

A multicentre review comparing long term outcomes of endoscopic vein harvesting versus open vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass surgery

Background: Utilisation of the Endoscopic Vein Harvesting (EVH) technique has been increasing for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the last two decades. Some surgeons remain concerned about the long-term patency of the long saphenous vein harvested endoscopically compared to traditional Open Vein Harvesting (OVH). The aim of this study was to perform a retrospective analysis of the outcomes between EVH and OVH from three UK centres with 10 years follow-up.Methods: 27,024 patients underwent CABG with long saphenous vein harvested by EVH (n=13,794) or OVH (n=13,230) in three UK centres between 2007 and 2019. Propensity modelling was used to calculate the Inverse Probability of Treatment Weights (IPTW). The primary endpoint was mortality from all causes and secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and incidence of repeat coronary re-vascularisation for symptomatic patients. IPTW was used to balance the two intervention groups for baseline and preoperative co-morbidities.Results: Median follow-up time was 4.54 years for EVH and 6.00 years for OVH. Death from any cause occurred in 13.8% of the EVH group versus 20.8% in the OVH group over the follow-up period. The hazard ratio of death (EVH to OVH) was 0.823 (95% CI: 0.767, 0.884). Length of hospital stay was similar between the groups (p=0.86). Post-operative pulmonary complications were more common in EVH vs OVH (14.7% vs. 12.8%, p<0.001), but repeat coronary re-vascularisation was similar between the groups.Conclusion: This large retrospective multicentre analysis indicates that EVH has a lower risk of mortality compared with OVH during the follow-up period of the study. The observed benefits of EVH may outweigh the risks but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. We hope this review gives confidence to other cardiac centres that offering an EVH approach to conduit harvesting does not affect long term patient outcomes

Real-world experience of using stereotactic radiotherapy combined with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor to treat neovascular AMD

IntroductionAdjunctive treatment or longer-acting drugs are required to treat nAMD to help ease burdens for patients and hospital clinics alike. Stereotactic therapy is one such option, providing a reduction in the number of injections over time.ObjectiveTo determine the clinical outcomes in a cohort of patients with nAMD receiving a combination therapy of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (IVI).MethodA retrospective analysis of 74 patients with nAMD, who had received IVI and SRT (16 Gray maximum dose to the macula) at a large tertiary university eye hospital, between March 2018 and September 2019 was performed. The number of IVIs, visual acuity (VA), and central retinal thickness (CRT) were evaluated at 12, 24, and 36 months after patients received SRT and compared to the same time interval prior to SRT.ResultsFollow-up data at 12, 24, and 36 months following and prior to SRT was available for 74, 48, and 22 patients respectively. Overall there was a significant reduction in the number of injections post-SRT. Twelve months following SRT, the median number of IVI was reduced by 1 (p &lt; 0.05). The reduction in the median number of IVI was significantly reduced by 3 and 6 injections at 24- and 36-month follow-up respectively (p &lt; 0.05). The CRT was significantly reduced post-SRT compared to the baseline values at all time periods. There was no statistically significant difference in VA at 12-month follow-up compared to baseline. The VA, however, significantly decreased at 24- and 36-month follow-up (p &lt; 0.05).ConclusionA therapy combining SRT with IVI has shown an overall reduction in the number of injections required in nAMD patients at 12, 24, and 36 months following SRT compared to IVI treatment alone. These real-world outcomes are comparable to other studies while also confirming the maintenance of the reduced frequency of required IVI for patients with nAMD

'Real-life' benefit of hearing preservation cochlear implantation in the paediatric population: a single-site case–control study

Introduction Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation (HPCI) has allowed a cochlear implant (CI) electrode to be implanted while trying to preserve residual acoustic low-frequency hearing. The concept arises from the importance of this low-frequency information and the limitations of a CI in several auditory domains. The combination of electrical hearing with either preserved acoustic hearing or amplified ‘natural’ hearing has the potential to address these issues and enable children with HPCI to closely follow normal auditory development.The aim of this study is to evaluate the ‘real-life’ benefit of preserved acoustic low-frequency hearing in children with a CI, understand the benefits of preserved natural hearing in complex listening situations and so enable parents and children to make an informed choice about implantation. Ultimately, helping to ensure the maximum number of children benefit from this life-changing intervention.Methods and analysis Nineteen ears in children and young people aged 6–17 years old with ‘successful’ HPCI will be subjected to a test battery consisting of: (1) spatial release from masking; (2) complex pitch direction discrimination; (3) melodic identification; (4) perception of prosodic features in speech and (5) threshold equalising noise test. Subjects will be tested in the electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS)/electro-natural stimulation (ENS) and the electric-only (ES) condition, thereby acting as their own control group. Standard demographic and hearing health information will be collected. In the absence of comparable published data to power the study, sample size was determined on pragmatic grounds. Tests are exploratory and for hypothesis-generating purposes. Therefore, the standard criterion of p&lt;0.05 will be used.Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Health Research Authority and NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC) within the UK (22/EM/0017). Industry funding was secured via a competitive researcher-led grant application process. Trial results will be subject to publication according to the definition of the outcome presented in this protocol

Children using a unilateral cochlear implant and contralateral hearing aid: bimodal hearing outcomes when one ear is outside the UK (NICE 2009) audiological criteria for cochlear implantation – a single site case–control study

Introduction In the new revised National Institute for Health &amp; Care Excellence (NICE, TA566, 2019) guidelines for cochlear implantation (CI) have clearly stipulated that the hearing loss must be bilateral. Prior to this revision, children and young people (CYP) with asymmetrical thresholds have been considered for unilateral CI when one ear was in audiological criteria. Children with asymmetrical hearing loss represent an important cohort of potential CI candidates, who will continue to be prevented from benefiting from CI unless evidence is produced to support implantation and maximise subsequent benefit.The aim of this study is to evaluate the ‘real-life’ hearing performance in a group of children who have received a unilateral CI and who have hearing thresholds in the contralateral ear that are outside the current UK NICE 2019 audiological criteria for CI. The contralateral ear will be aided using a conventional hearing aid (HA). The outcomes from this ‘bimodal’ group will be compared with a group of children who have received bilateral CI, and a group of children using bilateral HA, to extend the current knowledge about the different performance levels between bilateral CI, bilateral HA and bimodal hearing in CYP.Methods and analysis Thirty CYP aged 6–17 years old, 10 bimodal users, 10 bilateral HA users and 10 bilateral cochlear implant users will be subjected to a test battery consisting of: (1) spatial release from masking, (2) complex pitch direction discrimination, (3) melodic identification, (4) perception of prosodic features in speech and (5) TEN test. Subjects will be tested in their optimal device modality. Standard demographic and hearing health information will be collected. In the absence of comparable published data to power the study, sample size was determined on pragmatic grounds. Tests are exploratory and for hypothesis generating purposes. Therefore, the standard criterion of p&lt;0.05 will be used.Ethics and dissemination This has been approved by the Health Research Authority and NHS REC within the UK (22/EM/0104). Industry funding was secured via a competitive researcher-led grant application process. Trial results will be subject to publication according to the definition of the outcome presented in this protocol

Can MRI biomarkers for hearing loss in enlarged vestibular aqueduct be measured reproducibly?

OBJECTIVE: Morphological features of an enlarged endolymphatic duct (ED) and sac (ES) are imaging biomarkers for genotype and hearing loss phenotype. We determine which biomarkers can be measured in a reproducible manner, facilitating further clinical prediction studies in enlarged vestibular aqueduct hearing loss.METHODS: A rater reproducibility study. Three consultant radiologists independently measured previously reported MRI ED &amp; ES biomarkers (ED midpoint width, maximal ED diameter closest to the vestibule, ES length, ES width and presence of ES signal heterogeneity) and presence of incomplete partition Type 2 from 80 ears (T2 weighted axial MRI). Interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Gwet's Agreement Coefficients (AC) were generated to give a measure of reproducibility for both continuous and categorical feature measures respectively.RESULTS: ES length, width and sac signal heterogeneity showed adequate reproducibility (ICC 95% confidence intervals 0.77-0.95, Gwet's AC for sac heterogeneity 0.64). When determining ED midpoint width, measurements from multiple raters are required for "good" reliability (ICC 95% CI 0.75-0.89). Agreement on the presence of incomplete partition Type 2 ranged from "moderate" to "substantial".CONCLUSIONS: Regarding MR imaging, the opinion of multiple expert raters should be sought when determining the presence of an enlarged ED defined by midpoint width. ED midpoint, ES length, width and signal heterogeneity have adequate reproducibility to be further explored as clinical predictors for audiological phenotype.ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: We report which ED &amp; ES biomarkers are reproducibly measured. Researchers can confidently utilise these specific biomarkers when modelling progressive hearing loss associated with enlarged vestibular aqueduct.</p