Groundwater dynamics at the hillslope – riparian interface in a year with extreme winter rainfall

We would like to thank the European Research Council (ERC, project GA 335910 VeWa) for funding. We also thank Chris Gabrielli for his help with some of the initial deeper boreholes.Peer reviewedPostprin

Metrics to assess how longitudinal channel network connectivity and in-stream Atlantic salmon habitats are impacted by hydropower regulation

Acknowledgements Thanks to the Scottish Government's Hydro Nation Scholars Program for funding WBB to do this research. Also, many thanks to colleagues at Marine Science Scotland and the James Hutton Institute for providing some of the datasets used in this work. The authors thank the anonymous referees for constructive feedback on the manuscript.Peer reviewedPostprintPostprin

Supporting care home residents in the last year of life through ‘Needs Rounds’: Development of a pre-implementation programme theory through a rapid collaborative online approach

2023 Macgregor, McCormack, Spilsbury, Hockley, Rutherford, Ogden, Soulsby, Mckenzie, Hanratty and Forbat.Background: Realist evaluation aims to address the knowledge to practice gap by explaining how an intervention is expected to work, as well as what is likely to impact upon the success of its implementation, by developing programme theories that link contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Co-production approaches to the development of programme theories offer substantial benefits in addressing power relations, including and valuing different types of knowledge, and promoting buy-in from stakeholders while navigating the complex social systems in which innovations are embedded. This paper describes the co-production of an initial programme theory of how an evidence based intervention developed in Australia - called ‘Palliative Care Needs Rounds’ – might work in England and Scotland to support care home residents approaching their end of life. Methods: Using realist evaluation and iPARIHS (integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) we sought to determine how contexts and mechanisms of change might shape implementation outcomes. Pre-intervention online interviews (n = 28) were conducted (February-April 2021), followed by four co-design online workshops with 43 participants (April-June 2021). The online interviews and workshops included a range of stakeholders, including care home staff, specialist palliative care staff, paramedics, general practitioners, and relatives of people living in care homes. Results: This methodology paper reports developments in realist evaluation and co-production methodologies, and how they were used to develop context, mechanisms, outcomes (CMOs) configurations, and chains of inference. The initial (pre-intervention) programme theory is used to illustrate this process. Two developments to iPARIHS are described. First, involving stakeholders in the collaborative co-design workshops created opportunities to commence facilitation. Second, we describe developing iPARIHS’ innovation component, to include novel stakeholder interpretations, perceptions and anticipated use of the intervention as they participated in workshop discussions. Conclusions: This rapid and robust co-production methodology draws on interactive collaborative research practices (interviews, workshop discussions of data, illustrative vignettes and visual methods). These innovative and engaging methods can be packaged for online processes to develop, describe and interrogate the CMOs in order to co-produce a programme theory. These approaches also commence facilitation and innovation, and can be adopted in other implementation science and realist studies

Using Palliative Care Needs Rounds in the UK for care home staff and residents: an implementation science study

Background: Care home residents often lack access to end-of-life care from specialist palliative care providers. Palliative Care Needs Rounds, developed and tested in Australia, is a novel approach to addressing this. Objective: To co-design and implement a scalable UK model of Needs Rounds. Design: A pragmatic implementation study using the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Setting: Implementation was conducted in six case study sites (England, n = 4, and Scotland, n = 2) encompassing specialist palliative care service working with three to six care homes each. Participants: Phase 1: interviews (n = 28 care home staff, specialist palliative care staff, relatives, primary care, acute care and allied health practitioners) and four workshops (n = 43 care home staff, clinicians and managers from specialist palliative care teams and patient and public involvement and engagement representatives). Phase 2: interviews (n = 58 care home and specialist palliative care staff); family questionnaire (n = 13 relatives); staff questionnaire (n = 171 care home staff); quality of death/dying questionnaire (n = 81); patient and public involvement and engagement evaluation interviews (n = 11); fidelity assessment (n = 14 Needs Rounds recordings). Interventions: (1) Monthly hour-long discussions of residents\u27 physical, psychosocial and spiritual needs, alongside case-based learning, (2) clinical work and (3) relative/multidisciplinary team meetings. Main outcome measures: A programme theory describing what works for whom under what circumstances with UK Needs Rounds. Secondary outcomes focus on health service use and cost effectiveness, quality of death and dying, care home staff confidence and capability, and the use of patient and public involvement and engagement. Data sources: Semistructured interviews and workshops with key stakeholders from the six sites; capability of adopting a palliative approach, quality of death and dying index, and Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project Lite questionnaires; recordings of Needs Rounds; care home data on resident demographics/health service use; assessments and interventions triggered by Needs Rounds; semistructured interviews with academic and patient and public involvement and engagement members. Results: The programme theory: while care home staff experience workforce challenges such as high turnover, variable skills and confidence, Needs Rounds can provide care home and specialist palliative care staff the opportunity to collaborate during a protected time, to plan for residents\u27 last months of life. Needs Rounds build care home staff confidence and can strengthen relationships and trust, while harnessing services\u27 complementary expertise. Needs Rounds strengthen understandings of dying, symptom management, advance/anticipatory care planning and communication. This can improve resident care, enabling residents to be cared for and die in their preferred place, and may benefit relatives by increasing their confidence in care quality. Limitations: COVID-19 restricted intervention and data collection. Due to an insufficient sample size, it was not possible to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of Needs Rounds or calculate the treatment effect or family perceptions of care. Conclusions: Our work suggests that Needs Rounds can improve the quality of life and death for care home residents, by enhancing staff skills and confidence, including symptom management, communications with general practitioners and relatives, and strengthen relationships between care home and specialist palliative care staff. Future work: Conduct analysis of costs-benefits and treatment effects. Engagement with commissioners and policy-makers could examine integration of Needs Rounds into care homes and primary care across the UK to ensure equitable access to specialist care. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN15863801. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128799) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 19. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.Care home residents often lack access to end-of-life care from hospice teams and so may experience distressing symptoms at end of life if care home staff cannot fully meet their needs. We examined how an approach which worked well in Australia called ‘Palliative Care Needs Rounds’ (or ‘Needs Rounds’) could be used in the United Kingdom. We interviewed 28 people (care home staff, hospice staff and other National Health Service/social care professionals in the community) about their understanding of the United Kingdom setting, what might help trigger change and what results they would want. We discussed these interviews at online workshops with 43 people, where we started to develop a theory of ‘what would work, for whom, under what circumstances’ and determine what United Kingdom Needs Rounds would look like. Six specialist palliative care services, each partnered with three to six local care homes, used Needs Rounds for a year. We collected information on care home residents, staff experiences of using Needs Rounds, relatives’ perceptions of care quality, staff views of residents’ quality of death, and on their ability to provide a palliative approach to residents. We found that Needs Rounds can provide care home staff and specialist palliative care staff the opportunity to work together during a protected time, to plan for residents’ last months of life. Needs Rounds build care home staff confidence and can strengthen relationships and trust, while using each services’ expertise. Needs Rounds strengthen understandings of dying, symptom management, advance/anticipatory care planning and communication between care home staff, families, specialist palliative care staff and primary care. This improves the quality of resident care, enabling residents to be cared for and die in their preferred place, and also benefits relatives by increasing their confidence in care quality

Integration of juvenile habitat quality and river connectivity models to understand and prioritise the management of barriers for Atlantic salmon populations across spatial scales

Thanks to the Scottish Government Hydro Nation Scholarship programme for funding WBB. Authors from Marine Scotland Science Freshwater Fisheries Laboratories delivered this work through Service Level Agreement FW02G. Some map features are based on digital spatial data licensed from CEH, NERC© Crown Copyright and database right (2018), all rights reserved. Ordnance Survey License number 100024655. Catchment boundaries were from SEPA (2009). The Obstacles to Fish Migration dataset is from SEPA. The authors thank the two anonymous referees for their feedback on the manuscript.Peer reviewedPostprin

Water sources and mixing in riparian wetlands revealed by tracers and geospatial analysis

Acknowledgments We thank the European Research Council (ERC) (project GA 335910 VEWA) and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) (project NE/K000268/1) for funding and the Airborne Research and Survey Facility for conducting the aerial survey. The data used are available from the authors. In addition, we would like to thank the additional support from Audrey Innes for the sample analysis and Maria Blumstock and Mike Kennedy for assisting with field work.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Crisis and change in industrial relations in Central and Eastern Europe

This article introduces the special issue on industrial relations in Central and Eastern Europe since the financial and economic crisis. Already dependent economically on funding from the west, and lacking the robust industrial relations institutions traditional in much of Western Europe, countries in the region were particularly vulnerable. However, there are important cross-national differences, and the strategies of key actors have significantly affected the outcomes

Palliative and end-of-life care in care homes: protocol for codesigning and implementing an appropriate scalable model of Needs Rounds in the UK

Introduction Palliative and end-of-life care in care homes is often inadequate, despite high morbidity and mortality. Residents can experience uncontrolled symptoms, poor quality deaths and avoidable hospitalisations. Care home staff can feel unsupported to look after residents at the end of life. Approaches for improving end-of-life care are often education-focused, do not triage residents and rarely integrate clinical care. This study will adapt an evidence-based approach from Australia for the UK context called ‘Palliative Care Needs Rounds’ (Needs Rounds). Needs Rounds combine triaging, anticipatory person-centred planning, case-based education and case-conferencing; the Australian studies found that Needs Rounds reduce length of stay in hospital, and improve dying in preferred place of care, and symptoms at the end of life. Methods and analysis This implementation science study will codesign and implement a scalable UK model of Needs Rounds. The Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework will be used to identify contextual barriers and use facilitation to enable successful implementation. Six palliative care teams, working with 4–6 care homes each, will engage in two phases. In phase 1 (February 2021), stakeholder interviews (n=40) will be used to develop a programme theory to meet the primary outcome of identifying what works, for whom in what circumstances for UK Needs Rounds. Subsequently a workshop to codesign UK Needs Rounds will be run. Phase 2 (July 2021) will implement the UK model for a year. Prospective data collection will focus on secondary outcomes regarding hospitalisations, residents’ quality of death and care home staff capability of adopting a palliative approach. Ethics and dissemination Frenchay Research Ethics Committee (287447) approved the study. Findings will be disseminated to policy-makers, care home/palliative care practitioners, residents/relatives and academic audiences. An implementation package will be developed for practitioners to provide the tools and resources required to adopt UK Needs Rounds. Registration details Registration details: ISRCTN15863801

Involving patients and the public In sTatistIcal Analysis pLans (INITIAL): a delphi survey

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) in trials aims to enhance research by improving its relevance and transparency. Planning for statistical analysis begins at the design stage of a trial within the protocol and is refined and detailed in a Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP). While PPI is common in design and protocol development it is less common within SAPs. This study aimed to reach consensus on the most important and relevant statistical analysis items within an SAP to involve patients and the public. Methods We developed a UK-based, two-round Delphi survey through an iterative consultation with public partners, statisticians, and trialists. The consultation process started with 55 items from international guidance for statistical analysis plans. We aimed to recruit at least 20 participants per key stakeholder group for inclusion in the final analysis of the Delphi survey. Participants were asked to vote on each item using a Likert scale from 1 to 9, where a rating of 1 to 3 was labelled as having ‘limited importance’; 4 to 6 as ‘important but not critical’ and 7 to 9 as ‘critical’ to involve patients and the public. Results from the second round determined consensus on critical items for PPI. Results The consultation exercise led to the inclusion of 15 statistical items in the Delphi survey. We recruited 179 participants, of whom 72% (129: 36 statisticians, 29 patients or public partners, 25 clinical researchers or methodologists, 27 trial managers, and 12 PPI coordinators) completed both rounds. Participants were on average 48 years old, 60% were female, 84% were White, 64% were based in England and 84% had at least five years’ experience in trials. Four items reached consensus regarding critical importance for patient and public involvement: presentation of results to trial participants; summary and presentation of harms; interpretation and presentation of findings in an academic setting; factors impacting how well a treatment works. No consensus was reached for the remaining 11 items. In general, the results were consistent across stakeholder groups. Discussion We identified four critical items to involve patients and the public in statistical analysis plans. The remaining 11 items did not reach consensus and need to be considered in a case-by-case basis with most responders considering patient and public involvement important (but not critical). Our research provides a platform to enable focused future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and enhance the relevance of statistical analyses to patients and the public

What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study

Background One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders. Methods This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials. Results A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The ‘Top 10’ of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was ’What motivates a participant’s decision to complete a clinical trial?’ The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie. Conclusion The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials