A randomised controlled trial of a patient based Diabetes recall and Management system: the DREAM trial: A study protocol [ISRCTN32042030]

BACKGROUND: Whilst there is broad agreement on what constitutes high quality health care for people with diabetes, there is little consensus on the most efficient way of delivering it. Structured recall systems can improve the quality of care but the systems evaluated to date have been of limited sophistication and the evaluations have been carried out in small numbers of relatively unrepresentative settings. Hartlepool, Easington and Stockton currently operate a computerised diabetes register which has to date produced improvements in the quality of care but performance has now plateaued leaving substantial scope for further improvement. This study will evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of an area wide 'extended' system incorporating a full structured recall and management system, actively involving patients and including clinical management prompts to primary care clinicians based on locally-adapted evidence based guidelines. METHODS: The study design is a two-armed cluster randomised controlled trial of 61 practices incorporating evaluations of the effectiveness of the system, its economic impact and its impact on patient wellbeing and functioning

Thigh length versus knee length antiembolism stockings for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in postoperative surgical patients; a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of thigh length versus knee length antiembolism stockings for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in surgical patients. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis using direct methods and network meta-analysis. METHODS: Previous systematic reviews and electronic databases were searched to February 2014 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of thigh length or knee length antiembolism stockings in surgical patients. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The primary outcome was incidence of DVT. Analysis of the DVT data was performed using ORs along with 95% CIs. The I(2) statistic was used to quantify statistical heterogeneity. RESULTS: 23 RCTs were included; there was substantial variation between the trials and many were poorly reported with an unclear risk of bias. Five RCTs directly comparing thigh length versus knee length stockings were pooled and the summary estimate of effect favouring thigh length stockings was not statistically significant (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.73). 13 RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis; thigh length stockings with pharmacological prophylaxis were more effective than knee length stockings with pharmacological prophylaxis, but again results were not statistically significant (OR 1.76, 95% credible intervals 0.82 to 3.53). CONCLUSIONS: Thigh length stockings may be more effective than knee length stockings, but results did not reach statistical significance and the evidence base is weak. Further research to confirm this finding is unlikely to be worthwhile. While thigh length stockings appear to have superior efficacy, practical issues such as patient acceptability may prevent their wide use in clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014007202

Systematic review assessing the measurement properties of patient-reported outcomes for venous leg ulcers

Background: A variety of instruments have been used to assess outcomes for patients with venous leg ulcers. This study sought to identify, evaluate and recommend the most appropriate patient reported outcomes (PROMs) for English-speaking patients with venous leg ulcers (VLUs). Method: This systematic review used a two-staged approach. Electronic searches of major databases including MEDLINE were completed in October 2015 and then updated in July 2016. Additional studies were identified from citation checking. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken independently by at least two reviewers. Evaluation and summary of measurement properties of identified PROMs were undertaken using standard and adapted study-relevant criteria. Results: Ten studies with data for three generic PROMS and six condition-specific measures were identified. No generic PROM showed adequate content and criterion validity; however the EQ-5D, Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and 12-item Health Survey Short-Form had good acceptability with scores ranging from 80% to 91%. In general, the EQ-5D showed poor responsiveness in patients with VLUs. Condition-specific PROMs demonstrated poor criterion and construct validity. Overall, good internal consistency was demonstrated for the Venous Leg Ulcer Quality of Life (VLU-QOL) and the Sheffield Preference-based Venous Ulcer questionnaire (SPVU-5D). Test re-test reliability was also satisfactory for SPVU-5D and VeLUSET measures. Conclusions: The NHP and VLU-QOL seemed the most suitable PROMs for use by clinicians. A valid condition-specific PROM is still required

Screening intervals for diabetic retinopathy and incidence of visual loss: a systematic review

Screening for diabetic retinopathy can help to prevent this complication, but evidence regarding frequency of screening is uncertain. This paper systematically reviews the published literature on the relationship between screening intervals for diabetic retinopathy and the incidence of visual loss. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched until December 2012. Twenty five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, as these assessed the incidence/prevalence of sight‐threatening diabetic retinopathy in relation to screening frequency. The included studies comprised 15 evaluations of real‐world screening programmes, three studies modelling the natural history of diabetic retinopathy and seven cost‐effectiveness studies. In evaluations of diabetic retinopathy screening programmes, the appropriate screening interval ranged from one to four years, in people with no retinopathy at baseline. Despite study heterogeneity, the overall tendency observed in these programmes was that 2‐year screening intervals among people with no diabetic retinopathy at diagnosis were not associated with high incidence of sight‐threatening diabetic retinopathy. The modelling studies (non‐economic and economic) assessed a range of screening intervals (1–5 years). The aggregated evidence from both the natural history and cost‐effectiveness models favors a screening interval >1 year, but ≤2 years. Such an interval would be appropriate, safe and cost‐effective for people with no diabetic retinopathy at diagnosis, while screening intervals ≤1 year would be preferable for people with pre‐existing diabetic retinopathy. A 2‐year screening interval for people with no sight threatening diabetic retinopathy at diagnosis may be safely adopted. For patients with pre‐existing diabetic retinopathy, a shorter interval ≤1 year is warranted.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/100323/1/dme12274.pd

Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian 'levels of evidence'

Background: In 1999 a four-level hierarchy of evidence was promoted by the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia. The primary purpose of this hierarchy was to assist with clinical practice guideline development, although it was co-opted for use in systematic literature reviews and health technology assessments. In this hierarchy interventional study designs were ranked according to the likelihood that bias had been eliminated and thus it was not ideal to assess studies that addressed other types of clinical questions. This paper reports on the revision and extension of this evidence hierarchy to enable broader use within existing evidence assessment systems. Methods: A working party identified and assessed empirical evidence, and used a commissioned review of existing evidence assessment schema, to support decision-making regarding revision of the hierarchy. The aim was to retain the existing evidence levels I-IV but increase their relevance for assessing the quality of individual diagnostic accuracy, prognostic, aetiologic and screening studies. Comprehensive public consultation was undertaken and the revised hierarchy was piloted by individual health technology assessment agencies and clinical practice guideline developers. After two and a half years, the hierarchy was again revised and commenced a further 18 month pilot period. Results: A suitable framework was identified upon which to model the revision. Consistency was maintained in the hierarchy of "levels of evidence" across all types of clinical questions; empirical evidence was used to support the relationship between study design and ranking in the hierarchy wherever possible; and systematic reviews of lower level studies were themselves ascribed a ranking. The impact of ethics on the hierarchy of study designs was acknowledged in the framework, along with a consideration of how harms should be assessed. Conclusion: The revised evidence hierarchy is now widely used and provides a common standard against which to initially judge the likelihood of bias in individual studies evaluating interventional, diagnostic accuracy, prognostic, aetiologic or screening topics. Detailed quality appraisal of these individual studies, as well as grading of the body of evidence to answer each clinical, research or policy question, can then be undertaken as required.Tracy Merlin, Adele Weston and Rebecca Toohe

Is quality of colorectal cancer care good enough? Core measures development and its application for comparing hospitals in Taiwan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although performance measurement for assessing care quality is an emerging area, a system for measuring the quality of cancer care at the hospital level has not been well developed. The purpose of this study was to develop organization-based core measures for colorectal cancer patient care and apply these measures to compare hospital performance.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The development of core measures for colorectal cancer has undergone three stages including a modified Delphi method. The study sample originated from 2004 data in the Taiwan Cancer Database, a national cancer data registry. Eighteen hospitals and 5585 newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients were enrolled in this study. We used indicator-based and case-based approaches to examine adherences simultaneously.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The final core measure set included seventeen indicators (1 pre-treatment, 11 treatment-related and 5 monitoring-related). There were data available for ten indicators. Indicator-based adherence possesses more meaningful application than case-based adherence for hospital comparisons. Mean adherence was 85.8% (79.8% to 91%) for indicator-based and 82.8% (77.6% to 88.9%) for case-based approaches. Hospitals performed well (>90%) for five out of eleven indicators. Still, the performance across hospitals varied for many indicators. The best and poorest system performance was reflected in indicators T5-negative surgical margin (99.3%, 97.2% - 100.0%) and T7-lymph nodes harvest more than twelve(62.7%, 27.6% - 92.2%), both of which related to surgical specimens.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this nationwide study, quality of colorectal cancer care still shows room for improvement. These preliminary results indicate that core measures for cancer can be developed systematically and applied for internal quality improvement.</p

Facilitators and “deal breakers”: a mixed methods study investigating implementation of the goal setting and action planning (G-AP) framework in community rehabilitation teams

Background: High quality goal setting in stroke rehabilitation is vital, but challenging to deliver. The G-AP framework (including staff training and a stroke survivor held G-AP record) guides patient centred goal setting with stroke survivors in community rehabilitation teams. We found G-AP was acceptable, feasible to deliver and clinically useful in one team. The aim of this study was to conduct a mixed methods investigation of G-AP implementation in diverse community teams prior to a large-scale evaluation. Methods: We approached Scottish community rehabilitation teams to take part. Following training, G-AP was delivered to stroke survivors within participating teams for 6 months. We investigated staff experiences of G-AP training and its implementation using focus groups and a training questionnaire. We investigated fidelity of G-AP delivery through case note review. Focus group data were analysed using a Framework approach; identified themes were mapped into Normalisation Process Theory constructs. Questionnaire and case note data were analysed descriptively. Results: We recruited three teams comprising 55 rehabilitation staff. Almost all staff (93%, 51/55) participated in G-AP training; of those, 80% (n = 41/51) completed the training questionnaire. Training was rated as ‘good’ or ‘very good’ by almost all staff (92%, n = 37/41). G-AP was broadly implemented as intended in two teams. Implementation facilitators included - G-AP ‘made sense’; repetitive use of G-AP in practice; flexible G-AP delivery and positive staff appraisals of G-AP impact. G-AP failed to gain traction in the third team. Implementation barriers included - delays between G-AP training and implementation; limited leadership engagement; a poor ‘fit’ between G-AP and the team organisational structure and simultaneous delivery of other goal setting methods. Staff recommended (i) development of training to include implementation planning; (ii) ongoing local implementation review and tailoring, and (iii) development of electronic and aphasia friendly G-AP records. Conclusions: The interaction between G-AP and the practice setting is critical to implementation success or failure. Whilst facilitators support implementation success, barriers can collectively act as implementation “deal breakers”. Local G-AP implementation efforts should be planned, monitored and tailored. These insights can inform implementation of other complex interventions in community rehabilitation settings

Locating sex-specific evidence on clinical questions in MEDLINE: a search filter for use on OvidSP™

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many recently published clinical studies report sex-specific data. This information may help to improve clinical decision-making for both sexes, but it is not easily accessible in MEDLINE. The aim of this project was to develop and validate a search filter that would facilitate the retrieval of studies reporting high quality sex-specific data on clinical questions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A filter was developed by screening titles, abstracts and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) in a set of 80 high quality and relevant papers, 75 of which were identified through a review of clinical guidelines and five through other means. The filter, for use on OvidSP™, consists of nine command lines for searching free text words in the title, abstract and MeSH of a paper. It was able to identify 74/80 (92.5%) of the articles from which it was derived. The filter was evaluated in a set of 622 recently published original studies on Alzheimer's disease and on asthma. It was validated against a reference of 98 studies from this set, which provided high quality, clinically relevant, sex-specific evidence. Recall and precision were used as performance measures.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The filter demonstrated 81/98 (83%) recall and 81/125 (65%) precision in retrieving relevant articles on Alzheimer's disease and on asthma. In comparison, only 30/98 (31%) recall would have been achieved if sex-specific MeSH terms only had been used.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This sex-specific search filter performs well in retrieving relevant papers, while its precision rate is good. It performs better than a search with sex-specific MeSH. The filter can be useful to anyone seeking sex-specific clinical evidence (e.g., guideline organizations, researchers, medical educators, clinicians).</p

Implementation of a Practice Development Model to Reduce the Wait for Autism Spectrum Diagnosis in Adults

This study examined waiting times for diagnostic assessment of Autism Spectrum Disorder in 11 adult services, prior to and following the implementation of a 12 month change program. Methods to support change are reported and a multi-level modelling approach determined the effect of the change program on overall wait times. Results were statistically significant (b = − 0.25, t(136) = − 2.88, p = 0.005). The average time individuals waited for diagnosis across all services reduced from 149.4 days prior to the change program and 119.5 days after it, with an average reduction of 29.9 days overall. This innovative intervention provides a promising framework for service improvement to reduce the wait for diagnostic assessment of ASD in adults across the range of spectrum presentations