Understanding what matters to patients – identifying key patients' perceptions of quality

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate a statistical method to enable the identification of key drivers of quality from a patient perspective that can be used by service providers to help drive improvement. DESIGN: Cross-tabulation, Chi-square analysis and Cramers V calculation using SPSS software of NHS Inpatient Surveys 2006 and 2007. SETTING: The NHS Inpatient Survey is a standardized survey designed by the Picker Institute conducted on a sample of patients across all acute care hospital trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: The surveys (available from the UK Data Archive) provide anonymized patient data for over 77,000 patients in 2006 and 72,000 patients in 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cramers V score testing associations between patient ratings on multiple components of care and ratings on the overall quality of care. RESULTS: Of the 58 questions analysed, some questions correlate more strongly with overall satisfaction of care than others and there is strong agreement of results over the two years. Of the top 20 rated components, communication (both between professionals and between professionals and patients) and trust engendered by that communication is a recurring theme. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital trusts are required to develop quality indicators and collate detailed feedback from patients in addition to the annual inpatient survey to measure these. To make best use of resources, additional data collection should focus on those aspects of care of most importance to patients locally. This analysis demonstrates a statistical technique that can help to identify such priority areas by showing those aspects of care most strongly associated with the overall rating of care. The analysis uses national level data to demonstrate how this can be achieved. This shows the importance to patients of being treated with dignity and respect, and good communication between staff and between staff and patients

A multidisciplinary consensus on dehydration: definitions, diagnostic methods and clinical implications

Background: Dehydration appears prevalent, costly and associated with adverse outcomes. We sought to generate consensus on such key issues and elucidate need for further scientific enquiry. Materials and Methods: A modified Delphi process combined expert opinion and evidence appraisal. 12 relevant experts addressed dehydration’s definition, objective markers and impact on physiology and outcome. Results: Fifteen consensus statements and seven research recommendations were generated. Key findings, evidenced in detail, were that there is no universally-accepted definition for dehydration; hydration assessment is complex and requires combining physiological and laboratory variables; ‘dehydration’ and ‘hypovolaemia’ are incorrectly used interchangeably; abnormal hydration status includes relative and/or absolute abnormalities in body water and serum/plasma osmolality (pOsm); raised pOsm usually indicates dehydration; direct measurement of pOsm is the gold standard for determining dehydration; pOsm >300 and ≤280 mOsm/kg classifies a person as hyper or hypo-osmolar; outside extremes, signs of adult dehydration are subtle and unreliable; dehydration is common in hospitals and care homes and associated with poorer outcomes. Discussion: Dehydration poses risk to public health. Dehydration is under-recognised and poorly managed in hospital and community-based care. Further research is required to improve assessment and management of dehydration and the authors have made recommendations to focus academic endeavours

Innovative Solutions for State Medicaid Programs to Leverage Their Data, Build Their Analytic Capacity, and Create Evidence-Based Policy

As states have embraced additional flexibility to change coverage of and payment for Medicaid services, they have also faced heightened expectations for delivering high-value care. Efforts to meet these new expectations have increased the need for rigorous, evidence-based policy, but states may face challenges finding the resources, capacity, and expertise to meet this need. By describing state-university partnerships in more than 20 states, this commentary describes innovative solutions for states that want to leverage their own data, build their analytic capacity, and create evidence-based policy. From an integrated web-based system to improve long-term care to evaluating the impact of permanent supportive housing placements on Medicaid utilization and spending, these state partnerships provide significant support to their state Medicaid programs. In 2017, these partnerships came together to create a distributed research network that supports multi-state analyses. The Medicaid Outcomes Distributed Research Network (MODRN) uses a common data model to examine Medicaid data across states, thereby increasing the analytic rigor of policy evaluations in Medicaid, and contributing to the development of a fully functioning Medicaid innovation laboratory

Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions

Accelerating rates of environmental change and the continued loss of global biodiversity threaten functions and services delivered by ecosystems. Much ecosystem monitoring and management is focused on the provision of ecosystem functions and services under current environmental conditions, yet this could lead to inappropriate management guidance and undervaluation of the importance of biodiversity. The maintenance of ecosystem functions and services under substantial predicted future environmental change (i.e., their ‘resilience’) is crucial. Here we identify a range of mechanisms underpinning the resilience of ecosystem functions across three ecological scales. Although potentially less important in the short term, biodiversity, encompassing variation from within species to across landscapes, may be crucial for the longer-term resilience of ecosystem functions and the services that they underpin

The influence of landscape composition and configuration on crop yield resilience

1. Sustainable agriculture aims to produce sufficient food while minimizing environmental damage. To achieve this, we need to understand the role of agricultural landscapes in providing diverse ecosystem services and how these affect crop production and resilience, that is, maintaining yields despite environmental perturbation. We used 10 years of English wheat yield data to derive three metrics of resilience (relative yield across the time series, yield stability around a moving average and resistance to an extreme weather event) at 10 km × 10 km resolution. We used remotely sensed maps to calculate measures of landscape structure, including composition (proportions of different land cover types) and configuration (metrics of connectivity and proximity), known to affect ecosystem service delivery (e.g. control of pests by beneficial invertebrates). We then used an information‐theoretic approach to identify the best‐fitting combination of landscape structure predictors for each resilience metric, using a potential yield model to account for the effects of climate and soils. Relative yield showed a strongly positive relationship with the area of arable land. For yield stability, this relationship was evident but alongside other landscape structure variables in the best‐fitting model. No relationship with arable land was evident for resistance. Yield stability showed a strongly positive effect of proximity to semi‐natural habitats. For resistance, the best‐fitting model included positive relationships with the cover of semi‐natural habitats and proximity to semi‐natural grasslands. Synthesis and applications. Landscapes with the highest relative wheat yields did not show the highest yield stability or resistance to extreme events. As resilience metrics were derived from shorter portions of the time series, the importance of semi‐natural habitats compared to arable land increased. This is probably driven by the complex interplay between landscape structure, agricultural management and ecosystem services. These results demonstrate that measuring relative yield over time may be insufficient to capture the full effect that non‐arable components of the landscape, and the ecosystem services they deliver, have on other aspects of resilience, and that there are clear trade‐offs in managing agricultural landscapes to maximize different aspects of crop yield resilience

A synthesis is emerging between biodiversity–ecosystem function and ecological resilience research: reply to Mori

Letter

A randomised phase 2a study to investigate the effects of blocking interleukin-33 with tozorakimab in patients hospitalised with COVID-19:Accord-2

BACKGROUND: Increased serum interleukin (IL)-33 predicts poor outcomes in patients hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We examined the efficacy and safety of tozorakimab, a monoclonal antibody that neutralises IL-33, in improving outcomes in ACCORD-2 (EudraCT: 2020-001736-95).METHODS: ACCORD-2 was an open-label, phase 2a study in adults hospitalised with COVID-19. Patients were randomised 1:1 to tozorakimab 300 mg plus standard of care (SoC) or SoC alone. The primary end-point was time to clinical response (sustained clinical improvement of ≥2 points on the World Health Organization ordinal scale, discharge from hospital or fit for discharge) by day 29. Other end-points included death or respiratory failure, mortality and intensive care unit admission by day 29, and safety. Serum IL-33/soluble stimulated-2 (sST2) complex levels were measured by high-sensitivity immunoassay.RESULTS: Efficacy analyses included 97 patients (tozorakimab+SoC, n=53; SoC, n=44). Median time to clinical response did not differ between the tozorakimab and SoC arms (8.0 and 9.5 days, respectively; HR 0.96, 80% CI 0.70-1.31; one-sided p=0.33). Tozorakimab was well tolerated and the OR for risk of death or respiratory failure with treatment versus SoC was 0.55 (80% CI 0.27-1.12; p=0.26), while the OR was 0.31 (80% CI 0.09-1.06) in patents with high baseline serum IL-33/sST2 complex levels.CONCLUSIONS: Overall, ACCORD-2 results suggest that tozorakimab could be a novel therapy for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, warranting further investigation in confirmatory phase 3 studies.</p

The Use of Preoperative Prophylactic Systemic Antibiotics for the Prevention of Endopthalmitis in Open Globe Injuries:A Meta-Analysis

Topic:This study reports the effect of systemic prophylactic antibiotics (and their route) on the risk of endophthalmitis after open globe injury. Clinical relevance:Endophthalmitis is a major complication of open globe injury, it can lead to rapid sight loss in the affected eye. The administration of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is common practice in some health care systems, although there is no consensus on their use. PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL and Embase were searched. This was completed 6th July 2021 and updated 10th Dec 2022. We included randomised and non-randomised prospective studies which reported the rate of post-open globe injury endophthalmitis, when systemic pre-operative antibiotic prophylaxis (via the oral or intravenous route) was given. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and ROBINS-I tool were used for assessing the risk of bias. Where meta-analysis was performed results were reported as odds ratio. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021271271. Three studies were included. One prospective observational study compared outcomes of patients who had received systemic or no systemic pre-operative antibiotics. The endophthalmitis rates reported were 3.75% and 4.91% in the systemic and no systemic pre-operative antibiotics groups, a non-significant difference (p = 0.68). Two randomised controlled trials were included (1,555 patients). The rates of endophthalmitis were 17 events in 751 patients (2.26%) and 17 events in 804 patients (2.11%) in the oral antibiotics and intravenous (+/- oral) antibiotics groups, respectively. Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences between groups (OR 1.07 [95% confidence interval 0.54 – 2.12]). The incidences of endophthalmitis after open globe injury were low with and without systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, although high risk cases were excluded in the included studies. When antibiotic prophylaxis is considered, there is moderate evidence that oral antibiotic administration is non-inferior to intravenous

The Risk of Sympathetic Ophthalmia Associated with Open-Globe Injury Management Strategies:A Meta-analysis

Topic: Sympathetic ophthalmia (SO) is a sight-threatening granulomatous panuveitis caused by a sensitizing event. Primary enucleation or primary evisceration, versus primary repair, as a risk management strategy after open-globe injury (OGI) remains controversial.Clinical Relevance: This systematic review was conducted to report the incidence of SO after primary repair compared with that of after primary enucleation or primary evisceration. This enabled the reporting of an estimated number needed to treat.Methods: Five journal databases were searched. This review was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (identifier, CRD42021262616). Searches were carried out on June 29, 2021, and were updated on December 10, 2022. Prospective or retrospective studies that reported outcomes (including SO or lack of SO) in a patient population who underwent either primary repair and primary enucleation or primary evisceration were included. A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Random effects modelling was used to estimate pooled SO rates and absolute risk reduction (ARR).Results: Eight studies reporting SO as an outcome were included in total. The included studies contained 7500 patients and 7635 OGIs. In total, 7620 OGIs met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis; SO developed in 21 patients with OGI. When all included studies were pooled, the estimated SO rate was 0.12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.00%–0.25%) after OGI. Of 779 patients who underwent primary enucleation or primary evisceration, no SO cases were reported, resulting in a pooled SO estimate of 0.05% (95% CI, 0.00%–0.21%). For primary repair, the pooled estimate of SO rate was 0.15% (95% CI, 0.00%–0.33%). The ARR using a random effects model was −0.0010 (in favour of eye removal; 95% CI, −0.0031 [in favor of eye removal] to 0.0011 [in favor of primary repair]). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations analysis highlighted a low certainty of evidence because the included studies were observational, and a risk of bias resulted from missing data.Discussion: Based on the available data, no evidence exists that primary enucleation or primary evisceration reduce the risk of secondary SO.Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article