Intensive care discharge summaries for general practice staff: a focus group study

Understanding how patients and relatives can be supported after hospital discharge is a UK research priority. Intensive Care Unit (ICU) discharge summaries are a simple way of providing GPs with the information they require to coordinate ongoing care, but little evidence is available to guide best practice

Interventions to promote patients and families' involvement in adult intensive care settings: a protocol for a mixed-method systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There has been an identified need for greater patient and family member involvement in healthcare. This is particularly relevant in an intensive care unit (ICU), as the family provides a key communicative and practical link between patient and clinician. Family members have been deemed a positive beneficial influence on ICU care and recovery processes, yet they themselves are often emotionally affected after discharge. There has been no standardised evidenced-based approach which explores research on family member involvement and the range and quality of contributions remain unclear. This project will undertake a systematic review to assess the evidence base for interventions designed to promote patient and family member involvement in adult intensive care settings and develop a comprehensive typology of interventions for use by clinicians, patients and carers. METHODS: The following databases will be searched without date restriction: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Joanna Briggs and Cochrane Libraries. Manual searches of recent back issues of leading ICU and patient experience journals will also be undertaken, as will the reference lists of included studies. Unpublished literature will be sought through grey literature databases, including GreyLit and OpenGrey. All evaluation studies that consider intervention activities to promote patient and family member involvement in adult ICUs will be included; all research designs will be eligible. We will seek to include studies that report on a mixture of relevant outcomes for patients and family members. Abstracts and papers will be independently screened by at least two members of the team to determine their inclusion. Included papers will be assessed for methodological rigour using a standard rating approach, which assesses 'quality of study' and 'quality of information'. Quality assessment will be completed by at least two members of the team. Data on interventions, evaluation methods and outcomes will be collated using a predetermined extraction table. These are likely to be heterogeneous in nature, which will mean that the review will follow a narrative approach to synthesis. DISCUSSION: The review will provide valuable and rigorous insight into the range and quality of interventions available to promote patient and family member involvement in ICU. This is the first step towards addressing the absence of a synthesis of research for this context, and will, in addition, develop a typology of available interventions that will help service users and clinicians make informed decisions about the approaches to patient and family member involvement which they might want to adopt. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42018086325)

Resilient healthcare theory as a lens to research emergency department operations: a protocol for a scoping review

Introduction Emergency departments (EDs) are complex systems that have constant fluctuations in demand, creating mismatches with planned capacity. Despite the complexity of ED operations, quality and safety improvement are often approached in a reactive, linear and reductionist manner. There is increasing interest in adopting Resilient Healthcare (RHC) techniques based on complex systems thinking as a method for quality improvement and research in EDs. However, the evidence for this approach is still developing and it is not clear what techniques have been used so far and which are most effective. This scoping review will be conducted between March 2022 until May 2022. It seeks to examine the international literature for available reports that have adopted RHC theory to study ED operations and identify approaches used and proposed benefits. Methods and analysis The methodology for scoping reviews outlined by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) will be followed, acknowledging refinements made to the scoping review process by Levac et al (2010). The methodology consists of five steps: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying the relevant literature; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results. A two-stage approach will be undertaken to synthesise and report results: (1) numerical analysis of the nature and distribution of studies (the overall number of studies, country of origin, the most studied core function of ED, type of research design); and (2) a thematic mapping of the literature. Ethics and dissemination Scoping review methodology synthesises published data and, therefore, does not require ethical approval. An article formatted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses forScoping Reviews reporting guidance will be submitted for publication to a scientific journal. Findings will also be presented at relevant advanced practice conferences and disseminated within clinical and academic groups

Healthcare stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of critical care telemedicine (CCT): qualitative evidence synthesis

This is the published version of the following article: Xyrichis A, Mackintosh NJ, Terblanche M, Bench S, Philippou J, Sandall J. Healthcare stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of critical care telemedicine (CCT): qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD012876. which has been published at 10.1002/14651858.CD012876 © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Qualitative). The objectives are as follows: To identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative research evidence on healthcare stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of CCT. To identify hypotheses, for subsequent consideration and assessment in effectiveness reviews, about factors that are more likely to ensure successful implementation of CCT

Prospective observational study to examine health-related quality of life and develop models to predict long-term patient-reported outcomes 6 months after hospital discharge with blunt thoracic injuries.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the long-term outcomes and health-related quality of life in patients with blunt thoracic injuries over 6 months from hospital discharge and develop models to predict long-term patient-reported outcomes. DESIGN: A prospective observational study using longitudinal survey design. SETTING: The study recruitment was undertaken at 12 UK hospitals which represented diverse geographical locations and covered urban, suburban and rural areas across England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 337 patients admitted to hospital with blunt thoracic injuries were recruited between June 2018-October 2020. METHODS: Participants completed a bank of two quality of life surveys (Short Form-12 (SF-12) and EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Levels) and two pain questionnaires (Brief Pain Inventory and painDETECT Questionnaire) at four time points over the first 6 months after discharge from hospital. A total of 211 (63%) participants completed the outcomes data at 6 months after hospital discharge. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Three outcomes were measured using pre-existing and validated patient-reported outcome measures. Outcomes included: Poor physical function (SF-12 Physical Component Score); chronic pain (Brief Pain Inventory Pain Severity Score); and neuropathic pain (painDETECT Questionnaire). RESULTS: Despite a trend towards improving physical functional and pain at 6 months, outcomes did not return to participants perceived baseline level of function. At 6 months after hospital discharge, 37% (n=77) of participants reported poor physical function; 36.5% (n=77) reported a chronic pain state; and 22% (n=47) reported pain with a neuropathic component. Predictive models were developed for each outcome highlighting important data collection requirements for predicting long-term outcomes in this population. Model diagnostics including calibration and discrimination statistics suggested good model fit in this development cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the recovery trajectories for patients with blunt thoracic injuries over the first 6 months after hospital discharge and present prognostic models for three important outcomes which after external validation could be used as clinical risk stratification scores

Top tips for interprofessional education and collaborative practice research: a guide for students and early career researchers.

Interprofessional research within the contexts of education and health and social care practice has grown exponentially within the past three decades. To maintain the momentum of high-quality research, it is important that early career researchers embarking on their first research journey and new to interprofessional education or interprofessional collaborative practice feel supported in making their contribution to the field. This guide, developed by the Center for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE) Research Group, has been written with these groups in mind who are embarking on their first research journey, and new to the interprofessional field. It aims to raise awareness of academic resources and share practical advice from those who have previously experienced problems when undertaking interprofessional research in education or health and social care practice

The breadth of primary care: a systematic literature review of its core dimensions

Background: Even though there is general agreement that primary care is the linchpin of effective health care delivery, to date no efforts have been made to systematically review the scientific evidence supporting this supposition. The aim of this study was to examine the breadth of primary care by identifying its core dimensions and to assess the evidence for their interrelations and their relevance to outcomes at (primary) health system level. Methods: A systematic review of the primary care literature was carried out, restricted to English language journals reporting original research or systematic reviews. Studies published between 2003 and July 2008 were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, King's Fund Database, IDEAS Database, and EconLit. Results: Eighty-five studies were identified. This review was able to provide insight in the complexity of primary care as a multidimensional system, by identifying ten core dimensions that constitute a primary care system. The structure of a primary care system consists of three dimensions: 1. governance; 2. economic conditions; and 3. workforce development. The primary care process is determined by four dimensions: 4. access; 5. continuity of care; 6. coordination of care; and 7. comprehensiveness of care. The outcome of a primary care system includes three dimensions: 8. quality of care; 9. efficiency care; and 10. equity in health. There is a considerable evidence base showing that primary care contributes through its dimensions to overall health system performance and health. Conclusions: A primary care system can be defined and approached as a multidimensional system contributing to overall health system performance and health