Piloting a global mentorship initiative to support African emergency nurses

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Mentorship is a relationship whereby a person experienced in the specialty supports and guides a less experienced person following a process of relationship building, engagement and development, self-inquiry and reflection (Seekoe, 2014). It involves regular contact with a critical friend who has a mature level of skills and expertise and can advise and support the mentee’s development in order to empower them and build capacity (Seekoe, 2014). In healthcare this relationship usually has formal recognition. Indeed clinical mentorship of nurse initiated antiretroviral therapy in resource limited settings in South Africa suggests that mentorship increases clinical confidence and improves the quality of nursing care (Green, de Azevedo, Patten, Davies, Ibeto, et al., 2014). Bennet, Paina, Ssengooba, Waswa and Imunya (2013) demonstrated in Kenya and Uganda that mentorship programmes have a positive impact on career development and whether to remain in health research. However, in a global healthcare context, one size does not fit all. Limited examples exist of Afrocentric mentorship arrangements which enhance the personal development and expertise of novice health practitioners however no current mentorship infrastructure exists to support the development of emergency nurses in Africa (Brysiewicz, 2012). This paper explains the creation and pilot of a global mentorship initiative through collaboration to support emergency nurses in Africa and, the potential benefits and limitations of such a quest.Peer reviewe

The West Midlands ActiVe lifestyle and healthy Eating in School children (WAVES) study: a cluster randomised controlled trial testing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted obesity prevention intervention programme targeted at children aged 6-7 years.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest that school-based interventions can be effective in preventing childhood obesity, but better-designed trials are needed that consider costs, process, equity, potential harms and longer-term outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the WAVES (West Midlands ActiVe lifestyle and healthy Eating in School children) study intervention, compared with usual practice, in preventing obesity among primary school children. DESIGN: A cluster randomised controlled trial, split across two groups, which were randomised using a blocked balancing algorithm. Schools/participants could not be blinded to trial arm. Measurement staff were blind to allocation arm as far as possible. SETTING: Primary schools, West Midlands, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Schools within a 35-mile radius of the study centre and all year 1 pupils (aged 5-6 years) were eligible. Schools with a higher proportion of pupils from minority ethnic populations were oversampled to enable subgroup analyses. INTERVENTIONS: The 12-month intervention encouraged healthy eating/physical activity (PA) by (1) helping teachers to provide 30 minutes of additional daily PA, (2) promoting 'Villa Vitality' (interactive healthy lifestyles learning, in an inspirational setting), (3) running school-based healthy cooking skills/education workshops for parents and children and (4) highlighting information to families with regard to local PA opportunities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the difference in body mass index z-scores (BMI-zs) between arms (adjusted for baseline body mass index) at 3 and 18 months post intervention (clinical outcome), and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (cost-effectiveness outcome). The secondary outcomes were further anthropometric, dietary, PA and psychological measurements, and the difference in BMI-z between arms at 27 months post intervention in a subset of schools. RESULTS: Two groups of schools were randomised: 27 in 2011 (n = 650 pupils) [group 1 (G1)] and another 27 in 2012 (n = 817 pupils) [group 2 (G2)]. Primary outcome data were available at first follow-up (n = 1249 pupils) and second follow-up (n = 1145 pupils) from 53 schools. The mean difference (MD) in BMI-z between the control and intervention arms was -0.075 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.183 to 0.033] and -0.027 (95% CI -0.137 to 0.083) at 3 and 18 months post intervention, respectively. The main analyses showed no evidence of between-arm differences for any secondary outcomes. Third follow-up included data on 467 pupils from 27 G1 schools, and showed a statistically significant difference in BMI-z (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.01). The mean cost of the intervention was £266.35 per consented child (£155.53 per child receiving the intervention). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with the base case was £46,083 per QALY (best case £26,804 per QALY), suggesting that the intervention was not cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The presence of baseline primary outcome imbalance between the arms, and interschool variation in fidelity of intervention delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The primary analyses show no evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of the WAVES study intervention. A post hoc analysis, driven by findings at third follow-up, suggests a possible intervention effect, which could have been attenuated by baseline imbalances. There was no evidence of an intervention effect on measures of diet or PA and no evidence of harm. FUTURE WORK: A realist evidence synthesis could provide insights into contextual factors and strategies for future interventions. School-based interventions need to be integrated within a wider societal framework and supported by upstream interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN97000586. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Mild frailty or pre-frailty is common and yet is potentially reversible. Preventing progression to worsening frailty may benefit individuals and lower health/social care costs. However, we know little about effective approaches to preventing frailty progression. OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop an evidence- and theory-based home-based health promotion intervention for older people with mild frailty. (2) To assess feasibility, costs and acceptability of (i) the intervention and (ii) a full-scale clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN: Evidence reviews, qualitative studies, intervention development and a feasibility RCT with process evaluation. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT: Two systematic reviews (including systematic searches of 14 databases and registries, 1990-2016 and 1980-2014), a state-of-the-art review (from inception to 2015) and policy review identified effective components for our intervention. We collected data on health priorities and potential intervention components from semistructured interviews and focus groups with older people (aged 65-94 years) (n = 44), carers (n = 12) and health/social care professionals (n = 27). These data, and our evidence reviews, fed into development of the 'HomeHealth' intervention in collaboration with older people and multidisciplinary stakeholders. 'HomeHealth' comprised 3-6 sessions with a support worker trained in behaviour change techniques, communication skills, exercise, nutrition and mood. Participants addressed self-directed independence and well-being goals, supported through education, skills training, enabling individuals to overcome barriers, providing feedback, maximising motivation and promoting habit formation. FEASIBILITY RCT: Single-blind RCT, individually randomised to 'HomeHealth' or treatment as usual (TAU). SETTING: Community settings in London and Hertfordshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 51 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years with mild frailty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility - recruitment, retention, acceptability and intervention costs. Clinical and health economic outcome data at 6 months included functioning, frailty status, well-being, psychological distress, quality of life, capability and NHS and societal service utilisation/costs. RESULTS: We successfully recruited to target, with good 6-month retention (94%). Trial procedures were acceptable with minimal missing data. Individual randomisation was feasible. The intervention was acceptable, with good fidelity and modest delivery costs (£307 per patient). A total of 96% of participants identified at least one goal, which were mostly exercise related (73%). We found significantly better functioning (Barthel Index +1.68; p = 0.004), better grip strength (+6.48 kg; p = 0.02), reduced psychological distress (12-item General Health Questionnaire -3.92; p = 0.01) and increased capability-adjusted life-years [+0.017; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.031] at 6 months in the intervention arm than the TAU arm, with no differences in other outcomes. NHS and carer support costs were variable but, overall, were lower in the intervention arm than the TAU arm. The main limitation was difficulty maintaining outcome assessor blinding. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is lacking to inform frailty prevention service design, with no large-scale trials of multidomain interventions. From stakeholder/public perspectives, new frailty prevention services should be personalised and encompass multiple domains, particularly socialising and mobility, and can be delivered by trained non-specialists. Our multicomponent health promotion intervention was acceptable and delivered at modest cost. Our small study shows promise for improving clinical outcomes, including functioning and independence. A full-scale individually RCT is feasible. FUTURE WORK: A large, definitive RCT of the HomeHealth service is warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010370 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11986672. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Using research evidence in mental health:user-rating and focus group study of clinicians' preferences for a new clinical question-answering service

Background and objectives: Clinicians report difficulties using research in their practices. The aim of the study was to describe needs and preferences for a mental health clinical question-answering service designed to assist this process. Method: Multi-disciplinary clinicians participated in a focus group; users of the service supplied feedback. Results: Fifty-four clinicians received answers to 84 questions about mental health treatments. User ratings showed that the answers had multiple uses: informing health care (43), education (22), staff development (28) and research (12), and were considered useful, clear, relevant and helpful. Focus group participants appreciated critically appraised summaries of evidence and stressed the time-saving benefit of the service. Clinicians without a medical training were least confident in applying evidence. Attitudes to research were positive, but concern was expressed about its potential misuse for political purposes. This appeared to arise from an ambiguity around the term 'insufficient evidence', which participants felt is widely misinterpreted as 'evidence of no effect'. Conclusions: A highly valued, responsive service has been developed. A range of clinicians find critically appraised summaries of research useful. Education about the use of research may help clinicians to be more evidence based. © 2009 Health Libraries Group

Exploring understanding of the term nursing assessment : a mixed method review of the literature

‘The definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com '. Copyright Sigma Theta Tau International [Full text of this article is not available in the UHRA]Background: Much skilled nursing practice is described by words that at face value appear low-tech and self-explanatory. Despite being intrinsic to practice, the term "nursing assessment" has few operational definitions. Evidence-based practice and the quality agenda makes it imperative that this term is well understood. Objectives: To contribute to the evidence base and facilitate a greater understanding of assessment of patients as carried out by nurses through exploring the research question: How is the term "nursing assessment" used in the current health care literature? Design: The review process, synthesised from the work of Greenhalgh et al. (2005), Clancy (2002), Egger et al. (2001), identified and assessed the quality of articles, text books, the grey literature, policy documents and databases. Glaser's Grounded Theory (GT) method was utilised to analyse the concept of "assessment" as exemplified within the included studies. Methods: The focus for this mixed-method review is the health care literature between 1990 and 2005. Studies were identified, screened and assessed for methodological quality and data were extracted and recorded. Analysis of the included studies was facilitated using a GT approach. Possible tensions when using a mixed-method research design are acknowledged and briefly discussed. Results: Of the 32,602 instances initially identified, 329 articles, policy documents and book extracts were closely read and after further screening, 120 articles and 12 policy documents and book extracts were analysed. Seven overlapping categories were identified, with "judicial" or "judgement making" identified as the core category. Conclusions: Hierarchies of nursing practice, government policies and inter-professional agendas cause barriers to meaningful assessment. Informal and formal assessments and screening processes are often conflated, resulting in confusion regarding the scope and nature of the process. Differences between the rhetoric of placing the patient at the heart of the assessment process and practice have been identified.Peer reviewe