Background: The use of patient-reported outcomes to improve burn care increases. Little is known on burn patients’ views on what outcomes are most important, and about preferences regarding online Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Therefore, this study assessed what outcomes matter most to patients, and gained insights into patient preferences towards the use of online PROMs. Methods: Adult patients (≥18 years old), 3–36 months after injury completed a survey measuring importance of outcomes, separately for three time periods: during admission, short-term (< 6 months) and long-term (6–24 months) after burn injury. Both open and closed-ended questions were used. Furthermore, preferences regarding the use of patient-reported outcome measures in burn care were queried. Results: A total of 140 patients were included (response rate: 27%). ‘Not having pain’ and ‘good wound healing’ were identified as very important outcomes. Also, ‘physical functioning at pre-injury level’, ‘being independent’ and ‘taking care of yourself’ were considered very important outcomes. The top-ten of most important outcomes largely overlapped in all three time periods. Most patients (84%) had no problems with online questionnaires, and many (67%) indicated that it should take up to 15 minutes. Patients’ opinions differed widely on the preferred frequency of follow-up. Conclusions: Not having pain and good wound healing were considered very important during the whole recovery of burns; in addition, physical functioning at pre-injury level, being independent, and taking care of yourself were deemed very important in the short and long-term. These outcomes are recommended to be used in burn care and research, although careful selection of outcomes remains crucial as patients prefer online questionnaires up to 15 minutes.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background: Lifestyle interventions for severe mental illness (SMI) are known to have small to modest efect on physical health outcomes. Little attention has been given to patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Aim: To systematically review the use of PROs and their measures, and quantify the efects of lifestyle interventions in patients with SMI on these PROs. Methods: Five electronic databases were searched (PubMed/Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science) from inception until 12 November 2020 (PROSPERO: CRD42020212135). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efcacy of lifestyle interventions focusing on healthy diet, physical activity, or both for patients with SMI were included. Outcomes of interest were PROs. Results: A total of 11.267 unique records were identifed from the database search, 66 full-text articles were assessed, and 36 RCTs were included, of which 21 were suitable for meta-analyses. In total, 5.907 participants were included across studies. Lifestyle interventions had no signifcant efect on quality of life (g=0.13; 95% CI=−0.02 to 0.27), with high heterogeneity (I2 =68.7%). We found a small efect on depression severity (g=0.30, 95% CI=0.00 to 0.58, I2 =65.2%) and a moderate efect on anxiety severity (g=0.56, 95% CI=0.16 to 0.95, I2 =0%). Discussion: This meta-analysis quantifes the efects of lifestyle interventions on PROs. Lifestyle interventions have no signifcant efect on quality of life, yet they could improve mental health outcomes such as depression and anxiety symptoms. Further use of patient-reported outcome measures in lifestyle research is recommended to fully capture the impact of lifestyle interventions.
DOCUMENT
There is a lack of evidence to guide district nurses in using nurse-sensitive patient outcomes as it is unclear how these outcomes are currently used in daily district nursing practice. Therefore, we aimed to explore (1) which nurse-sensitive patient outcomes are measured and how these outcomes are measured, (2) how district nurses use the outcomes to learn from and improve current practice and (3) the barriers and facilitators to using outcomes in current district nursing practice. An exploratory cross-sectional survey study was conducted. The survey was distributed online among nurses working for various district nursing care organisations across the Netherlands. The responses from 132 nurses were analysed, demonstrating that different instruments or questionnaires are available and used in district nursing care as outcome measures. The nurse-sensitive patient outcomes most often measured with validated instruments are pain using the Numeric Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale, delirium using the Delirium Observation Scale, weight loss using the Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire and caregiver burden using the Caregiver Strain Index or a Dutch equivalent. Falls and client satisfaction with delivered care are most often measured using unvalidated outcome measures. The other nurse-sensitive outcomes are measured in different ways. Outcomes are measured, reported and fed back to the nursing team multiple times and in various ways to learn from and improve current practice. In general, nurses have a positive attitude towards using nurse-sensitive outcomes in practice, but there is a lack of facilitation to support them. Because insight into how nurses can and should be supported is still lacking, exploring their needs in further research is desirable. Additionally, due to the high variation in the utilisation of outcomes in current practice, it is recommended to create more uniformity by developing (inter)national guidelines on using nurse-sensitive patient outcomes in district nursing care.
LINK
Aim and objectives: To provide an in-depth insight into the barriers, facilitators and needs of district nurses and nurse assistants on using patient outcomes in district nursing care. Background: As healthcare demands grow, particularly in district nursing, there is a significant need to understand how to systematically measure and improve patient outcomes in this setting. Further investigation is needed to identify the barriers and facilitators for effective implementation. Design: A multi-method qualitative study. Methods: Open-ended questions of a survey study (N = 132) were supplemented with in-depth online focus group interviews involving district nurses and nurse assistants (N = 26) in the Netherlands. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Different barriers, facilitators and needs were identified and compiled into 16 preconditions for using outcomes in district nursing care. These preconditions were summarised into six overarching themes: follow the steps of a learning healthcare system; provide patient-centred care; promote the professional's autonomy, attitude, knowledge and skills; enhance shared responsibility and collaborations within and outside organisational boundaries; prioritise and invest in the use of outcomes; and boost the unity and appreciation for district nursing care. Conclusions: The preconditions identified in this study are crucial for nurses, care providers, policymakers and payers in implementing the use of patient outcomes in district nursing practice. Further exploration of appropriate strategies is necessary for a successful implementation. Relevance to clinical practice: This study represents a significant step towards implementing the use of patient outcomes in district nursing care. While most research has focused on hospitals and general practitioner settings, this study focuses on the needs for district nursing care. By identifying 16 key preconditions across themes such as patient-centred care, professional autonomy and unity, the findings offer valuable guidance for integrating a learning healthcare system that prioritises the measurement and continuous improvement of patient outcomes in district nursing.
DOCUMENT
Background: A new selective preventive spinal immobilization (PSI) protocol was introduced in the Netherlands. This may have led to an increase in non-immobilized spinal fractures (NISFs) and consequently adverse patient outcomes. Aim: A pilot study was conducted to describe the adverse patient outcomes in NISF of the PSI protocol change and assess the feasibility of a larger effect study. Methods: Retrospective comparative cohort pilot study including records of trauma patients with a presumed spinal injury who were presented at the emergency department of a level 2 trauma center by the emergency medical service (EMS). The pre-period 2013-2014 (strict PSI protocol), was compared to the post-period 2017-2018 (selective PSI protocol). Primary outcomes were the percentage of records with a NISF who had an adverse patient outcome such as neurological injuries and mortality before and after the protocol change. Secondary outcomes were the sample size calculation for a larger study and the feasibility of data collection. Results: 1,147 records were included; 442 pre-period, and 705 post-period. The NISF-prevalence was 10% (95% CI 7-16, n = 19) and 8% (95% CI 6-11, n = 33), respectively. In both periods, no neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found, by which calculating a sample size is impossible. Data collection showed to be feasible. Conclusions: No neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found in a strict and a selective PSI protocol. Therefore, a larger study is discouraged. Future studies should focus on which patients really profit from PSI and which patients do not.
DOCUMENT
In dit artikel wordt het door Twigg et al. (2011) uitgevoerde onderzoek kritisch bekeken. In dit onderzoek is gekeken naar de relatie tussen de verpleegkundige bezetting en verbetering van verpleegkundig sensitieve uitkomsten. De onderzoekers constateren een positieve causale relatie maar onderbouwen dat niet door de gepresenteerde resultaten. Daarnaast wordt er geen aandacht geschonken aan andere contextuele factoren (zoals multidisciplinaire samenwerking) die van invloed zijn op de uitkomsten. Geconcludeerd kan worden dat de relatie tussen de verpleegkundige bezetting minder duidelijk is dan de onderzoekers concluderen.
LINK
Purpose In recent years, the effects of the physical environment on the healing process and well-being has proved to be increasingly relevant for the patient, family, carers (PFC), and staff. Moreover, it is a growing concern among health care providers, environmental psychologist, consultants, qualified installers of technologies, and architects. These concerns are about the traditional, institutionally designed health care facilities (HCF) in relation to the well-being of patients. Different studies have found that an improved design of the built environment can enhance the safety and quality, satisfaction of this so-called healing environments. This is an overview of the evidence presented in the literature on healing environments. The scientific research on evidence-based design is ordered and structured. Method The Cochrane Methodology1 was used to search data. Pubmed [Medline], Jstor, and Scopus were searched for relevant articles. A total of 54 keywords were used and structured in four groups, patient, staff, environmental factors, and relevant authors. After eliminating duplicate articles, the remaining articles were examined for further selection. At the final stage, articles were selected based on title and abstract that referred to the physical environment of healthcare facilities in the title and the abstract. To order and structure the evidence regarding healing environments, the framework of integrated building design by Rutten2 and Ulrich3,4 was used and adapted. The studies included in the review were subdivided into two groups, PFC-outcomes and staff outcomes by using methodology according to the pyramid of evidence5 . Results & Discussion Results illustrate the effects of different aspects and dimensions that deal with the physical environmental factors of HFC on PFC and staff. A total of 798 papers were found to fit the inclusion criteria. Of these, 68 articles were selected for the review: less than 50% were classified with a high level of evidence, and 87% were included in the group of PFC-outcomes. The study demonstrates that evidence of staff outcomes is scarce or insufficiently substantiated. With the development of a more customer-oriented management approach to HCF, these results are important for the design and construction of HCF. Some design features to be addressed are: identical rooms, single-patient rooms; and lighting. For future research, the main challenge is to investigate and specify staff needs and integrate these needs into the built environment of HCF.
DOCUMENT
Rationale, aims and objective: Primary Care Plus (PC+) focuses on the substitution of hospital-based medical care to the primary care setting without moving hospital facilities. The aim of this study was to examine whether population health and experience of care in PC+ could be maintained. Therefore, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and experienced quality of care from a patient perspective were compared between patients referred to PC+ and to hospital-based outpatient care (HBOC). Methods: This cohort study included patients from a Dutch region, visiting PC+ or HBOC between December 2014 and April 2018. With patient questionnaires (T0, T1 and T2), the HRQoL and experience of care were measured. One-to-two nearest neighbour calliper propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for potential selection bias. Outcomes were compared using marginal linear models and Pearson chi-square tests. Results: One thousand one hundred thirteen PC+ patients were matched to 606 HBOC patients with well-balanced baseline characteristics (SMDs <0.1). Regarding HRQoL outcomes, no significant interaction terms between time and group were found (P > .05), indicating no difference in HRQoL development between the groups over time. Regarding experienced quality of care, no differences were found between PC+ and HBOC patients. Only travel time was significantly shorter in the HBOC group (P ≤ .001). Conclusion: Results show equal effects on HRQoL outcomes over time between the groups. Regarding experienced quality of care, only differences in travel time were found. Taken as a whole, population health and quality of care were maintained with PC+ and future research should focus more on cost-related outcomes.
DOCUMENT
Purpose In this systematic literature review, the effects of the application of a checklist during in hospital resuscitation of trauma patients on adherence to the ATLS guidelines, trauma team performance, and patient-related outcomes were integrated. Methods A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses checklist. The search was performed in Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane inception till January 2019. Randomized controlled- or controlled before-and-after study design were included. All other forms of observational study designs, reviews, case series or case reports, animal studies, and simulation studies were excluded. The Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool was applied to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Results Three of the 625 identified articles were included, which all used a before-and-after study design. Two studies showed that Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS)-related tasks are significantly more frequently performed when a checklist was applied during resuscitation. [14 of 30 tasks (p < 0.05), respectively, 18 of 19 tasks (p < 0.05)]. One study showed that time to task completion (− 9 s, 95% CI = − 13.8 to − 4.8 s) and workflow improved, which was analyzed as model fitness (0.90 vs 0.96; p < 0.001); conformance frequency (26.1% vs 77.6%; p < 0.001); and frequency of unique workflow traces (31.7% vs 19.1%; p = 0.005). One study showed that the incidence of pneumonia was higher in the group where a checklist was applied [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.69, 95% Confidence Interval (CI 1.03–2.80)]. No difference was found for nine other assessed complications or missed injuries. Reduced mortality rates were found in the most severely injured patient group (Injury Severity score > 25, aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30–0.89). Conclusions The application of a checklist may improve ATLS adherence and workflow during trauma resuscitation. Current literature is insufficient to truly define the effect of the application of a checklist during trauma resuscitation on patientrelated outcomes, although one study showed promising results as an improved chance of survival for the most severely injured patients was found.
LINK
Introduction F-ACT is a flexible version of Assertive Community Treatment to deliver care in a changing intensity depending on needs of individuals with severe mental illnesses (Van Veldhuizen, 2007). In 2016 a number of the FACT-teams in the Dutch region of Utrecht moved to locations in neighborhoods and started to work as one network team together with neighborhood based facilities in primary care (GP’s) and in the social domain (supported living, social district teams, etc.). This should create better chances on clinical, social and personal recovery of service users. Objectives This study describes the implementation, obstacles and outcomes for service users. The main question is whether this Collaborative Mental Health Care in the Community produces better outcome than regular FACT. Measures include (met/unmet) needs for care, quality of life, clinical, functional and personal recovery, and hospital admission days. Methods Data on care utilization regarding the innovation are compared to regular FACT. Qualitative interviews are conducted to gain insight in the experiences of service users, their family members and mental health care workers. Changes in outcome measures of service users in pilot areas (N=400) were compared to outcomes of users (matched on gender and level of functioning) in regular FACT teams in the period 2015-2018 (total N=800). Results Data-analyses will take place from January to March 2019. Initial analyses point at a greater feeling of holding and safety for service users in the pilot areas and less hospital admission days. Conclusions Preliminary results support the development from FACT to a community based collaborative care service.
DOCUMENT
