Search

Introduction: Major trauma centre (MTC) care has been associated with improved outcomes for injured patients. English ambulance services and trauma networks currently use a range of triage tools to select patients for bypass to MTCs. A standardised national triage tool may improve triage accuracy, cost-effectiveness and the reproducibility of decision-making. Methods: We conducted an expert consensus process to derive and develop a major trauma triage tool for use in English trauma networks. A web-based Delphi survey was conducted to identify and confirm candidate triage tool predictors of major trauma. Facilitated roundtable consensus meetings were convened to confirm the proposed triage tool’s purpose, target diagnostic threshold, scope, intended population and structure, as well as the individual triage tool predictors and cut points. Public and patient involvement (PPI) focus groups were held to ensure triage tool acceptability to service users. Results: The Delphi survey reached consensus on nine triage variables in two domains, from 109 candidate variables after three rounds. Following a review of the relevant evidence during the consensus meetings, iterative rounds of discussion achieved consensus on the following aspects of the triage tool: reference standard, scope, target diagnostic accuracy and intended population. A three-step tool comprising physiology, anatomical injury and clinical judgement domains, with triage variables assessed in parallel, was recommended. The triage tool was received favourably by PPI focus groups. Conclusions: This paper presents a new expert consensus derived major trauma triage tool with defined purpose, scope, intended population, structure, constituent variables, variable definitions and thresholds. Prospective evaluation is required to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness, acceptability and usability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Telehealth for paediatric speech and language therapy became one of the most salient modes of service delivery during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Evidence for speech and language therapy services via telehealth in comparison to face‐to‐face delivery demonstrates promising outcomes, and studies have begun to explore practitioner and client experiences. However, across the literature, many critical elements of services are overlooked, and there is a need to frame the evidence base within a theoretical model that can draw out practical implications that consider the range of factors having an impact on clinical implementation in real‐world contexts. The APEASE (Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Side‐effects, and Equity) criteria offer such a model. The current study explored practising UK speech and language therapists' (SLTs) clinical experience of telehealth through the lens of the APEASE criteria and aimed to identify recommendations for future service provision from the practitioner perspective. Methods: An online survey structured using the APEASE criteria was developed in collaboration with the UK Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Four hundred and thirty‐eight qualified and practicing UK paediatric SLTs completed the survey. Telehealth was broadly acceptable and practicable to SLTs yet there remains some uncertainty about its efficacy and cost‐effectiveness compared to face‐to‐face interventions and how equitable it is for different population groups. SLTs reported that effective implementation of telehealth services was dependent upon several contextual factors; affordability was a perceived barrier to clients having access to telehealth resources, intervention via telehealth was perceived as more acceptable than assessment, and whilst many SLTs welcomed aspects of telehealth, there were concerns about the physical and mental health consequences for practitioners. Six themes for the future development of telehealth in paediatric speech and language therapy were identified: (1) balanced and tailored services; (2) technology and equipment; (3) information and communication; (4) capacity building; (5) monitoring and evaluation; and (6) leadership and governance. Conclusions: Outcomes highlight promising, concerning and uncertain aspects of telehealth in paediatric speech and language therapy. SLTs value a flexible and tailored approach to service delivery and recommend that effective leadership, clear communication, ongoing policy and guidance development, upskilling of users and careful evaluation of impact are required to ensure optimal implementation. The APEASE criteria offer a valuable opportunity to enhance and streamline practice and research to ensure sustainable implementation of telehealth in the paediatric speech and language therapy services of tomorrow. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: The COVID‐19 pandemic led to the increased use of telehealth as a main mode of service delivery in paediatric speech and language therapy. Pre‐COVID‐19, evidence for the use of telehealth in this field included small‐scale experimental studies that reported on children with particular disorders and explored telehealth outcomes in comparison to face‐to‐face delivery. The realities of at‐scale clinical practice were not well‐represented, and critical elements of service such as cost‐effectiveness were often overlooked in the paediatric literature. Furthermore, despite emerging global evidence for temporary telehealth responses to the crisis in speech and language therapy, the long‐term and future use of telehealth remains unclear. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: The current study applied the lens of the APEASE (Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Side‐effects, and Equity) criteria, which were used in this case to consider socioeconomic, ecological and cultural factors to capture an overarching understanding of the use of telehealth in paediatric speech and language therapy, and to inform the role of telehealth in future, longer‐term and at‐scale service development. Results indicated emerging trends in UK paediatric speech and language therapists' (SLTs') perceptions of telehealth and SLTs perceived a hybrid approach to service delivery, combining mostly face‐to‐face services with some telehealth, was likely to continue in the future. We identified six themes to guide the future development of telehealth in paediatric speech and language therapy services: (1) balanced and tailored services; (2) technology and equipment; (3) information and communication; (4) capacity building; (5) monitoring and evaluation; and (6) leadership and governance. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: UK SLTs believe that speech and language therapy services using telehealth should be reflective, tailored and flexible to meet the requirements and circumstances of the children, young people and families served, as well as the physical and emotional needs of practitioners. SLTs recommend that this service development is clearly communicated to all stakeholders and suggested that those using telehealth should be supported through appropriate training, and ongoing effectiveness should be monitored. Telehealth is here to stay and the APEASE criteria offer a unique opportunity to ensure sustainable models of service delivery; to support co‐ordinated leadership at the local, national and international levels and the development of policy and clinical guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Upper limb impairment is common after stroke, with a significant impact on the stroke survivor's function, social participation and quality of life. Clinical guidelines are needed to inform clinical practise, tailor interventions to improve outcomes and address unresolved research questions. This review contributes to the evidence guiding clinical practise for upper limb motor recovery after stroke by summarising the recommendations from the UK rehabilitation guidelines (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party (ISWP)) and the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines, all published in 2023. All three guidelines target researchers, clinical practitioners, stroke survivors and their social networks. An important feature in all three guidelines was therapeutic intensity, with all guidelines recommending increased therapeutic intensity. Unlike the ESO, the NICE and ISWP additionally include specific research recommendations. While the NICE guidelines seem more holistic and target a wider audience, the three guidelines are complimentary. We recommend that a future consensus statement should be developed in partnership between all three organisations, agreeing on scope and using the same terminology, on recommendations to improve stroke rehabilitation in the UK and Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. New Zealand's health care system faces significant shortages in health care workers. To address workforce challenges and meet the population's health needs, health care systems around the world have introduced new clinical roles, such as physician associates/assistants (PAs) into existing health care teams. Aim. This article aims to examine the benefits, challenges, and broader implications of regulating PAs in the context of New Zealand's primary care sector, with a specific emphasis on how it may impact general practice. Methods. A range of literature surrounding the role, impact, and perception of PAs were selected and included in this article. Results. The PA profession can significantly strengthen New Zealand's primary care workforce, improving patient access and continuity of care. However, the global deployment of PAs has faced scrutiny due to concerns about its potential risks to patient safety and the overall viability of such a role. Discussion. If regulated, the PA profession can reshape New Zealand's primary care, offering a partial solution to current medical staff shortages. Trained under a generalised medical model similar to doctors, PAs possess the necessary skills to perform both routine and non-routine medical tasks. This dual capability can significantly improve primary care service provision, reduce existing workloads, and allow for a more efficient deployment of doctor expertise. However, medico-legal issues and the supervisory burden can impede widespread integration into general practice. Despite challenges, the success of the PA role relies on mutual trust, respect, and support from other clinical team members within primary health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the UK, tens of millions of working days are lost due to work‐related ill health every year, costing billions of pounds. The role of Occupational Health (OH) services is vital in helping workers to maintain employment when they encounter injury or illness. OH providers traditionally rely on a clinical workforce to deliver these services, particularly doctors and nurses with OH qualifications. However, the increasing demand for OH services is unlikely to be met in the future using this traditional model, due to the declining number of OH‐trained doctors and nurses in the UK. Multi‐disciplinary models of OH delivery, including a more varied range of healthcare and non‐healthcare professionals, could provide a way to meet this new demand for OH services. There is a need to identify collaborative models of OH service delivery and review their effectiveness on return‐to work outcomes. There is an existing pool of systematic review evidence evaluating workplace based, multi‐disciplinary OH interventions, but it is difficult to identify which aspects of the content and/or delivery of these interventions may be associated with improved work‐related outcomes. Objectives: The aim of this evidence and gap map (EGM) was to provide an overview of the systematic review evidence that evaluates the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of multi‐disciplinary OH interventions intending to improve work‐related outcomes. Search Methods: In June 2021 we searched a selection of bibliographic databases and other academic literature resources covering a range of relevant disciplines, including health care and business studies, to identify systematic review evidence from a variety of sectors of employment. We also searched Google Search and a selection of topically relevant websites and consulted with stakeholders to identify reports already known to them. Searches were updated in February 2023. Selection Criteria: Systematic reviews needed to be about adults (16 years or over) in employment, who have had absence from work for any medical reason. Interventions needed to be multi‐disciplinary (including professionals from different backgrounds in clinical and non‐clinical professions) and designed to support employees and employers to manage health conditions in the workplace and/or to help employees with health conditions retain and/or return to work following medical absence. Effectiveness needed to be measured in terms of return to work, work retention or measures of absence, or economic evaluation outcomes. These criteria were applied to the title and abstract and full text of each systematic review independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. We awarded each systematic review a rating of 'High', 'Medium' or 'Low' relevance to indicate the extent to which the populations, interventions and their contexts synthesised within the review were consistent with our research question. We also recorded the number of primary studies included within each of the 'High' and 'Medium' reviews that were relevant to research question using the same screening process applied at review level. Data Collection and Analysis: Summary data for each eligible review was extracted. The quality of the systematic reviews, rated as 'High' or 'Medium' relevance following full text screening, was appraised using the AMSTAR‐2 quality appraisal tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second, with disagreements being settled through discussion. Summary data for all eligible systematic reviews were tabulated and described narratively. The data extracted from reviews of 'High' and 'Medium' relevance was imported into EPPI‐Mapper software to create an EGM. Stakeholder Involvement: We worked alongside commissioners and policy makers from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), OH personnel, and people with lived experience of accessing OH services themselves and/or supporting employees to access OH services. Individuals contributed to decision making at all stages of the project. This ensured our EGM reflects the needs of individuals who will use it. Main Results: We identified 98 systematic reviews that contained relevant interventions, which involved a variety of professionals and workplaces, and which measured effectiveness in terms of return to work (RTW). Of these, we focused on the 30 reviews where the population and intervention characteristics within the systematic reviews were considered to be of high or medium relevance to our research questions. The 30 reviews were of varying quality, split evenly between High/Moderate quality and Low/Critically‐Low quality ratings. We did not identify any relevant systematic review evidence on any other work‐related outcome of interest. Interventions were heterogenous, both within and across included systematic reviews. The EGM is structured according to the health condition experienced by participants, and the effectiveness of the interventions being evaluated, as reported within the included systematic reviews. It is possible to view (i) the quality and quantity of systematic review evidence for a given health condition, (ii) how review authors assessed the effectiveness or cost‐effectiveness of the interventions evaluated. The EGM also details the primary studies relevant to our research aim included within each review. Authors' Conclusions: This EGM map highlights the array of systematic review evidence that exists in relation to the effectiveness or cost‐effectiveness of multi‐disciplinary, workplace‐based OH interventions in supporting RTW. This evidence will allow policy makers and commissioners of services to determine which OH interventions may be most useful for supporting different population groups in different contexts. OH professionals may find the content of the EGM useful in identifying systematic review evidence to support their practice. The EGM also identifies where systematic review evidence in this area is lacking, or where existing evidence is of poor quality. These may represent areas where it may be particularly useful to conduct further systematic reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID‐19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health‐related quality of life and cost‐effectiveness. Design: Parallel two‐arm, cluster‐level randomized controlled trial. Methods: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID‐19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient‐reported co‐primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention‐to‐treat analyses. Results: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570–572 (98.1%–98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between‐group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between‐group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co‐primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the 'other' ethnicity subgroup. Conclusion: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non‐white British patients' experience of care. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required. Impact: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non‐white British patients' experience of care. Reporting Method: CONSORT and CONSERVE. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID‐19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Delayed response to clinical deterioration of hospital inpatients is common. Deployment of an electronic automated advisory vital signs monitoring and notification system to signal clinical deterioration is associated with significant improvements in clinical outcomes but there is no evidence on the cost-effectiveness compared with routine monitoring, in the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of an electronic automated advisory notification system versus standard care, in adults admitted to a district general hospital. Analyses considered: (1) the cost-effectiveness of the technology based on secondary analysis of patient level data of 3787 inpatients in a before-and-after study; and (2) the cost-utility (cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)) over a lifetime horizon, extrapolated using published data. Analysis was conducted from the perspective of the NHS. Uncertainty in the model was assessed using a range of sensitivity analyses. Results: The study population had a mean age of 68 years, 48% male, with a median inpatient stay of 6 days. Expected life expectancy at discharge was assumed to be 17.74 years. (1) Cost-effectiveness analysis: The automated notification system was more effective (-0.027 reduction in mean events per patient) and provided a cost saving of -£12.17 (-182.07 to 154.80) per patient admission. (2) Cost-utility analysis: Over a lifetime horizon the automated notification system was dominant, demonstrating a positive incremental QALY gain (0.0287 QALYs, equivalent to ~10 days of perfect health) and a cost saving of £55.35. At a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probability of automated monitoring being cost-effective in the NHS was 81%. Increased use of cableless sensors may reduce cost-savings, however, the intervention remains cost-effective at 100% usage (ICER: £3,107/QALY). Stratified cost-effectiveness analysis by age, National Early Warning Score (NEWS) on admission, and primary diagnosis indicated the automated notification system was cost-effective for most strategies and that use representative of the patient population studied was the most cost-saving strategy. Conclusion: Automated notification system for adult patients admitted to general wards appears to be a cost-effective use in the NHS; adopting this technology could be good use of scarce resources with significance for patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: It has been estimated that vaccines can accrue a relatively large part of their value from patient and carer productivity. Yet, productivity value is not commonly or consistently considered in health economic evaluations of vaccines in several high-income countries. To contribute to a better understanding of the potential impact of including productivity value on the expected cost-effectiveness of vaccination, we illustrate the extent to which the incremental costs would change with and without productivity value incorporated. Methods: For two vaccines currently under development, one against Cloistridioides difficile (C. difficile) infection and one against respiratory syncytial disease (RSV), we estimated their incremental costs with and without productivity value included and compared the results. Results: In this analysis, reflecting a UK context, a C. difficile vaccination programme would prevent £12.3 in productivity costs for every person vaccinated. An RSV vaccination programme would prevent £49 in productivity costs for every vaccinated person. Conclusions: Considering productivity costs in future cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccines for C. difficile and RSV will contribute to better-informed reimbursement decisions from a societal perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death due to gynecologic malignancies. Peritoneal metastases represent the most common pathway for the spread of OC, both at the time of initial diagnosis and at recurrence. Accurate mapping of peritoneal metastases helps in planning the appropriate therapeutic strategy, predicting the likelihood of optimal cytoreduction, and identifying potentially unresectable or difficult disease sites that may require surgical technique modifications. Preoperative diagnostic work-up with multidetector CT (MDCT), MRI, including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), or FDG PET/CT plays a vital role in the accurate assessment of the extent of peritoneal carcinomatosis. In this article, the aim was to update the role of MDCT, MRI, including DWI, and FDG PET/CT in the detection of peritoneal metastases in ovarian cancer by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature. This review aims to compare the diagnostic performance of multidetector CT (MDCT), MRI, including diffusion-weighted imaging, and FDG PET/CT in the detection of peritoneal metastases (PMs) in ovarian cancer (OC). A comprehensive search was performed for articles published from 2000 to February 2023. The inclusion criteria were the following: diagnosis/suspicion of PMs in patients with ovarian/fallopian/primary peritoneal cancer; initial staging or suspicion of recurrence; MDCT, MRI and/or FDG PET/CT performed for the detection of PMs; population of at least 10 patients; surgical results, histopathologic analysis, and/or radiologic follow-up, used as reference standard; and per-patient and per-region data and data for calculating sensitivity and specificity reported. In total, 33 studies were assessed, including 487 women with OC and PMs. On a per-patient basis, MRI (p = 0.03) and FDG PET/CT (p < 0.01) had higher sensitivity compared to MDCT. MRI and PET/CT had comparable sensitivities (p = 0.84). On a per-lesion analysis, no differences in sensitivity estimates were noted between MDCT and MRI (p = 0.25), MDCT and FDG PET/CT (p = 0.68), and MRI and FDG PET/CT (p = 0.35). Based on our results, FDG PET/CT and MRI are the preferred imaging modalities for the detection of PMs in OC. However, the value of FDG PET/CT and MRI compared to MDCT needs to be determined. Future research to address the limitations of the existing studies and the need for standardization and to explore the cost-effectiveness of the three imaging modalities is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop an early economics evaluation (EEE) to assess the cost‐effectiveness of the GS in reducing the RoF and FoF. Methods: A cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA) with a return on investment (RoI) estimation was performed. CEA used the most relevant parameters, such as increased gait speed and decreased FoF, to estimate the reduction in the RoF, the impact on health care resources used and financial implications for the National Health System in the United Kingdom. Outcomes were measured as incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio per quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) gained based on the reduction of the RoF and FoF. Uncertainties around the main parameters used were evaluated by probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: The CEA results showed that the GS is a dominant strategy over the standard of care to improve the movements of older persons who have suffered a fall or are afraid of falling (incremental QALYs based on FoF = 0.77 and QALYs based on RoF = 1.07, cost of FoF = ‐£4479.57 and cost of RoF = ‐£2901.79). By implementing the GS, the ROI results suggest that every pound invested in the GS could result in cost savings of £1.85/patient based on the RoF reduction and £11.16/patient based on the FoF reduction. The probability of being cost saving based on the number of iterations were 79.4 percent (based on FoF) and 100 percent (based on RoF). Conclusion: The EEE supports the main hypothesis that the GS is an effective intervention to avoid falls and is potentially cost saving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]