Search

Aims: To perform temporal validation of a risk prediction model for breast cancer‐related lymphoedema in the European population. Design: Temporal validation of a previously developed prediction model using a new retrospective cohort of women who had undergone axillary lymph node dissection between June 2018 and June 2020. Methods: We reviewed clinical records to identify women who did and did not develop lymphoedema within 2 years of surgery and to gather data regarding the variables included in the prediction model. The model was calibrated by calculating Spearman's correlation between observed and expected cases. Its accuracy in discriminating between patients who did versus did not develop lymphoedema was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: The validation cohort comprised 154 women, 41 of whom developed lymphoedema within 2 years of surgery. The value of Spearman's coefficient indicated a strong correlation between observed and expected cases. Sensitivity of the model was higher than in the derivation cohort, as was the value of the AUC. Conclusion: The model shows a good capacity to discriminate women at risk of lymphoedema and may therefore help in developing improved care pathways for individual patients. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: Identifying risk factors for lymphoedema secondary to breast cancer treatment is vital given its impact on women's physical and emotional well‐being. Impact: What problem did the study address? Risk of BCRL. What were the main findings? The prediction model has a good capacity to discriminate women at risk of lymphoedema. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? In clinical practice with women at risk of BCRL. Reporting Method: STROBE checklist. What Does this Paper Contribute to the Wider Global Clinical Community?: It presents a validated risk prediction model for BCRL. No Patient or Public Contribution: There was no patient or public contribution in the conduct of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives The aim of the Paediatric International Nursing Study was to explore the utility of key performance indicators in developing person-centred practice across a range of services provided to sick children. The objective addressed in this paper was evaluating the use of these indicators to benchmark services internationally. Background This study builds on primary research, which produced indicators that were considered novel both in terms of their positive orientation and use in generating data that privileges the patient voice. This study extends this research through wider testing on an international platform within paediatrics. Design The overall methodological approach was a realistic evaluation used to evaluate the implementation of the key performance indicators, which combined an integrated development and evaluation methodology. Methods The study involved children's wards/hospitals in Australia (six sites across three states) and Europe (seven sites across four countries). Qualitative and quantitative methods were used during the implementation process, however, this paper reports the quantitative data only, which used survey, observations and documentary review. Results The findings demonstrate the quality of care being delivered to children and their families across different international sites. The benchmarking does, however, highlight some differences between paediatric and general hospitals, and between the different key performance indicators across all the sites. Conclusions The findings support the use of the key performance indicators as a novel method to benchmark services internationally. Whilst the data collected across 20 paediatric sites suggest services are more similar than different, benchmarking illuminates variations that encourage a critical dialogue about what works and why. Relevance to clinical practice The transferability of the key performance indicators and measurement framework across different settings has significant implications for practice. The findings offer an approach to benchmarking and celebrating the successes within practice, while learning from partners across the globe in further developing person-centred cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims. This paper is a report of a three round Delphi study of intensive care nursing research priorities in Europe (October 2006-April 2009). Background. Internationally, priorities for research in intensive care nursing have received some attention focusing on healthcare interventions and patient needs. Studies as early as the 1980s identified priorities in the United States, United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Australia. Research priorities of intensive care nurses across the European Union are unknown. Methods. The participants, invited in 2006, included 110 intensive care nurses, managers, educators and researchers from 20 European Critical Care Nursing Associations. Delphi round one was an emailed questionnaire inviting participants to list important areas for research. The list was content analysed and developed into an online questionnaire for rounds two and three. In round two, participants ranked the topics on a scale of 1-6 (not important to extremely important). Mean scores of round two were added to the questionnaire of round three and participants ranked the topics again. Results. There were 52 research topics in 12 domains. There was a dominance of priorities in five main areas: patient safety; impact of evidence based practice on outcomes; impact of workforce on outcomes; wellbeing of patients and relatives; and impact of end-of-life care on staff and practice. Conclusions. The results reflect worldwide healthcare concerns and objectives and highlight topics that nurses view as fundamental to the care of critically ill patients. These topics provide a platform for future research efforts to improve clinical practice and care of patients in intensive care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]