Search

Plain language summary: Over one‐quarter of women in the UK have a caesarean birth (CB). More than one in 20 of these births occurs near the end of labour, when the cervix is fully dilated (second stage). In these circumstances, and when labour has been prolonged, the baby's head can become lodged deep in the maternal pelvis making it challenging to deliver the baby. During the caesarean birth, difficulty in delivery of the baby's head may result – this emergency is known as impacted fetal head (IFH). These are technically challenging births that pose significant risks to both the woman and baby. Complications for the woman include tears in the womb, serious bleeding and longer hospital stay. Babies are at increased risk of injury including damage to the head and face, lack of oxygen to the brain, nerve damage, and in rare cases, the baby may die from these complications. Maternity staff are increasingly encountering IFH at CB, and reports of associated injuries have risen dramatically in recent years. The latest UK studies suggest that IFH may complicate as many as one in 10 unplanned CBs (1.5% of all births) and that two in 100 babies affected by IFH die or are seriously injured. Moreover, there has been a sharp increase in reports of babies having brain injuries when their birth was complicated by IFH. When an IFH occurs, the maternity team can use different approaches to help deliver the baby's head at CB. These include: an assistant (another obstetrician or midwife) pushing the head up from the vagina; delivering the baby feet first; using a specially designed inflatable balloon device to elevate the baby's head and/or giving the mother a medicine to relax the womb. However, there is currently no consensus for how best to manage these births. This has resulted in a lack of confidence among maternity staff, variable practice and potentially avoidable harm in some circumstances. This paper reviews the current evidence regarding the prediction, prevention and management of IFH at CB, integrating findings from a systematic review commissioned from the National Guideline Alliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on claims about the nutritional and health benefits of foods and drinks Position Paper emphasises the learnings gaining through the implementation of the European Food Safety Authority evidence‐based process for assessment of proposed claims; and main audience for the Academy's work is the nutrition science community/profession and its stakeholders.

Plain language summary: Increasingly, births around the world are started artificially using medications or other methods. This process is known as induction of labour. As it becomes more common, methods are needed to meet the different clinical needs and birth preferences of women. Induction of labour typically includes a combination of the medication dinoprostone inserted into the vagina, artificial rupture of membranes ('releasing the waters'), and synthetic oxytocin (hormone given via a drip). This paper reviews some of the methods less commonly used for induction in the UK, namely a drug called misoprostol, which can be given orally or vaginally, and 'mechanical' methods, where labour is started by stretching the cervix (neck of the womb), most commonly with a soft silicone tube with a balloon near the tip, filled with water. Low‐dose oral misoprostol tablets are now commercially available in the UK. Other methods for labour induction are not reviewed in detail in this paper. The evidence suggests mechanical induction of labour (using a balloon catheter) and misoprostol are both at least as safe and effective as using the standard drug, dinoprostone. There is evidence to suggest a balloon catheter may reduce the chance of serious negative outcomes for babies when compared with dinoprostone, and that giving low‐dose oral misoprostol results in fewer caesarean births. Where possible and after informed consent, the method of induction of labour should be personalised to suit the individual woman, her clinical condition, and the setting in which she is giving birth. Local contexts and resources also need to be taken into account. To date, research into women's perspectives and experiences of induction of labour have been significantly lacking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) is an authoritative document that all people with epilepsy in the EU receive when prescribed antiseizure medication (ASM). We undertook the first independent, comprehensive assessment to determine how understandable they are. Regulators state that when patients are asked comprehension questions about them, ≥80% should answer correctly. Also, recommended is that PILs have a maximum reading requirement of US grade 8. Methods: Study 1: We obtained 140 current ASM PILs written in English. "Readability" was assessed using four tests, with and without adjustment for influence of familiar, polysyllabic words. A total of 179 online materials on epilepsy were also assessed. Study 2: Two PILs from Study 1 were randomly selected (Pregabalin Focus; Inovelon) and shown to 35 people from the UK epilepsy population. Their comprehension was assessed. Study 3: To understand whether the student population provides an accessible alternative population for future examination of ASM PILs, Study 3 was completed, using the same methods as Study 2, except that participants were 262 UK university students. Results: Study 1: No PIL had a reading level of grade 8. Median was grade 11. Adjusting for context, the PILs were still at grade 10.5. PILs for branded ASMs were most readable. PILs were no more readable than (unregulated) online materials. Study 2: Users struggled to comprehend the PILs' key messages. The eight questions asked about pregabalin were typically answered correctly by 54%. For Inovelon, it was 62%. Study 3: Most student participants comprehended the PILs' key messages. The questions about Inovelon were answered correctly by 90%; for pregabalin it was 86%. Significance: This is the first independent and comprehensive examination of ASM PILs. It found that PILs being used fail to meet recommendations and regulatory requirements and risk not being understandable to a substantial proportion of users. In finding that people from the epilepsy population differ markedly in comprehension of PILs compared to students, this study highlights the importance of completing user testing with the target population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plain language summary: This paper deals with the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after the removal of fallopian tubes and ovaries to prevent ovarian cancer in premenopausal high risk women. Some women have an alteration in their genetic code, which makes them more likely to develop ovarian cancer. Two well‐known genes which can carry an alteration are the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Examples of other genes associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer include RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1, PALB2 and Lynch syndrome genes. Women with a strong family history of ovarian cancer and/or breast cancer, may also be at increased risk of developing ovarian cancer. Women at increased risk can choose to have an operation to remove the fallopian tubes and ovaries, which is the most effective way to prevent ovarian cancer. This is done after a woman has completed her family. However, removal of ovaries causes early menopause and leads to hot flushes, sweats, mood changes and bone thinning. It can also cause memory problems and increases the risk of heart disease. It may reduce libido or impair sexual function. Guidance on how to care for women following preventative surgery who are experiencing early menopause is needed. HRT is usually advisable for women up to 51 years of age (average age of menopause for women in the UK) who are undergoing early menopause and have not had breast cancer, to minimise the health risks linked to early menopause. For women with a womb, HRT should include estrogen coupled with progestogen to protect against thickening of the lining of the womb (called endometrial hyperplasia). For women without a womb, only estrogen is given. Research suggests that, unlike in older women, HRT for women in early menopause does not increase breast cancer risk, including in those who are BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and have preventative surgery. For women with a history of receptor‐negative breast cancer, the gynaecologist will liaise with an oncology doctor on a case‐by‐case basis to help to decide if HRT is safe to use. Women with a history of estrogen receptor‐positive breast cancer are not normally offered HRT. A range of other therapies can be used if a woman is unable to take HRT. These include behavioural therapy and non‐hormonal medicines. However, these are less effective than HRT. Regular exercise, healthy lifestyle and avoiding symptom triggers are also advised. Whether to undergo surgery to reduce risk or not and its timing can be a complex decision‐making process. Women need to be carefully counselled on the pros and cons of both preventative surgery and HRT use so they can make informed decisions and choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients who are critically ill are at increased risk of hospital acquired pneumonia and ventilator associated pneumonia. Effective evidence based oral care may reduce the incidence of such iatrogenic infection. Aim: To provide an evidence‐based British Association of Critical Care Nurses endorsed consensus paper for best practice relating to implementing oral care, with the intention of promoting patient comfort and reducing hospital acquired pneumonia and ventilator associated pneumonia in critically ill patients. Design: A nominal group technique was adopted. A consensus committee of adult critical care nursing experts from the United Kingdom met in 2018 to evaluate and review the literature relating to oral care, its application in reducing pneumonia in critically ill adults and to make recommendations for practice. An elected national board member for the British Association of Critical Care Nurses chaired the round table discussion. Methods: The committee focused on 5 aspects of oral care practice relating to critically ill adult patients. The evidence was evaluated for each practice within the context of reducing pneumonia in the mechanically ventilated patient or pneumonia in the non‐ventilated patient. The five practices included the frequency for oral care; tools for oral care; oral care technique; solutions used and oral care in the non‐ventilated patient who is critically ill and is at risk of aspiration. The group searched the best available evidence and evaluated this using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong, moderate, weak, or best practice consensus statement when applicable. Results: The consensus group generated recommendations, delineating an approach to best practice for oral care in critically ill adult patients. Recommendations included guidance for frequency and procedure for oral assessment, toothbrushing, and moisturising the mouth. Evidence on the use of chlorhexidine is not consistent and caution is advised with its routine use. Conclusion: Oral care is an important part of the care of critically ill patients, both ventilated and non‐ventilated. An effective oral care programme reduces the incidence of pneumonia and promotes patient comfort. Relevance to Clinical practice: Effective oral care is integral to safe patient care in critical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic and the UK government's subsequent coronavirus action plan have fundamentally impacted on every aspect of healthcare. One area that is severely affected is ear, nose and throat (ENT)/laryngology where speech and language therapists (SLTs) engage in a diverse range of practice with patients with a range of conditions, including voice disorders, airway problems, and head and neck cancers (HNCs). A large majority of these patients are in high‐risk categories, and many specialized clinical practices are vulnerable. In addition, workforce and research issues are challenged in both the immediate context and the future. Aims: To discuss the threats and opportunities from the COVID‐19 pandemic for SLTs in ENT/laryngology with specific reference to clinical practice, workforce and research leadership. Methods & Procedures: The relevant sections of the World Health Organisation's (WHO) health systems building blocks framework (2007) were used to structure the study. Expert agreement was determined by an iterative process of multiple‐group discussions, the use of all recent relevant policy documentation, and other literature and shared documentation/writing. The final paper was verified and agreed by all authors. Main Contribution: The main threats to ENT/laryngology SLT clinical services include increased patient complexity related to COVID‐19 voice and airway problems, delayed HNC diagnosis, reduced access to instrumental procedures and inequitable care provision. The main clinical opportunities include the potential for new modes of service delivery and collaborations, and harnessing SLT expertise in non‐instrumental assessment. There are several workforce issues, including redeployment (and impact on current services), training implications and psychological impact on staff. Workforce opportunities exist for service innovation and potential extended ENT/SLT practice roles. Research is threatened by a reduction in immediate funding calls and high competition. Current research is affected by very limited access to participants and the ability to conduct face‐to‐face and instrumental assessments. However, research opportunities may result in greater collaboration, and changes in service delivery necessitate robust investigation and evaluation. A new national set of research priorities is likely to emerge. Conclusions & Implications: The immediate impact of the pandemic has resulted in major disruption to all aspects of clinical delivery, workforce and research for ENT/laryngology SLT. It is unclear when any of these areas will resume operations and whether permanent changes to clinical practice, professional remits and research priorities will follow. However, significant opportunity exists in the post‐COVID era to re‐evaluate current practice, embrace opportunities and evaluate new ways of working. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectENT/laryngology SLTs manage patients with a range of conditions, including voice disorders, airway problems and HNCs. The diverse scope of clinical practice involves highly specialized assessment and treatment practices in patients in high‐risk categories. A large majority of active research projects in this field are patient focused and involve instrumental assessment. The COVID‐19 pandemic has created both opportunities and threats for ENT SLT clinical services, workforce and research.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis study provides a discussion of the threats and opportunities from the COVID‐19 pandemic for ENT/laryngology SLT with specific reference to clinical practice, workforce and research leadership.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?The COVID‐19 pandemic has resulted in major disruption to all aspects of clinical delivery, workforce and research for ENT/laryngology SLT. Changes to clinical practice, professional remits and research priorities are of indeterminant duration at this time, and some components could be permanent. Significant clinical practice, workforce and research opportunities may exist in the post‐COVID era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plain language summary: What is it?: Fetal neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia (FNAIT), also known as neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia (NAIT) or fetomaternal alloimmune thrombocytopenia (FMAIT), is a rare condition which affects a baby's platelets. This can put them at risk of problems with bleeding, particularly into the brain. One baby per week in the UK may be seriously affected and milder forms can affect one in every 1000 births. How is it caused?: Platelets are blood cells that are very important in helping blood to clot. All platelets have natural proteins on their surface called human platelet antigens (HPAs). In babies, half of these antigens are inherited from the mother and half from the father. During pregnancy, some of the baby's platelets can cross into the mother's bloodstream. In most cases, this does not cause a problem. But in cases of FNAIT, the mother's immune system does not recognise the baby's HPAs that were inherited from the father and develops antibodies, which can cross the placenta and attack the baby's platelets. These antibodies are called anti‐HPAs, and the commonest antibody implicated is anti‐HPA‐1a, but there are other rarer antibody types. If this happens, the baby's platelets may be destroyed causing their platelet count to fall dangerously low. If the platelet count is very low there is a risk to the baby of bleeding into their brain before they are born. This is very rare but if it happens it can have serious effects on the baby's health. How is it inherited?: A baby inherits half of their HPAs from its mother and half from its father. Consequently, a baby may have different HPAs from its mother. As the condition is very rare, and even if the baby is at risk of the condition we have no way of knowing how severely they will be affected, routine screening is not currently recommended. What can be done?: FNAIT is usually diagnosed if a previous baby has had a low platelet count. The parents are offered blood tests and the condition can be confirmed or ruled out. There are many other causes of low platelets in babies, which may also need to be tested for. As the condition is so rare, expertise is limited to specialist centres and normally a haematologist and fetal medicine doctor will perform and interpret the tests together. Fortunately, there is an effective treatment for the vast majority of cases called immunoglobulin, or IVIg. This 'blood product' is given intravenously through a drip every week to women at risk of the condition. It may be started from as early as 16 weeks in the next pregnancy, until birth, which would be offered at around 36–37 weeks. Less common treatments that may be considered depending on individual circumstances include steroid tablets or injections, or giving platelet transfusions to the baby. What does this paper tell you?: This paper considers the latest evidence in relation to treatment options in the management of pregnancies at risk of FNAIT. Specifically, we discuss the role of screening, when IVIg should be started, what dose should be used, and what evidence there is for maternal steroids. We also consider in very rare selected cases, the use of fetal blood sampling and giving platelet transfusions to the baby before birth. Finally, we consider the approaches to blood testing mothers to tell if babies are at risk, which is offered in some countries, and development of new treatments to reduce the risk of FNAIT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines (ICTMG) has published guidance on transfusion for haemoglobinopathies. To give a UK perspective on this guidance, each of the recommendations in the ICTMG guideline were reviewed and the applicability for transfusion practice in the UK considered with reference to relevant published British Society for Haematology (BSH) guidelines and national standards. There was much consensus; however, there was disparity surrounding the recommendations for routinely extended matching in those with alloimmunisation. [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]