Search

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the link in this record

Objective To develop a sepsis care bundle for the initial management of maternal sepsis in low resource settings. Design Modified Delphi process. Setting Participants from 34 countries. Population Healthcare practitioners working in low resource settings (n = 143; 34 countries), members of an expert panel (n = 11) and consultation with the World Health Organization Global Maternal and Neonatal Sepsis Initiative technical working group. Methods We reviewed the literature to identify all potential interventions and practices around the initial management of sepsis that could be bundled together. A modified Delphi process, using an online questionnaire and in‐person meetings, was then undertaken to gain consensus on bundle items. Participants ranked potential bundle items in terms of perceived importance and feasibility, considering their use in both hospitals and health centres. Findings from the healthcare practitioners were then triangulated with those of the experts. Main outcome measure Consensus on bundle items. Results Consensus was reached after three consultation rounds, with the same items deemed most important and feasible by both the healthcare practitioners and expert panel. Final bundle items selected were: (1) Fluids, (2) Antibiotics, (3) Source identification and control, (4) Transfer (to appropriate higher‐level care) and (5) Monitoring (of both mother and neonate as appropriate). The bundle was given the acronym ‘FAST‐M’. Conclusion A clinically relevant maternal sepsis bundle for low resource settings has been developed by international consensus. Tweetable abstract A maternal sepsis bundle for low resource settings has been developed by international consensus., Tweetable abstract A maternal sepsis bundle for low resource settings has been developed by international consensus.

Objectives To develop a consensus statement on current best practice of active surveillance (AS) in the UK, informed by patients and clinical experts. Subjects and Methods A consensus statement was drafted on the basis of three sources of data: systematic literature search of national and international guidelines; data arising from a Freedom of Information Act request to UK urology departments regarding their current practice of AS; and survey and interview responses from men with localized prostate cancer regarding their experiences and views of AS. The Prostate Cancer UK Expert Reference Group (ERG) on AS was then convened to discuss and refine the statement. Results Guidelines and protocols for AS varied significantly in terms of risk stratification, criteria for offering AS, and protocols for AS between and within countries. Patients and healthcare professionals identified clinical, emotional and process needs for AS to be effective. Men with prostate cancer wanted more information and psychological support at the time of discussing AS with the treating team and in the first 2 years of AS, and a named healthcare professional to discuss any questions or concerns they had. The ERG agreed 30 consensus statements regarding best practice for AS. Statements were grouped under headings: ‘Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria’; ‘AS follow-up protocol’ and ‘When to stop AS’. Conclusion Significant variation currently exists in the practice of AS in the UK and internationally. Men have clear views on the level of involvement in treatment decisions and support from their treating professionals when receiving AS. The Prostate Cancer UK AS ERG has developed a set of consensus statements for best practice in AS. Evidence for best practice in AS, and the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in AS, is still evolving, and further studies are needed to determine how to optimize AS outcomes

OBJECTIVE: To develop global consensus on a set of evidence-based core principles for bereavement care after stillbirth.METHODS: A modified policy-Delphi methodology was used to consult international stakeholders and healthcare workers with experience in stillbirth between September 2017 and October 2018 Five sequential rounds involved two expert stakeholder meetings and three internet-based surveys, including a global internet-based survey targeted at healthcare workers in a wide range of settings.RESULTS: Initially, 23 expert stakeholders considered 43 evidence-based themes derived from systematic reviews, identifying 10 core principles. The global survey received 236 responses from participants in 26 countries, after which nine principles met a priori criteria for inclusion. The final stakeholder meeting and internet-based survey of all participants confirmed consensus on eight core principles. Highest quality bereavement care should be enabled through training of healthcare staff to reduce stigma and establish respectful care, including acknowledgement and support for grief responses, and provision for physical and psychologic needs. Women and families should be supported to make informed choices, including those concerning their future reproductive health.CONCLUSION: Consensus was established for eight principles for stillbirth bereavement care. Further work should explore implementation and involve the voices of women and families globally.

ObjectiveTo implement a modified obstetric early warning system (MOEWS) to promote identification and stabilization of unwell women.MethodsA before-and-after study of MOEWS implementation took place between April 2013 and January 2014 in a government referral hospital in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. After piloting MOEWS, cesarean case files were retrospectively assessed to compare preoperative stabilization. A longitudinal “spot-check” study measured use of MOEWS and action taken on abnormal results. A quality indicator was introduced to assess ongoing implementation.ResultsAnalysis of women undergoing cesarean before (n=79) and after (n=85) MOEWS implementation showed that preoperative stabilization improved significantly post-intervention (odds ratio 2.78, 95% confidence interval 1.39–5.54). The longitudinal analysis of women at baseline (n=43) and after (n=85) MOEWS implementation also showed a significant improvement in action taken (1/24 [4%] vs 28/45 [62%]; P=0.001). The 6-month aggregated quality indicator revealed that 78 (62%) of 125 patients had a completed MOEWS chart, with appropriate stabilization of 65 (93%) of 70 women.ConclusionImplementation of MOEWS improved women's care through action being taken on abnormal observations. Before whole-scale adoption of MOEWS in low-resource settings, the study should be scaled up and repeated to ensure replicable findings.

BACKGROUND: Preparing healthcare providers to manage relatively rare life-threatening emergency situations effectively is a challenge. Training sessions enable staff to rehearse for these events and are recommended by several reports and guidelines. In this review we have focused on interactive training, this includes any element where the training is not solely didactic but provides opportunity for discussions, rehearsals, or interaction with faculty or technology. It is important to understand the effective methods and essential elements for successful emergency training so that resources can be appropriately targeted to improve outcomes.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life-threatening emergencies in hospital on patient outcomes, clinical care practices, or organisational practices, and to identify essential components of effective interactive emergency training programmes.SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and ERIC and two trials registers up to 11 March 2019. We searched references of included studies, conference proceedings, and contacted study authors.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials comparing interactive training for emergency situations with standard/no training. We defined emergency situations as those in which immediate lifesaving action is required, for example cardiac arrests and major haemorrhage. We included all studies where healthcare workers involved in providing direct clinical care were participants. We excluded studies outside of a hospital setting or where the intervention was not targeted at practicing healthcare workers. We included trials irrespective of publication status, date, and language.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included trial. Due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity in outcome measures, we were unable to perform the planned meta-analysis. We provide a structured synthesis for the following outcomes: survival to hospital discharge, morbidity rate, protocol or guideline adherence, patient outcomes, clinical practice outcomes, and organisation-of-care outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations for each outcome.MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies that reported on 2000 healthcare providers and over 300,000 patients; one study did not report the number of participants. Seven were cluster randomised trials and four were single centre studies. Four studies focused on obstetric training, three on obstetric and neonatal care, two on neonatal training, one on trauma and one on general resuscitations. The studies were spread across high-, middle- and low-income settings.Interactive training may make little or no difference in survival to hospital discharge for patients requiring resuscitation (1 study; 30 participants; 98 events; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if emergency training changes morbidity rate, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 1778 participants; 57,193 patients, when reported). We are uncertain if training alters healthcare providers' adherence to clinical protocols or guidelines, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 156 participants; 558 patients). We are uncertain if there were improvements in patient outcomes following interactive training for emergency situations, as we assessed the evidence as very low-certainty (5 studies, 951 participants; 314,055 patients). We are uncertain if training for emergency situations improves clinical practice outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (4 studies; 1417 participants; 28,676 patients, when reported). Two studies reported organisation-of-care outcomes, we are uncertain if interactive emergency training has any effect on this outcome as the certainty of the evidence is very low (634 participants; 179,400 patient population).We examined prespecified subgroups and found no clear commonalities in effect of multidisciplinary training, location of training, duration of the course, or duration of follow-up. We also examined areas arising from the studies including focus of training, proportion of staff trained, leadership of intervention, and incentive/trigger to participate, and again identified no clear mediating factors. The sources of funding for the studies were governmental, local organisations, or philanthropic donors.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if there are any benefits of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life-threatening emergencies in hospital as the certainty of the evidence is very low. We were unable to identify any factors that may have allowed us to identify an essential element of these interactive training courses.We found a lack of consistent reporting, which contributed to the inability to meta-analyse across specialities. More trials are required to build the evidence base for the optimum way to prepare healthcare providers for rare life-threatening emergency events. These trials need to be conducted with attention to outcomes important to patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers. It is vitally important to develop high-quality studies adequately powered and with attention to minimising the risk of bias.

Background: Clinical trials in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are necessary to develop evidence-based approaches to improve women's health. Understanding what research is currently being conducted will allow the identification of research gaps, avoidance of duplication, planning of future studies, collaboration amongst research groups, and geographical targeting for research investments. Objectives:To provide an overview of active women's health trials in LMICs. Search strategy: The World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was searched for trials registered between 1 April 2012 and 31 March 2014. Selection criteria: Selected trials were randomised, conducted in LMICs, active, and with a women's health intervention or a significant outcome for the woman. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers extracted data. Analysis included geographical spread, speciality areas, pre-enrolment registration, study size, and funders. Main results: Of the 8966 records, 509 were eligible for inclusion. Gynaecology trials made up 57% of the research, whereas the remaining 43% of trials were in obstetrics. Research activity focused on fertility (17%), the antenatal period (15%), benign gynaecology (14%), intrapartum care (9%), and pre-invasive disease and cancers (8%). The majority of trials (84%) took place in middle-income countries (MICs). In low-income countries (LICs) 83% of research investigated obstetrics, and in MICs 60% of research investigated gynaecology. Most trials (80%) had a sample size of 500 or fewer participants. The median size of trials in LICs was 815 compared with 128 in MICs. Pre-enrolment registration occurred in 54% of trials. The majority (62%) of trials were funded locally. Authors' conclusions: Many LMICs are active in women's health research. The majority of registered trials are located in MICs; however, the trials in LICs are often larger. The focus of research in MICs may be driven by local priorities and funding, with fertility being highly researched. In LICs, pregnancy is the focus, perhaps reflecting the international prioritisation of maternal health.

There is no public human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme for boys in the UK. As men who have sex with men (MSM) may be at greater risk for HPV-associated cancers, they have been offered targeted HPV vaccination at Genitourinary Medicine (GUM) clinics since 2016.A mixed method study included questionnaires and focus groups with young (16–24 years) MSM, and an online questionnaire with GPs and GUM HCPs to investigate HPV knowledge and attitudes to targeted vaccination. GPs were included given their potential to vaccinate young MSM before sexual debut. T-tests and logistic regression were used to analyse quantitative data and a thematic analysis was performed to evaluate qualitative data.18 MSM (Mage = 20) and 87 HCPs (Mage = 41) participated. Most MSM were aware of HPV (55.6%), but only 16.7% discussed HPV vaccination with their HCPs. MSM focus groups revealed vaccination barriers including ‘unfamiliar and clinical’ conversations about their sexuality with HCPs. MSM preferred being offered the vaccine by HCPs rather than requesting it and suggested universal school-based vaccination may be more accessible. GPs were less likely than GUM HCPs to believe there was sufficient evidence for vaccinating MSM (OR = 0.07 95%CI = 0.01,0.59); less likely to have skills to identify MSM who may benefit (OR = 0.03 95%CI = 0.01,0.15); and less confident recommending young MSM vaccination (OR = 0.06 95%CI = 0.02,0.21).To prevent HPV-associated cancers in MSM, greater education and support is needed targeting MSM (e.g. dissemination of information about the targeted programme and GPs offering vaccination), but GPs may need education and implementation support for this.