Search

Abstract Background Late-onset infections (LOI) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among patients in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Gloving after hand hygiene may be a pragmatic approach to prevent infections that arise when healthcare workers’ hands transmit pathogens to neonates. Objective To determine the feasibility of conducting a multicenter, open-labeled randomized controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether a protocol that requires healthcare workers (HCWs) in a level 3 NICU to wear non-sterile gloves plus hand hygiene reduces the occurrence of a late-onset infection, compared to hand hygiene alone. Methods In this single-center pilot study, we recruited neonates admitted to the McMaster Children’s Hospital NICU from June 2017 to May 2018. The NICU was randomized to begin with the standard (control) arm for 6 months (June 2017 to Dec 2017), followed by the gloving (GloveCare) arm for 6 months (Jan 2018 to July 2018), with a 2-week washout period in-between to educate healthcare workers about gloving. We measured numerous feasibility outcomes including enrollment, event rate, and compliance with hand hygiene (Moment 1: before patient contact, Moment 2: before clean procedure, Moment 3: after body fluid contact, Moment 4: after patient contact) and gloving compliance. Results We enrolled 750 neonates (390 Standard care, 360 GloveCare) and achieved 100% enrollment. We found higher hand hygiene compliance during the standard care arm compared to the GloveCare for all four moments of hand hygiene (Moment 1: 87% vs 79%, OR=1.86 (1.34, 2.59); Moment 2: OR=1.73 (1.00, 3.01); Moment 3: OR=1.11 (0.62, 1.98); Moment 4: OR=1.65 (1.27, 2.14)). We developed and validated a method to calculate glove compliance, which ranged from 48 to 85%, and was highest for moment 3 (doffing after a procedure or body fluid exposure risk). No adverse events were documented for patients or staff. Discussion Reduction in hand hygiene compliance in the GloveCare arm presents a pragmatic challenge in ascertaining the effectiveness of gloving to prevent LOI. Most LOIs were non-sterile-site infections, which is considered a less patient-important or clinically relevant outcome compared to sterile-site LOI. Ensuring efficient collection and validation of hand hygiene and gloving data is imperative. Conclusion The pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of this intervention though modifications to improve hand hygiene compliance during GloveCare will be important prior to a multicenter cluster RCT to assess the efficacy of non-sterile glove-based care in preventing LOI in the NICU. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03078335

Background: Early classroom communication supports are critical in influencing oral language development and emergent literacy skills. It is both support from peers and adults, as well as the environment that impacts the quality and efficacy of language learning. Schools in particular play a key role in communication development, which will be further explored in this article. Objectives: To describe how communication was being supported in the classroom by teachers in the areas of language-learning environment (LLE), language-learning interactions (LLIs) and language-learning opportunities (LLOs) to focus on classroom communication supports to strengthen literacy outcomes for Grade R learners. Method: A cross-sectional descriptive survey of classrooms was conducted using a structured observation method in 136 classrooms. The Communication Supporting Classroom Observation Tool was used to make 223 observations across classrooms of LLE (19 items), LLI (20 items) and LLO (5 items). A descriptive analysis of frequency of occurrence of items was conducted for each domain. Results: Language-learning environment had more frequently occurring observations, with 12 out of 19 items being observed with a frequency of occurrence greater than 65%, indicating that the environment had adequate basic resources (e.g. good light). Language-learning interactions scores indicated that 3 out of 20 items were observed frequently, while 17 out of 20 items were observed less frequently (56.5%), including interactive strategies (e.g. turn-taking). Language Learning Opportunities scores indicated that teacher-led behaviours (e.g. including children in small group activities) were infrequently observed on all items. Conclusion: While the physical environment was generally supportive, the behaviours in the interactive domains of LLI and LLO were observed less frequently. There is potential for speech–language therapists to work collaboratively with teachers to develop communication supporting classrooms as a critical primary-level intervention for language-literacy learning.

Introduction Quality improvement (QI) is a growing field of inquiry in healthcare, including neonatology. However, there is limited information on the study setting, and the methodologic approaches used to develop, implement and evaluate QI interventions in neonatology studies. In this study, we describe these intervention characteristics and approaches.Methods Articles were taken from a previous publication. There, we searched MEDLINE for publications of QI studies from 2016 to 16 April 2020. We retrieved all relevant full-text publications and sampled 100 of these articles for data abstraction, stratified by the year of publication. For each QI study, we described several methodological characteristics that included: the clinical topic of QI, setting, whether the study was multicentre, stakeholder engagement, root cause analysis and related problem identification methods, implementation techniques for QI interventions, types of outcomes and statistical analysis methods used.Results We assessed 100 studies; most were conducted in the USA (56%). Academic settings and multicentre settings comprised 44% and 24% of studies, respectively. Most studies reported stakeholder engagement (81%), but infrequently reported engagement with leadership (32%) and caregivers (10%). Frequently used techniques for implementing interventions include provider education (82%), formal QI methods (42%) and audit, feedback and benchmarking (40%). Both patient-important clinical outcomes (78%) and process outcomes (89%) were frequently reported. P values were frequently reported (80%), but other statistical techniques were infrequently used.Conclusion QI studies in neonatology use diverse multicomponent interventions. Reporting of these methodologic details can be useful in designing, implementing and evaluating QI studies in clinical practice.

Introduction Quality improvement (QI) is a growing field of inquiry in healthcare, but the reporting quality of QI studies in neonatology remains unclear. We conducted a systematic survey of the literature to assess the reporting quality of QI studies and factors associated with reporting quality.Methods We searched Medline for publications of QI studies from 2016 to 16 April 2020. Pairs of reviewers independently screened citations and assessed reporting quality using a 31-item modified Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence, 2nd edition (SQUIRE 2.0) checklist. We reported the number (percentage) of studies that reported each item and their corresponding 95% CIs. We used Poisson regression to explore factors associated with reporting quality, namely, journal endorsement of SQUIRE 2.0, declaration of funding sources, year of publication and number of authors. The results were reported as incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% CI.Results Of 1921 citations, 336 were eligible; among them, we randomly selected 100 articles to assess reporting quality. The mean (standard deviation) number of SQUIRE 2.0 items adhered to was 22.0 (4.5). Percentage of articles reporting each item varied from 26% to 100%. Journal endorsement of SQUIRE 2.0 (IRR=1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21, p=0.015), declaration of funding sources and increasing number of authors were significantly associated with better reporting.Conclusions Reporting quality of QI studies in neonatology is inadequate. Endorsing the SQUIRE 2.0 guideline is a step that journals can implement to enhance the completeness of reporting.

Background: The stepped wedge trial (SWT) design is a type of the randomized clinical trial (RCT) design in which clusters or individuals are randomly and sequentially crossed over from control to intervention over a number of time periods. Trials using SWT design have become increasingly popular in medical, behavioral and social sciences research. Therefore, complete and transparent reporting of these studies is crucial. In particular, the quality of the abstracts of their reports is important because these may be the only accessible sources for their results. Objective: The aims of this survey were to evaluate the reporting quality of SWT abstracts and to identify factors contributing to better reporting quality. Methods: We performed literature searches to identify relevant articles in English published from November 1987 to October 2016 in the following electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. At least two reviewers examined the quality of abstract reporting using the 17-item CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) Extension for Abstracts tool. Poisson regression models for incidence rate ratio (IRR) were used to identify factors associated with reporting quality (e.g., CONSORT endorsement, the number of authors, abstract format). Results: A total of 92 eligible articles were identified. Only 6 from the 17 items were reported in more than 80% of the articles (e.g., the statement of conclusions, contact details for the corresponding author). In the multivariable analysis, the year of publication since 2008 (IRR: 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02, 1.33), journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement (IRR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.31), and multiple authorship (IRR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.27) were significantly associated with better reporting quality. Conclusion: The quality of reporting of SWT abstracts was suboptimal, although there have been some significant improvements since 2008. Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by journals is an essential element of improvement strategies. Also, multiple authorship is significantly associated with better quality of abstract reporting.

Objectives Comorbidity in traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been recognised to alter the clinical course of patients and influence short-term and long-term outcomes. We synthesised the evidence on the effects of different comorbid conditions on early and late mortality post-TBI in order to (1) examine the relationship between comorbid condition(s) and all-cause mortality in TBI and (2) determine the influence of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients with a TBI at baseline on all-cause mortality.Design Systematic review.Data sources Medline, Central, Embase, PsycINFO and bibliographies of identified articles were searched from May 1997 to January 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Included studies met the following criteria: (1) focused on comorbidity as it related to our outcome of interest in adults (ie, ≥18 years of age) diagnosed with a TBI; (2) comorbidity was detected by any means excluding self-report; (3) reported the proportion of participants without comorbidity and (4) followed participants for any period of time.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Data were synthesised through tabulation and qualitative description.Results A total of 27 cohort studies were included. Among the wide range of individual comorbid conditions studied, only low blood pressure was a consistent predictors of post-TBI mortality. Other consistent predictors were traditional sociodemographic risk factors. Higher comorbidity scale, scores and the number of comorbid conditions were not consistently associated with post-TBI mortality.Conclusions Given the high number of comorbid conditions that were examined by the single studies, research is required to further substantiate the evidence and address conflicting findings. Finally, an enhanced set of comorbidity measures that are suited for the TBI population will allow for better risk stratification to guide TBI management and treatment.PROSPERO registration number CRD42017070033

Objectives Comorbidity in traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been recognised to alter the clinical course of patients and influence short-term and long-term outcomes. We synthesised the evidence on the effects of different comorbid conditions on early and late mortality post-TBI in order to (1) examine the relationship between comorbid condition(s) and all-cause mortality in TBI and (2) determine the influence of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients with a TBI at baseline on all-cause mortality. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline, Central, Embase, PsycINFO and bibliographies of identified articles were searched from May 1997 to January 2019. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Included studies met the following criteria: (1) focused on comorbidity as it related to our outcome of interest in adults (ie, ≥18 years of age) diagnosed with a TBI; (2) comorbidity was detected by any means excluding self-report; (3) reported the proportion of participants without comorbidity and (4) followed participants for any period of time. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Data were synthesised through tabulation and qualitative description. Results A total of 27 cohort studies were included. Among the wide range of individual comorbid conditions studied, only low blood pressure was a consistent predictors of post-TBI mortality. Other consistent predictors were traditional sociodemographic risk factors. Higher comorbidity scale, scores and the number of comorbid conditions were not consistently associated with post-TBI mortality. Conclusions Given the high number of comorbid conditions that were examined by the single studies, research is required to further substantiate the evidence and address conflicting findings. Finally, an enhanced set of comorbidity measures that are suited for the TBI population will allow for better risk stratification to guide TBI management and treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Reports on the association between comorbidity and functional status and risk of death in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) have been inconsistent; it is currently unknown which additional clinical entities (comorbidities) have an adverse influence on the evolution of outcomes across the lifespan of men and women with TBI. The current protocol outlines a strategy for a systematic review of the current evidence examining the impact of comorbidity on functional status and early-term and late-term mortality, taking into account known risk factors of these adverse outcomes (ie, demographic (age and sex) and injury-related characteristics). Methods and analysis A comprehensive search strategy for TBI prognosis, functional (cognitive and physical) status and mortality studies has been developed in collaboration with a medical information specialist of the large rehabilitation teaching hospital. All peer-reviewed English language studies with longitudinal design in adults with TBI of any severity, published from May 1997 to April 2017, found through Medline, Central, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO and bibliographies of identified articles, will be considered eligible. Study quality will be assessed using published guidelines. Ethics and dissemination The authors will publish findings from this review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal(s) and present the results at national and international conferences. This work aims to understand how comorbidity may contribute to adverse outcomes in TBI, to inform risk stratification of patients and guide the management of brain injury acutely and at the chronic stages postinjury on a population level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unlabelled: The CHIPS randomized controlled trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study) found no difference in the primary perinatal or secondary maternal outcomes between planned "less tight" (target diastolic 100 mm Hg) and "tight" (target diastolic 85 mm Hg) blood pressure management strategies among women with chronic or gestational hypertension. This study examined which of these management strategies is more or less costly from a third-party payer perspective. A total of 981 women with singleton pregnancies and nonsevere, nonproteinuric chronic or gestational hypertension were randomized at 14 to 33 weeks to less tight or tight control. Resources used were collected from 94 centers in 15 countries and costed as if the trial took place in each of 3 Canadian provinces as a cost-sensitivity analysis. Eleven hospital ward and 24 health service costs were obtained from a similar trial and provincial government health insurance schedules of medical benefits. The mean total cost per woman-infant dyad was higher in less tight versus tight control, but the difference in mean total cost (DM) was not statistically significant in any province: Ontario ($30 191.62 versus $24 469.06; DM $5723, 95% confidence interval, -$296 to $12 272; P=0.0725); British Columbia ($30 593.69 versus $24 776.51; DM $5817; 95% confidence interval, -$385 to $12 349; P=0.0725); or Alberta ($31 510.72 versus $25 510.49; DM $6000.23; 95% confidence interval, -$154 to $12 781; P=0.0637). Tight control may benefit women without increasing risk to neonates (as shown in the main CHIPS trial), without additional (and possibly lower) cost to the healthcare system.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01192412. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]