Search

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: Delirium affects over 20% of all hospitalised older adults. Delirium is associated with a number of adverse outcomes following hospital admission including cognitive decline, anxiety and depression, increased mortality and care needs. Previous research has addressed prevention of delirium in hospitals and care homes, and there are guidelines on short-term treatment of delirium during admission. However, no studies have addressed the problem of longer-term recovery after delirium and it is currently unknown whether interventions to improve recovery after delirium are effective and cost-effective. The primary objective of this feasibility study is to test a new, theory-informed rehabilitation intervention (RecoverED) in older adults delivered following a hospital admission complicated by delirium to determine whether (a) the intervention is acceptable to individuals with delirium and (b) a definitive trial and parallel economic evaluation of the intervention are feasible. Methods: The study is a multi-centre, single-arm feasibility study of a rehabilitation intervention with an embedded process evaluation. Sixty participants with delirium (aged > 65 years old) and carer pairs will be recruited from six NHS acute hospitals across the UK. All pairs will be offered the intervention, with follow-up assessments conducted at 3 months and 6 months post-discharge home. The intervention will be delivered in participants' own homes by therapists and rehabilitation support workers for up to 10 intervention sessions over 12 weeks. The intervention will be tailored to individual needs, and the chosen intervention plan and goals will be discussed and agreed with participants and carers. Quantitative data on reach, retention, fidelity and dose will be collected and summarised using descriptive statistics. The feasibility outcomes that will be used to determine whether the study meets the criteria for progression to a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) include recruitment, delivery of the intervention, retention, data collection and acceptability of outcome measures. Acceptability of the intervention will be assessed using in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews with participants and healthcare professionals. Discussion: Findings will inform the design of a pragmatic multi-centre RCT of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the RecoverED intervention for helping the longer-term recovery of people with delirium compared to usual care. Trial registration: The feasibility study was registered: ISRCTN15676570 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine has immunomodulatory effects that may provide protection against unrelated infectious diseases. We aimed to determine whether BCG vaccination protects adults against COVID-19., Design: Phase III double-blind randomised controlled trial., Setting: Healthcare centres in Australia, Brazil, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic., Participants: 3988 healthcare workers with no prior COVID-19 and no contraindication to BCG., Intervention: Randomised 1:1 using a web-based procedure to receive a single 0.1 mL intradermal dose of BCG-Denmark (BCG group, n = 1999) or saline (placebo group, n = 1989)., Main Outcome Measures: Difference in incidence of (i) symptomatic and (ii) severe COVID-19 during the 12 months following randomisation in the modified intention to treat (mITT) population (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 naïve at inclusion)., Results: Of the 3988 participants randomised, 3386 had a negative baseline SARS-CoV-2 test and were included in the mITT population. The 12-month adjusted estimated risk of symptomatic COVID-19 was higher in the BCG group (22.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 20.6 to 24.5%) compared with the placebo group (19.6%; 95% CI 17.6 to 21.5%); adjusted difference +3.0% points (95% CI 0.2 to 5.8%; p = 0.04). The 12-month adjusted estimated risk of severe COVID-19 (mainly comprising those reporting being unable to work for ≥3 consecutive days) was 11.0% in the BCG group (95% CI 9.5 to 12.4%) compared with 9.6% in the placebo group (95% CI 8.3 to 11.1%); adjusted difference +1.3% points (95% CI -0.7 to 3.3%, p = 0.2). Breakthrough COVID-19 (post COVID-19 vaccination) and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the two groups. There were 18 hospitalisations due to COVID-19 (11 in BCG group, 7 in placebo group; adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.02, p = 0.4) and two deaths due to COVID-19, both in the placebo group., Conclusions: Compared to placebo, vaccination with BCG-Denmark increased the risk of symptomatic COVID-19 over 12 months among healthcare workers and did not decrease the risk of severe COVID-19 or post-vaccination breakthrough COVID-19., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04327206., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The trial is financially supported by the Foundations listed in the Funding section. Authors disclose funding support over the past 36 months: National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Ideas Grant (NM), NHMRC Investigator Grant (NC), Melbourne Children’s Clinician-Scientist Fellowship Grant (KPP). Outside of the submitted work, JCr has received grants or contracts from Sanofi, MSD & CEPI; payment or honoraria for presentations from Pfizer and participates on Latin American data safety monitoring/advisory boards for mRNA-1273 (Modern/Zodiac), RSV maternal vaccine (Pfizer), Qdenga vaccine (Takeda) and Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir-Paxlovid (Pfizer). KG is a member of the Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH) Human Research Ethics Committee (the primary ethics committee providing approval for the BRACE trial) and Director of Research Operations at RCH; she abstained from all discussion, voting, approval and review related to the BRACE trial. All other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)