Preventing Adverse Drug Reactions After Hospital Discharge (PADR-AD): Protocol for a randomised-controlled trial in older people

BackgroundAdverse drug reactions (ADRs) and adverse drug events (ADEs) in older people contribute to a significant proportion of hospital admissions and are common following discharge. Effective interventions are therefore required to combat the growing burden of preventable ADRs. The Prediction of Hospitalisation due to Adverse Drug Reactions in Elderly Community Dwelling Patients (PADR-EC) score is a validated risk score developed to assess the risk of ADRs in people aged 65 years and older and has the potential to be utilised as part of an intervention to reduce ADRs.ObjectivesThis trial was designed to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention to reduce ADR incidence in older people and to obtain further information about ADRs and ADEs in the 12–24 months following hospital discharge.MethodsThe study is an open-label randomised-controlled trial to be conducted at the Royal Hobart Hospital, a 500-bed public hospital in Tasmania, Australia. Community-dwelling patients aged 65 years and older with an unplanned overnight admission to a general medical ward will be recruited. Following admission, the PADR-EC ADR score will be calculated by a research pharmacist, with the risk communicated to clinicians and discussed with participants. Following discharge, nominated general practitioners and community pharmacists will receive the risk score and related medication management advice to guide their ongoing care of the patient. Follow-up with participants will occur at 3 and 12 and 18 and 24 months to identify ADRs and ADEs. The primary outcome is moderate-severe ADRs at 12 months post-discharge, and will be analysed using the cumulative incidence proportion, survival analysis and Poisson regression.SummaryIt is hypothesised that the trial will reduce ADRs and ADEs in the intervention population. The study will also provide valuable data on post-discharge ADRs and ADEs up to 24 months post-discharge.     

延续护理在ICU出院患者中应用的范围综述

目的对延续护理在重症监护病房(ICU)出院回家患者中应用的研究进行范围审查,以识别其延续护理内容及结局,为未来该领域的研究提供指导。方法检索PubMed、The Cochrane Library、Medline、CINAHL Complete、EMbase、中国知网(CNKI)、维普资源总库(VIP)、万方数据库(Wanfang Database)和中国生物医学文献数据库(SinoMed),检索时限为1980年1月—2021年3月,由2名研究员独立筛选、提取资料。结果纳入9篇文献。延续护理干预要素包括电话随访、家访、在线访视、门诊随访、同伴支持、健康教育、医院门诊或居家康复运动支持,一定程度上改善患者躯体功能、心肺功能和心理状况,提高生活自理能力和生活质量。结论多要素结合的延续护理对ICU直接出院回家患者结局起到积极影响,后续有待关注家属和探究科学的延续护理个案管理模式。     

Clinicians' Views of Patient-initiated Follow-up in Head and Neck Cancer: a Qualitative Study to Inform the PETNECK2 Trial

AimsCurrent follow-up for head and neck cancer (HNC) is ineffective, expensive and fails to address patients' needs. The PETNECK2 trial will compare a new model of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) with routine scheduled follow-up. This article reports UK clinicians' views about HNC follow-up and PIFU, to inform the trial design.Materials and methodsOnline focus groups with surgeons (ear, nose and throat/maxillofacial), oncologists, clinical nurse specialists and allied health professionals. Clinicians were recruited from professional bodies, mailing lists and personal contacts. Focus groups explored views on current follow-up and acceptability of the proposed PIFU intervention and randomised controlled trial design (presented by the study co-chief investigator), preferences, margins of equipoise, potential organisational barriers and thoughts about the content and format of PIFU. Data were interpreted using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsEight focus groups with 34 clinicians were conducted. Clinicians highlighted already known limitations with HNC follow-up – lack of flexibility to address the wide-ranging needs of HNC patients, expense and lack of evidence – and agreed that follow-up needs to change. They were enthusiastic about the PETNECK2 trial to develop and evaluate PIFU but had concerns that PIFU may not suit disengaged patients and may aggravate patient anxiety/fear of recurrence and delay detection of recurrence. Anticipated issues with implementation included ensuring a reliable route back to clinic and workload burden on nurses and allied health professionals.ConclusionsClinicians supported the evaluation of PIFU but voiced concerns about barriers to help-seeking. An emphasis on patient engagement, psychosocial issues, symptom reporting and reliable, quick routes back to clinic will be important. Certain patient groups may be less suited to PIFU, which will be evaluated in the trial. Early, meaningful, ongoing engagement with clinical teams and managers around the trial rationale and recruitment process will be important to discourage selective recruitment and address risk-averse behaviour and potential workload burden.     

Daily skin-to-skin contact in full-term infants and breastfeeding: Secondary outcomes from a randomized controlled trial

This randomized controlled trial evaluated the effect of a 5-week daily skin-to-skin contact (SSC) intervention between mothers and their full-term infants, compared with care-as-usual, on exclusive and continued breastfeeding duration during the first post-natal year. Healthy pregnant women (n = 116) from a community sample were enrolled and randomly allocated to the SSC or care-as-usual condition. SSC mothers were requested to provide one daily hour of SSC for the first five post-natal weeks. Twelve months post-partum, mothers indicated the number of exclusive and continued breastfeeding months. Multiple regression analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat, per-protocol and exploratory dose–response frameworks. In intention-to-treat analyses, exclusive and continued breastfeeding duration was not different between groups (exclusive: 3.61 ± 1.99 vs. 3.16 ± 1.77 months; adjusted mean difference 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] ?0.33 to 0.89; p = 0.36; continued: 7.98 ± 4.20 vs. 6.75 ± 4.06 months; adjusted mean difference 0.81, 95% CI ?0.46 to 2.08; p = 0.21). In per-protocol analyses, exclusive and continued breastfeeding duration was longer for SSC than care-as-usual dyads (exclusive: 4.89 ± 1.26 vs. 3.25 ± 1.80 months; adjusted mean difference 1.28, 95% CI 0.31–2.24; p = 0.01; continued: 10.81 ± 1.97 vs. 6.98 ± 4.08 months; adjusted mean difference 2.33, 95% CI 0.13–4.54; p = 0.04). Exploratory dose–response effects indicated that more SSC hours predicted longer exclusive and continued breastfeeding duration. This study demonstrates that for the total group, the 5-week daily SSC intervention did not extend exclusive and continued breastfeeding duration. However, for mothers performing a regular daily hour of SSC, this simple and accessible intervention may extend exclusive and continued breastfeeding duration by months. Future studies are required to confirm these promising findings. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5697).