Developing a culture of nursing research through clinical-academic partnership

Evidence based practice is essential to advanced practice nursing, enabling the delivery of quality care and improved patient outcomes. As the name suggests, it requires healthcare decisions to be based on the best available and current evidence. Advanced practice nurses need astute critical analysis skills to appraise the evolving literature, and require research skills to lead on scientific inquiry and develop the profession. Yet, advanced practice nurses may not recognize themselves as research leaders. Participation in a journal club can promote evidence-based practice, improve clinician's critical thinking skills, and expose members to different research methodologies, however, nurses continue to face barriers to participation in these clubs. Establishing a clinical-academic partnership appears to be both mutually beneficial for clinicians and academics and is a significant enabler in the sustainability and functioning of the club through sharing expertise and experience. A supportive workplace culture is favourable to research utilization and knowledge translation. This paper outlines the role, practicalities, challenges, and benefits of setting up a hybrid urology journal and research club for advanced practice nurses in a clinical-academic partnership.     

Peptidoglycan recognition protein genes and risk of Parkinson's disease

Increased gut permeability, inflammation, and colonic α‐synuclein pathology are present in early Parkinson's disease (PD) and have been proposed to contribute to PD pathogenesis. Peptidoglycan is a structural component of the bacterial cell wall. Peptidoglycan recognition proteins (PGRPs) maintain healthy gut microbial flora by regulating the immune response to both commensal and harmful bacteria. We tested the hypothesis that variants in genes that encode PGRPs are associated with PD risk. Participants in two independent case‐control studies were genotyped for 30 single‐nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the four PGLYRP genes. Using logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for potential confounding variables, we conducted analyses in each study, separately and pooled. One SNP failed the assay, and three had little to no variation. The ORs were similar in both study populations. In pooled analyses, three of seven PGLYRP2 SNPs (rs3813135, rs733731, rs892145), one of five PGLYRP3 SNPs (rs2987763), and six of nine PGLYRP4 SNPs (rs10888557, rs12063091, rs3006440, rs3006448, rs3006458, and rs3014864) were significantly associated with PD risk. Association was strongest for PGLYRP4 5'untranslated region (UTR) SNP rs10888557 (GG reference, CG OR 0.6 [95%CI 0.4‐0.9], CC OR 0.15 [95%CI 0.04‐0.6]; log‐additive P‐trend, 0.0004). Common variants in PGLYRP genes are associated with PD risk in two independent studies. These results require replication, but they are consistent with hypotheses of a causative role for the gut microbiota and gastrointestinal immune response in PD. © 2014 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society     

Defining High Risk: Cost-Effectiveness of Extended-Duration Thromboprophylaxis Following Major Oncologic Abdominal Surgery

Purpose

Extended-duration thromboprophylaxis (EDTPPX) is the practice of prescribing antithrombotic therapy for 21 days after discharge, commonly used in surgical patients who are at high risk for venothromboembolism (VTE). While guidelines recommend EDTPPX, criteria are vague due to a paucity of data. The criteria can be further informed by cost-effectiveness thresholds. This study sought to determine the VTE incidence threshold for the cost-effectiveness of EDTPPX compared to inpatient prophylaxis.

Methods

A decision tree was used to compare EDTPPX for 21 days after discharge to 7 days of inpatient prophylaxis with base case assumptions based on an abdominal oncologic resection without complications in an otherwise healthy individual. Willingness to pay was set at $50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty within the model, with particular interest in the threshold for cost-effectiveness based on VTE incidence.

Results

EDTPPX was the dominant strategy when VTE probability exceeds 2.39 %. Given a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, EDTPPX was the preferred strategy when VTE incidence exceeded 1.22 and 0.88 % when using brand name or generic medication costs, respectively.

Conclusions

EDTPPX should be recommended whenever VTE incidence exceeds 2.39 %. When post-discharge estimated VTE risk is 0.88–2.39 %, patient preferences about self-injections and medication costs should be considered.