Search

Background: Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination has beneficial off-target effects that may include protecting against non-mycobacterial infectious diseases. We aimed to determine whether neonatal BCG vaccination reduces lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) in infants in the Melbourne Infant Study: BCG for Allergy and Infection Reduction (MIS BAIR) trial.Methods: In this investigator-blinded trial, neonates in Australia were randomized to receive BCG-Denmark vaccination or no BCG at birth. Episodes of LRTI were determined by symptoms reported in parent-completed, 3-month questionnaires over the first year of life. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat using binary regression.Results: A total of 1272 neonates were randomized to the BCG vaccination (n = 637) or control (n = 635) group. The proportion of participants with an episode of LRTI in the first year of life among BCG-vaccinated infants was 54.8% compared to 58.0% in the control group, resulting in a risk difference of -3.2 (95% confidence interval, -9.0 to 2.6) after multiple imputation. There was no interaction observed between the primary outcome and sex, maternal BCG, or the other prespecified effect modifiers.Conclusions: Based on the findings of this trial, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of neonatal BCG vaccination to prevent LRTI in the first year of life in high-income settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We sought to examine co-design in 3 contrasting case studies of technology-supported change in health care and explain its role in influencing project success.Materials and Methods: Longitudinal case studies of a seizure detection and reporting technology for epilepsy (Southern England, 2018-2019), a telehealth service for heart failure (7 UK sites, 2016-2018), and a remote video consultation service (Scotland-wide, 2019-2020). We carried out interviews with 158 participants and collected more than 200 pages of field notes from observations. Within- and cross-case analysis was informed by sociotechnical theory.Results: In the epilepsy case, co-design prioritized patient-facing features and focused closely around a specific clinic, which led to challenges with sustainability and mainstreaming. In the heart failure case, patient-focused co-design produced an accessible and usable patient portal but resulted in variation in uptake between clinical sites. Successful scale-up of video consultations was explained by a co-design process involving not only the technical interface, but also careful reshaping of work practices.Discussion: A shift is needed from co-designing with technology users to co-designing with patients as service users, and with healthcare staff as professionals. Good co-design needs to involve users, including those who engage with the technology-supported service bothdirectly and indirectly. It requires sensitivity to emergence and unpredictability in complex systems. Healthcare staff need to be supported to accommodate iterative change in the service. Adequate resourcing and infrastructures for systems-focused co-design are essential.Conclusions: If co-design focuses narrowly on the technology, opportunities will be missed to coevolve technologies alongside clinical practices and organizational routines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Highlands and the Western Isles are the two most remote and rural areas of Scotland, with many medical practices in areas where pharmacies would not be viable. Recent regulations state that that dispensing medical practices in these areas must receive pharmacist support for patients who would benefit.Objective: This study aimed to evaluate pilot services, which centred on the provision of patient centred pharmaceutical care.Methods: A realist type evaluation was conducted by an independent research team comprising collecting quantitative data around what occurred during the consultation followed by interviews with purposive samples of staff (n = 14) and patients (n = 18).Results: A total of 873 medicines related issues were identified in 473 patients reviewed, with the main issue being 'inappropriate dose, frequency, duration'. Just under half (39.7%) of issues were managed by the pharmacist without any medical input. Interviews indicated a high level of appreciation, although there was an increase in workload for some staff. While the need for telephone based pharmacist consultations for some patients was understood, there was a preference for face to face. All were supportive of continuing and extending the service.Conclusion: The clinical pharmacist service was both needed and valued highly by staff and patients. In Scotland, this aligns with the Government vision and action plan, 'Prescription for Excellence', that by 2023 all patient facing pharmacists will be independent prescribers with those in remote and rural areas entitled to 'equity of access to such expertise'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]