Search

BackgroundLower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are common in males aged ≥40 years and have a considerable impact on quality of life. Management can be complex, and although most LUTS could be treated effectively in primary care, referrals to urology outpatients are increasing.AimTo explore GPs’ experiences of managing LUTS together with patients’ experiences of and preferences for treatment in primary care.Design and settingTelephone interviews were conducted with GPs and male patients presenting to primary care with bothersome LUTS.MethodEleven GPs and 25 male patients were purposively sampled from 20 GP practices in three UK regions: Newcastle upon Tyne, Bristol, and South Wales. Interviews were conducted between May 2018 and January 2019, and were analysed using a framework approach.ResultsDifficulty establishing causes and differentiating between prostate and bladder symptoms were key challenges to the diagnosis of LUTS in primary care, often making treatment a process of trial and error. Pharmacological treatments were commonly ineffective and often caused side effects. Despite this, patients were generally satisfied with GP consultations and expressed a preference for treatment in primary care.ConclusionManaging LUTS in primary care is a more accessible option for patients. Given the challenges of LUTS diagnosis, an effective diagnostic tool for use by GPs would be beneficial. Ensuring bothersome LUTS are not dismissed as a normal part of ageing is essential in improving patients’ quality of life. Greater exploration of the role of non-pharmacological treatments is needed.

ObjectivesTo explore patient experiences, understanding and perceptions of analgesia following major lower limb amputation.DesignQualitative interview study, conducted as part of a randomised controlled feasibility trial.SettingParticipants were recruited from two general hospitals in South Wales.ParticipantsInterview participants were patients enrolled in PLACEMENT (Perineural Local Anaesthetic Catheter aftEr Major lowEr limb amputatioN Trial): a randomised controlled feasibility trial comparing the use of perineural catheter (PNC) versus standard care for postoperative pain relief following major lower limb amputation. PLACEMENT participants who completed 5-day postoperative follow-up, were able and willing to participate in a face-to-face interview, and had consented to be contacted, were eligible to take part in the qualitative study. A total of 20 interviews were conducted with 14 participants: 10 male and 4 female.MethodsSemi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with participants over two time points: (1) up to 1 month and (2) at least 6 months following amputation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a framework approach.ResultsInterviews revealed unanticipated benefits of PNC usage for postoperative pain relief. Participants valued the localised and continuous nature of this mode of analgesia in comparison to opioids. Concerns about opioid dependence and side effects of pain relief medication were raised by participants in both treatment groups, with some reporting trying to limit their intake of analgesics.ConclusionsFindings suggest routine placement of a PNC following major lower limb amputation could reduce postoperative pain, particularly for patient groups at risk of postoperative delirium. This method of analgesic delivery also has the potential to reduce preoperative anxiety, alleviate the burden of pain management and minimise opioid use. Future research could further examine the comparison between patient-controlled analgesia and continuous analgesia in relation to patient anxiety and satisfaction with pain management.Trial registration numberISRCTN: 85710690; EudraCT: 2016-003544-37.

Background Accurate prediction of outcomes following surgery with high morbidity and mortality rates is essential for informed shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. It is unknown how accurately healthcare professionals predict outcomes following major lower-limb amputation (MLLA). Several MLLA outcome-prediction tools have been developed. These could be valuable in clinical practice, but most require validation in independent cohorts before routine clinical use can be recommended. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of healthcare professionals’ predictions of outcomes in adult patients undergoing MLLA for complications of chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) or diabetes. Secondary aims include the validation of existing outcome-prediction tools. Method This study is an international, multicentre prospective observational study including adult patients undergoing a primary MLLA for CLTI or diabetes. Healthcare professionals’ accuracy in predicting outcomes at 30-days (death, morbidity and MLLA revision) and 1-year (death, MLLA revision and ambulation) will be evaluated. Sixteen existing outcome-prediction tools specific to MLLA will be examined for validity. Data collection began on 1 October 2020; the end of follow-up will be 1 May 2022. The C-statistic, Hosmer–Lemeshow test, reclassification tables and Brier score will be used to evaluate the predictive performance of healthcare professionals and prediction tools, respectively. Study registration and dissemination This study will be registered locally at each centre in accordance with local policies before commencing data collection, overseen by local clinician leads. Results will be disseminated to all centres, and any subsequent presentation(s) and/or publication(s) will follow a collaborative co-authorship model., PERCEIVE (PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcome following major lower limb amputation—a collaboratiVE study) is an international, multicentre prospective observational study including adult patients undergoing a primary major lower-limb amputation (MLLA) for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) or diabetes. It aims to evaluate the accuracy of healthcare professionals’ predictions of outcomes in adult patients undergoing MLLA for complications of CLTI or diabetes. Secondary aims include the validation of existing outcome-prediction tools in this patient cohort.

Introduction: Approximately 60,000 (9/100) infants are born into water annually in the UK and this is likely to increase. Case reports identified infants with water inhalation or sepsis following birth in water and there is a concern that women giving birth in water may sustain more complex perineal trauma. There have not been studies large enough to show whether waterbirth increases these poor outcomes. The POOL Study [ISRCTN 13315580] plans to answer the question about the safety of waterbirths among women who are classified appropriate for midwifery-led intrapartum care. Methods and Analysis: A cohort study with a nested qualitative component. Objectives will be answered; using retrospective and prospective data captured in electronic NHS maternity and neonatal systems. The qualitative component aims to explore factors influencing pool-use and waterbirth; data will be gathered via discussion groups, interviews and case studies of maternity units. Ethics and Disseminations: The protocol has been approved by NHS Wales Research Ethics Committee (18/WA/0291) the transfer of identifiable data has been approved by Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group (18CAG0153). Study findings and innovative methodology will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and events. Results will be of interest to the general public, clinical and policy stakeholders in the UK and will be disseminated accordingly. Strengths and Limitations of the Study: • Using large retrospective and prospective datasets concomitantly provides six years’ data over a three-year study period. • Ability to look at all neonatal outcomes and treatments across the wide geographical range and number of units. • Using existing, routine data enhanced by prospective data to investigate the safety of waterbirth across a range of outcomes. • Data collected will only represent users of Wellbeing-Software’s EuroKing® maternity software system. • Allocation is not random, so unmeasured confounding is possible.

IntroductionLower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) is a bothersome condition affecting older men which can lead to poor quality of life. General practitioners (GPs) currently have no easily available assessment tools to help effectively diagnose causes of LUTS and aid discussion of treatment with patients. Men are frequently referred to urology specialists who often recommend treatments that could have been initiated in primary care. GP access to simple, accurate tests and clinician decision tools are needed to facilitate accurate and effective patient management of LUTS in primary care.Methods and analysisPRImary care Management of lower Urinary tract Symptoms (PriMUS) is a prospective diagnostic accuracy study based in primary care. The study will determine which of a number of index tests used in combination best predict three urodynamic observations in men who present to their GP with LUTS. These are detrusor overactivity, bladder outlet obstruction and/or detrusor underactivity. Two cohorts of participants, one for development of the prototype diagnostic tool and other for validation, will undergo a series of simple index tests and the invasive reference standard (invasive urodynamics). We will develop and validate three diagnostic prediction models based on each condition and then combine them with management recommendations to form a clinical decision support tool.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 6. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences, and results will be of interest to professional and patient stakeholders.Trial registration numberISRCTN10327305.

ObjectivesTo determine the feasibility of undertaking a randomised controlled effectiveness trial evaluating the use of a perineural catheter (PNC) after major lower limb amputation with postoperative pain as the primary outcome.DesignRandomised controlled feasibility trial.SettingTwo vascular Centres in South Wales, UK.Participants50 patients scheduled for major lower limb amputation (below or above knee) for complications of peripheral vascular disease.InterventionsThe treatment arm received a PNC placed adjacent to the sciatic or tibial nerve at the time of surgery, with continuous infusion of levobupivacaine hydrochloride 0.125% for up to 5 days. The control arm received neither local anaesthetic nor PNC. Both arms received usual perioperative anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were the proportion of eligible patients who were randomised and the proportion of recruited patients who provided primary effectiveness outcome data. Secondary outcomes were: the proportion of recruited patients reaching 2 and 6 month follow-up and supplying pain data; identification of key cost drivers; development of an economic analysis framework for a future effectiveness trial; identification of barriers to recruitment and site set-up; and identification of the best way to measure postoperative pain.ResultsSeventy-six of 103 screened patients were deemed eligible over a 10 month period. Fifty (64.5%) of these patients were randomised, with one excluded in the perioperative period. Forty-five (91.3%) of 49 recruited patients provided enough pain scores on a 4-point verbal rating scale to allow primary effectiveness outcome evaluation. Attrition rates were high; 18 patients supplied data at 6 month follow-up. Costs were dominated by length of hospital stay. Patients and healthcare professionals reported that trial processes were acceptable.ConclusionsRecruitment of patients into a trial comparing PNC use to usual care after major lower limb amputation with postoperative pain measured on a 4-point verbal rating scale is feasible. Evaluation of longer-term symptoms is difficult.Trial registration numberISRCTN: 85 710 690. EudraCT: 2016-003544-37.

[no abstract]

This is the fourth and final article in a short series that presents case study examples of the positive work achieved by trusts who participated in the Royal College of Nursing's development programme to improve dementia care in acute hospitals. Dementia training in hospitals is often inadequate and staff do not always have sufficient knowledge of dementia to provide appropriate care. It can also be difficult for them to identify when patients with dementia are in pain, especially when their communication skills deteriorate. The case studies presented illustrate how two NHS trusts have worked to ensure that their staff are fully equipped to care for people with dementia in hospital. Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in Essex made dementia training a priority by including dementia awareness in staff induction across a range of roles and providing additional training activities tailored to meet staff needs. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust focused on pain assessment, aiming to standardise its approach for patients with dementia. The pain assessment in advanced dementia tool was chosen and piloted, and is being implemented across the trust after a positive response.

The hospital environment is often disorientating for people with dementia and can be particularly distressing when a patient is admitted in an emergency. Subsequent ward moves can also be disruptive and confusing, especially if they take place out of hours. Two NHS trusts aimed to improve the experience for patients with dementia by addressing the physical environment along with practical aspects of care provision at different stages in the hospital journey. The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Foundation Trust in Norfolk enhanced its emergency department environment by redesigning four bays and an observation area to be dementia-friendly. The hospital has supported these changes by providing dementia awareness training for all staff in these areas. Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust focused on minimising ward moves by implementing procedures to identify patients who should not be moved. Since introducing the new process, adherence has been good and there have been fewer ward moves.

This is the second in a short series that presents case study examples of the positive work achieved by trusts that participated in the Royal College of Nursing's development programme to improve dementia care in acute hospitals. Staff often think that there is insufficient time to get to know patients and carers, especially with large and challenging workloads. Combined with a lack of activities and stimulation for patients with dementia in hospital, this can result in poor engagement and a disconnect between staff and patients. To improve these relationships and give staff more time with patients, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has introduced bay nursing for patients with dementia, where one nurse is responsible for monitoring a bay alongside a healthcare assistant for an entire shift. Part of Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Glan Clwyd Hospital in north Wales has focused on improving stimulation by creating an activity room with a specially trained activity worker, providing a relaxed and friendly setting where patients with dementia can take part in a range of activities and have lunch together.

This is the first in a short series that presents case study examples of the positive work achieved by trusts who participated in the Royal College of Nursing's development programme to improve dementia care in acute hospitals. When a person with dementia is in hospital, poor understanding of individual needs and preferences can contribute to a lack of person-centred care. Similarly, the needs of family carers can often be overlooked and staff do not always appreciate these needs at such a stressful time. This article illustrates how three NHS trusts have addressed these issues. To help staff get to know patients with dementia, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust has implemented a patient passport. Similarly, The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust has implemented a carer passport that overcomes the restrictions imposed by hospital visiting hours. Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust also focused on carers, holding a workshop to elicit feedback on what was important to them. This was a useful means of engaging with carers and helped staff to realise that even simple changes can have a significant effect.