Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Chain of Survival highlights the effectiveness of early recognition of cardiac arrest and call for help, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation. Most patients, however, remain in cardiac arrest despite these interventions. Drug treatments, particularly the use of vasopressors, have been included in resuscitation algorithms since their inception. This narrative review describes the current evidence base for vasopressors and reports that adrenaline (1 mg) is highly effective at achieving return of spontaneous circulation (number needed to treat 4) but is less effective on long-term outcomes (survival to 30 days, number needed to treat 111) with uncertain effects on survival with a favourable neurological outcome. Randomised trials evaluating vasopressin, either as an alternative to or in addition to adrenaline, and high-dose adrenaline have failed to find evidence of improved long-term outcomes. There is a need for future trials to evaluate the interaction between steroids and vasopressin. Evidence for other vasopressors (e.g. noradrenaline, phenylephedrine) is insufficient to support or refute their use. The use of intravenous calcium chloride as a routine intervention in out of hospital cardiac arrest is not associated with benefit and may cause harm. The optimal route for vascular access between peripheral intravenous versus intraosseous routes is currently the subject of two large randomised trials. Intracardiac, endobronchial, and intramuscular routes are not recommended. Central venous administration should be limited to patients where an existing central venous catheter is in situ and patent.

In cardiac arrest, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a key determinant of patient survival. However, delivery of effective chest compressions is often inconsistent, subject to fatigue and practically challenging. Mechanical CPR devices provide an automated way to deliver high-quality CPR. However, large randomised controlled trials of the routine use of mechanical devices in the out-of-hospital setting have found no evidence of improved patient outcome in patients treated with mechanical CPR, compared with manual CPR. The limited data on use during in-hospital cardiac arrest provides preliminary data supporting use of mechanical devices, but this needs to be robustly tested in randomised controlled trials. In situations where high-quality manual chest compressions cannot be safely delivered, the use of a mechanical device may be a reasonable clinical approach. Examples of such situations include ambulance transportation, primary percutaneous coronary intervention, as a bridge to extracorporeal CPR and to facilitate uncontrolled organ donation after circulatory death. The precise time point during a cardiac arrest at which to deploy a mechanical device is uncertain, particularly in patients presenting in a shockable rhythm. The deployment process requires interruptions in chest compression, which may be harmful if the pause is prolonged. It is recommended that use of mechanical devices should occur only in systems where quality assurance mechanisms are in place to monitor and manage pauses associated with deployment. In summary, mechanical CPR devices may provide a useful adjunct to standard treatment in specific situations, but current evidence does not support their routine use.

Using qualitative interview data (n = 142 interviews) generated with 50 nurses, over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper traces the trajectories of nurses in the UK and attempts to unpick the interplay between structure and agency in their narratives. Interviews were inductively analysed for themes and an additional narrative analysis was undertaken to preserve the form of each participant’s narrative. We argue that nurses’ pandemic trajectories occurred within the ‘psychological vulnerability-stigma nexus’ which operates within health and social care providers in the UK and whilst constraining nurses’ agency at times it could also provide an impetus to act agentically. We found that the nurses’ COVID-19 trajectories were characterised by: getting by, getting out (job-hopping) getting needs met and getting organised. We call for more considered systemic support to be generated and consistently provided to nurses to ensure retention of nurses and the security of society to avoid exacerbating existing workforce shortages.

Early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation with Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) by the public at an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) increases patient survival, but AEDs are infrequently used. Using drones to deliver AEDs may be one way to increase uptake, but there is limited understanding about what members of the public think about this. The aim of the study was to explore public attitudes towards drone AED delivery for OHCA. We conducted 14 remote, semi-structured interviews with real-life OHCA bystanders. Participants were recruited via social media, a UK cardiac arrest survivor charity and the Welsh Ambulance Services University NHS Trust. We analysed data using the Theoretical Domains Framework and mapped findings to the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation model of Behaviour (COM-B) to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to the retrieval and use of drone-delivered AEDs. We used The Behaviour Change Wheel to identify potential interventions to optimise use of drone-delivered AEDs. Participants experienced varying levels of physical and social opportunities in relation to (un)available AEDs and (in)appropriate support from the call-handler, affecting the likelihood of them performing CPR and/or using an AED effectively. Most participants were unsure about how to use an AED, and none knew how a drone-delivered AED system would work in practice. Many participants questioned whether they would possess sufficient capability and motivation to retrieve and/or operate a drone-delivered AED during a time-critical emergency. There were five key themes for potential interventions: incorporating information about drone-delivered AED use into pre-existing training programmes and materials; ensuring drone use complies with specific regulatory and/or legislative requirements; making the drone-delivered AED easy to identify and access; optimising call-handler scripts to incorporate drone-delivered AED use; providing social support via a robust co-responder model to complement drone-delivered AED use. Participants accepted drone-delivered AEDs for OHCA, but were unsure if it would be effective. They identified several issues that we addressed through the development of a comprehensive intervention framework. A comprehensive call-handler script that incorporates drone-delivered AED use and support for bystanders was the most salient potential intervention for future testing by relevant stakeholders.

IntroductionEach year in the UK, 140 000 patients are discharged from intensive care units (ICUs) to general hospital wards, almost all with complex rehabilitation needs. 84% of patients still require nutritional support and 98% are not physically independent. Despite this, many are discharged from ICU without a nutrition plan, and failure to recognise malnutrition is common. Consequently, malnutrition persists in the ward environment, leading to poor outcomes and acting as a barrier to successful physical rehabilitation. This transition from intensive care to the ward represents a key stage in the recovery journey, and a window for optimising physical independence prior to hospital discharge, decreasing the need for support in the community. However, uncertainty as to how best to provide ongoing rehabilitation which combines adequate nutrition and exercise on the general ward has driven widespread variation in practice.We have previously shown the benefits of delivering a structured rehabilitation strategy in the ICU. However, the ward environment poses different challenges to the development of an integrated rehabilitation pathway. There is a need to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of structured rehabilitation strategies when delivered outside the ICU.Methods and analysisPhysiotherapy and Optimised Enteral Nutrition In the post-acute phase of critical illness is a bi-centre, mixed methods feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT). 60 patients will be recruited from ICUs at two acute National Health Service Trusts and randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either individualised physiotherapy and optimised nutrition post discharge from ICU (intervention) or standard care. The primary objective is to assess the acceptability of the intervention and feasibility of a future, multicentre RCT. The primary outcome measures, which will determine feasibility, are recruitment and retention rates, and intervention fidelity. Acceptability of the intervention will be evaluated through semistructured interviews of participants and staff. Secondary outcome measures include collecting baseline, clinical and outcome data to inform the power calculations of a future definitive trial.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained through the Wales Research and Ethics Committee 2 (24/WA/0050). We aim to disseminate the findings through international conferences, international peer-reviewed journals and social media.Trial registration numberNCT06159868. Prospectively registered on 28 November 2023.

ObjectiveTo examine secondary care consultant clinicians’ experiences of conducting conversations about treatment escalation with patients and their relatives, using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process.DesignSemi-structured interviews following ward round observations.SettingTwo National Health Service hospitals in England.ParticipantsFifteen medical and surgical consultants from 10 specialties, observed in 14 wards.AnalysisInterview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThree themes were developed: (1) determining when and with whom to conduct a ReSPECT conversation; (2) framing the ReSPECT conversation to manage emotions and relationships and (3) reaching ReSPECT decisions. The results showed that when timing ReSPECT conversations, consultant clinicians rely on their predictions of a patient’s short-term prognosis; when framing ReSPECT conversations, consultant clinicians seek to minimise distress and maximise rapport and when involving a patient or a patient’s relatives in decision-making discussions, consultant clinicians are guided by their level of certainty about the patient’s illness trajectory.ConclusionsThe management of uncertainty about prognoses and about patients’ emotional reactions is central to secondary care consultant clinicians’ experiences of timing and conducting ReSPECT conversations.

ObjectiveTo summarise studies describing incidence of sudden cardiac death in a general population of young individuals to inform screening policy.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDatabase searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library (all inception to current) on 29 April 2019 (updated 16 November 2019), and forward/backward citation tracking of eligible studies.Study eligibility criteriaAll studies that reported incidence of sudden cardiac death in young individuals (12–39 years) in a general population, with no restriction on language or date. Planned subgroups were incidence by age, sex, race and athletic status (including military personnel).Data extractionTwo reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies.AnalysisReported incidence of sudden cardiac death in the young per 100 000 person-years.Results38 studies that reported incidence across five continents. We identified substantial heterogeneity in population, sudden cardiac death definition, and case ascertainment methods, precluding meta-analysis. Median reported follow-up years was 6.97 million (IQR 2.34 million–23.70 million) and number of sudden cardiac death cases was 64 (IQR 40–251). In the general population, the median of reported incidence was 1.7 sudden cardiac death per 100 000 person-years (IQR 1.3–2.6, range 0.75–11.9). Most studies (n=14, 54%) reported an incidence between one and two cases per 100 000 person-years. Incidence was higher in males and older individuals.ConclusionsThis systematic review identified variability in the reported incidence of sudden cardiac death in the young across studies. Most studies reported an incidence between one and two cases per 100 000 person-years.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019120563.

It has long been known that nursing work is challenging and has the potential for negative impacts. During the COVID-19 pandemic most nurses’ working landscapes altered dramatically and many faced unprecedented challenges. Resilience is a contested term that has been used with increasing prevalence in healthcare with health professionals encouraging a “tool-box” of stress management techniques and resilience-building skills. Drawing on narrative interview data (n = 27) from the Impact of Covid on Nurses (ICON) qualitative study we examine how nurses conceptualized resilience during COVID-19 and the impacts this had on their mental wellbeing. We argue here that it is paramount that nurses are not blamed for experiencing workplace stress when perceived not to be resilient “enough,” particularly when expressing what may be deemed to be normal and appropriate reactions given the extreme circumstances and context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective The trial objective is to determine if Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) or High-Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO) is clinically effective compared to standard oxygen therapy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Trial design Adaptive (group-sequential), parallel group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness trial. Participants The trial is being conducted across approximately 60 hospitals across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Inpatients at participating hospitals are eligible to participate if they have respiratory failure with suspected or proven COVID-19, and meet all of the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria: 1) Adults ≥ 18 years; 2) Admitted to hospital with suspected or proven COVID-19; 3) Receiving oxygen with fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO 2 ) ≥0.4 and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) ≤94%; and 4) Plan for escalation to tracheal intubation if needed. Exclusion criteria: 1) Planned tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation imminent within 1 hour; 2) Known or clinically apparent pregnancy; 3) Any absolute contraindication to CPAP or HFNO; 4) Decision not to intubate due to ceiling of treatment or withdrawal of treatment anticipated; and 5) Equipment for both CPAP and HFNO not available. Intervention and comparator Intervention one: Continuous positive airway pressure delivered by any device. Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Intervention two: High-flow nasal oxygen delivered by any device. Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Comparator group: Standard care- oxygen delivered by face mask or nasal cannula (excluding the use of continuous positive airway pressure or high-flow nasal oxygen). Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Intervention delivery continues up to the point of death, tracheal intubation, or clinical determination that there is no ongoing need (palliation or improvement). Main outcomes The primary outcome is a composite outcome comprising tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days following randomisation. Secondary outcomes include tracheal intubation rate, time to tracheal intubation, duration of invasive ventilation, mortality rate, time to mortality, length of hospital stay, and length of critical care stay. Randomisation Participants are randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either continuous positive airway pressure, high-flow nasal oxygen or standard care. Due to the challenging environment of study delivery, a specific intervention may not always be available at the hospital site. The study uses two integrated randomisation systems to allow, where required, the site to randomise between all three interventions, between CPAP and standard care, and between HFNO and standard care. System integration ensures maintenance of balance between interventions. Randomisation is performed using a telephone-based interactive voice response system to maintain allocation concealment. The randomisation sequence was computer-generated using the minimisation method. Participant randomisation is stratified by site, gender (M/F), and age (<50, >=50 years). Blinding (masking) The nature of the trial interventions precludes blinding of the researcher, patient and clinical team. Primary and secondary outcomes are all objective outcomes, thereby minimising the risk of detection bias. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) 4002 participants (1334 to be randomized to each of the three study arms) Trial Status Current protocol: Version 4.0, 29 th May 2020. Recruitment began on April 6, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 5, 2021. The trial has been awarded Urgent Public Health status by the National Institute of Health Research on 13 th April 2020. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN16912075. Registered 6 th April 2020, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16912075 Full protocol The full protocol (version 4.0, 29 th May 2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1 ). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2 ).

Background Oxygen is routinely given to patients during and after surgery. Perioperative oxygen administration has been proposed as a potential strategy to prevent and treat hypoxaemia and reduce complications, such as surgical site infections, pulmonary complications and mortality. However, uncertainty exists as to which strategies in terms of amount, delivery devices and timing are clinically effective. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is to answer the research question, ‘For which types of surgery, at which stages of care, in which sub-groups of patients and delivered under what conditions are different types of perioperative oxygen therapy clinically effective?’. Methods We will search key electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, the INAHTA International HTA Database and DARE archives) for systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials comparing perioperative oxygen strategies. Each review will be mapped according to type of surgery, surgical pathway timepoints and clinical comparison. The highest quality reviews with the most comprehensive and up-to-date coverage of relevant literature will be chosen as anchoring reviews. Standardised data will be extracted from each chosen review, including definition of oxygen therapy, summaries of interventions and comparators, patient population, surgical characteristics and assessment of overall certainty of evidence. For clinical outcomes and adverse events, the overall pooled findings and results of subgroup and sensitivity analyses (where available) will be extracted. Trial-level data will be extracted for surgical site infections, mortality, and potential trial-level effect modifiers such as risk of bias, outcome definition and type of surgery to facilitate quantitative data analysis. This analysis will adopt a multiple indication review approach with panoramic meta-analysis using review-level data and meta-regression using trial-level data. An evidence map will be produced to summarise our findings and highlight any research gaps. Discussion There is a need to provide a panoramic overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses describing peri-operative oxygen practice to both inform clinical practice and identify areas of ongoing uncertainty, where further research may be required. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42021272361