Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background In Australia, Long COVID is prevalent in 5%–10% of COVID‐19 cases. Few multidisciplinary services exist to support recovery from Long COVID. Objective To understand the consumer experience and acceptability of a novel Australian Long COVID Recovery Clinic, which incorporates personalised exercise prescription including respiratory and peripheral strengthening and carefully monitored cardiovascular training. Design Qualitative study; semi‐structured interviews conducted by a researcher external to the clinic delivery. Setting, Participants A convenience sample of participants who have completed the Long COVID Recovery Clinic. Main Outcome Measures Major themes were identified by inductive thematic analysis. Results Fifteen participants were interviewed. 14/15 (93%) participants described the clinic model as acceptable or highly acceptable. Five core themes were identified, including (1) encouraging staff and light‐filled facilities support recovery; (2) supervised exercise and pacing improve confidence with exercise; (3) peer support and group therapy augments recovery; (4) other services augment Long COVID recovery, and (5) importance of GP involvement in connection with clinic participation. Suggestions for improvement included extending the duration of the clinic programme beyond 2 months, reducing wait times by increasing staffing levels and adjusting the clinic schedule to broaden access options. Conclusions The majority of participants found that the Long COVID Recovery Clinic, which incorporates both supervised exercise and pacing, is acceptable and would recommend it to others. From the consumer perspective, the Long COVID Recovery Clinic aids recovery alongside GP management through a combination of peer support and an individually tailored programme. Patient or Public Contribution A consumer was a highly valued member of our research team. She has been involved in study design, analysis, and interpretation. She has also been involved in editing the manuscript and provided advice to ensure the language used in the manuscript is sensitive to a consumer audience. As our consumer meets the authorship guidelines, we have included her as an author in this manuscript. We also intend to include our consumers in the dissemination of these results when published (e.g., social media). Trial Registration The study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12622000719730.

BackgroundThe primary aim was to determine the healthcare utilisation benefits including respiratory-related hospital admissions, hospital admission days and emergency department presentations in the 0–12 and 12–24 months postpulmonary rehabilitation compared with the 12 months preprogramme.MethodsAn observational, data-linkage design of 11 standardised pulmonary rehabilitation programmes were used. All programmes were 8 weeks in duration with two supervised exercise sessions per week and were required to use the national pulmonary rehabilitation recommendations with regard to programme organisation, exercise training guidelines and multidisciplinary education. For each participant with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), healthcare utilisation data were collected for the 12 months preprogramme and 24 months postprogramme.Results426 participants (231 males, FEV149.3 (19.6) % predicted) were studied. The number of respiratory admissions/participant/year decreased from 0.7 (1.1) in the 12 months preprogramme to 0.5 (1.9) in the 12 months postprogramme, p=0.083; but increased in the 12–24 months postprogramme to 1.0 (2.3), p<0.001. The hospital days/participant/year improved from 4.0 (7.8) days in the 12 months preprogramme to 2.5 (8.5) days in the 12 months postprogramme, p<0.001; but increased in the 12–24 months postprogramme to 6.1 (16.6) days, p=0.004. The emergency department presentations/participant/year improved from 1.15 (1.75) in the 12 months preprogramme to 0.9 (1.8) in the 12 months postprogramme, p=0.003; but increased in the 12–24 months postprogramme to 2.0 (3.3), p<0.001.ConclusionPulmonary rehabilitation significantly improves hospital days and emergency department presentations in the first 12 months postprogramme. Healthcare utilisation benefits in the second 12 months are less clear.

The aim was to determine if baseline measures can predict response to pulmonary rehabilitation in terms of six-minute walk distance (6MWD) or quality of life. Participants with COPD who attended pulmonary rehabilitation between 2010 and 2012 were recruited. Baseline measures evaluated included physical activity, quadriceps strength, comorbidities, inflammatory markers, and self-efficacy. Participants were classified as a responder with improvement in 6MWD (criteria of ≥25 m or ≥2SD) and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ; ≥0.5 points/question). Eighty-five participants with a mean (SD) age of 67(9) years and a mean forced expiratory volume in one second of 55(22)% were studied. Forty-nine and 19 participants were responders when using the 6MWD criteria of ≥25 m and ≥61.9 m, respectively, with forty-four participants improving in CRQ. In a regression model, responders in 6MWD (≥25 m criteria) had lower baseline quadriceps strength ( P = 0.028 ) and higher baseline self-efficacy scores ( P = 0.045 ). Independent predictors of 6MWD response (≥61.9 m criteria) were participants with metabolic disease ( P = 0.007 ) and lower baseline quadriceps strength ( P = 0.016 ). Lower baseline CRQ was the only independent predictor of CRQ response. A participant with relatively lower baseline quadriceps strength was the strongest independent predictor of 6MWD response. Metabolic disease may predict 6MWD response, but predictors of CRQ response remain unclear.

Objective. To determine the participant entry criteria used by Australian-based pulmonary rehabilitation programs and the factors that influence selection. Methods. This cross-sectional observational study invited all program coordinators listed on the Australian Lung Foundation's pulmonary rehabilitation database in November 2009. Results. The response rate was 40.5% (79/195), with 58% of respondents reporting a waiting list. Forty respondents reported prioritising referrals due to: disease severity (75%), requirement for medical procedure (70%), upon medical request (60%) or participant's likelihood to benefit (55%). Fifty-eight respondents reported using entry criteria to select participants, which was mainly for safety reasons and performance-based expectations. All 58 respondents used at least one exclusion criterion in selecting their participants, compared with only 25 programs using inclusion criteria. Increased demand on individual programs was related to prioritising referrals (P < 0.001) and was reported by 12 programs as a reason for using participant entry criteria. Conclusions. Program coordinators commonly prioritise referrals and use participant entry criteria to manage clinical demand with performance-based expectations an important consideration. The inclusion criteria that identify participants more likely to benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation are less commonly used in the performance-based selections.

To determine whether prophylactic inhaled heparin is effective for the prevention and treatment of pneumonia patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in the intensive care unit. A phase 2, double blind randomized controlled trial stratified for study center and patient type (non-operative, post-operative) was conducted in three university-affiliated intensive care units. Patients aged ≥18years and requiring invasive MV for more than 48hours were randomized to usual care, nebulization of unfractionated sodium heparin (5000 units in 2mL) or placebo nebulization with 0.9% sodium chloride (2mL) four times daily with the main outcome measures of the development of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP), ventilator associated complication (VAC) and sequential organ failure assessment scores in patients with pneumonia on admission or who developed VAP. Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000038897. Two hundred and fourteen patients were enrolled (72 usual care, 71 inhaled sodium heparin, 71 inhaled sodium chloride). There were no differences between treatment groups in terms of the development of VAP, using either Klompas criteria (6–7%, P=1.00) or clinical diagnosis (24–26%, P=0.85). There was no difference in the clinical consistency (P=0.70), number (P=0.28) or the total volume of secretions per day (P=.54). The presence of blood in secretions was significantly less in the usual care group (P=0.005). Nebulized heparin cannot be recommended for prophylaxis against VAP or to hasten recovery from pneumonia in patients receiving MV.

Purpose The primary aim of this study was to compare the attendance rates at a group lymphoedema education and same-day individual surveillance appointment between telehealth (TH) and in-person (IP) care for participants following breast cancer (BC) surgery. Secondary aims included evaluating participant satisfaction and costs between the two service models, while also determining the extent of technical issues and clinician satisfaction towards TH. Methods Participants following axillary lymph node dissection surgery attended a group lymphoedema education and same-day 1:1 monitoring session via their preferred mode (TH or IP). Attendance rates, satisfaction and costs were recorded for both cohorts, and technical disruption and clinician satisfaction for the TH cohort. Results Fifty-five individuals participated. All 28 participants who nominated the IP intervention attended, while 22/27 who nominated the TH intervention attended an appointment. Overall reported participant experience was positive with no significant differences between cohorts. All TH appointments were successfully completed. Clinicians reported high satisfaction for delivery of education (median = 4[IQR 4–5]) and individual assessment (median = 4[IQR 3–4]) via TH. Median attendance costs per participant were Australian $39.68 (Q1–Q3 $28.52–$68.64) for TH and Australian $154.26 (Q1–Q3 $81.89–$251.48) for the IP cohort. Conclusion Telehealth-delivered lymphoedema education and assessment for individuals following BC surgery was associated with favourable satisfaction, cost savings and minimal technical issues despite lower attendance than IP care. This study contributes to the growing evidence for TH and its potential applicability to other populations where risk for cancer-related lymphoedema exists.

To determine whether prophylactic inhaled heparin is effective for the prevention and treatment of pneumonia patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in the intensive care unit. A phase 2, double blind randomized controlled trial stratified for study center and patient type (non-operative, post-operative) was conducted in three university-affiliated intensive care units. Patients aged ≥18years and requiring invasive MV for more than 48hours were randomized to usual care, nebulization of unfractionated sodium heparin (5000 units in 2mL) or placebo nebulization with 0.9% sodium chloride (2mL) four times daily with the main outcome measures of the development of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP), ventilator associated complication (VAC) and sequential organ failure assessment scores in patients with pneumonia on admission or who developed VAP. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000038897. Two hundred and fourteen patients were enrolled (72 usual care, 71 inhaled sodium heparin, 71 inhaled sodium chloride). There were no differences between treatment groups in terms of the development of VAP, using either Klompas criteria (6-7%, P=1.00) or clinical diagnosis (24-26%, P=0.85). There was no difference in the clinical consistency (P=0.70), number (P=0.28) or the total volume of secretions per day (P=.54). The presence of blood in secretions was significantly less in the usual care group (P=0.005). Nebulized heparin cannot be recommended for prophylaxis against VAP or to hasten recovery from pneumonia in patients receiving MV.

The purpose was to determine the efficacy of prophylactic inhaled heparin for the prevention and treatment of pneumonia in patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). A phase 2, double-blind, randomized controlled trial stratified for study center and patient type (nonoperative, postoperative) was conducted in 3 university-affiliated intensive care units. Patients aged at least 18 years and requiring invasive MV for more than 48 hours were randomized to usual care, nebulization of unfractionated sodium heparin (5000 U in 2 mL), or nebulization with 0.9% sodium chloride (2 mL) 4 times daily with the main outcome measures, the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ventilator-associated complication, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores in patients with admission pneumonia or developing VAP. Trial registration: ACTRN12612000038897. A total of 214 patients were enrolled (72 usual care, 71 inhaled sodium heparin, 71 inhaled sodium chloride). There were no differences between treatment groups in terms of the development of VAP using either Klompas criteria (6%-7%, P=1.00) or clinical diagnosis (24%-26%, P=.85). Low-dose nebulized heparin cannot be recommended for prophylaxis against VAP or to hasten recovery from pneumonia in patients receiving MV.