Explore the vast range of titles available.

Guidelines recommend the use of nutritional support during hospital stays for medical patients (patients not critically ill and not undergoing surgical procedures) at risk of malnutrition. However, the supporting evidence for this recommendation is insufficient, and there is growing concern about the possible negative effects of nutritional therapy during acute illness on recovery and clinical outcomes. Our aim was thus to test the hypothesis that protocol-guided individualised nutritional support to reach protein and caloric goals reduces the risk of adverse clinical outcomes in medical inpatients at nutritional risk. The Effect of early nutritional support on Frailty, Functional Outcomes, and Recovery of malnourished medical inpatients Trial (EFFORT) is a pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, multicentre study. We recruited medical patients at nutritional risk (nutritional risk screening 2002 [NRS 2002] score ≥3 points) and with an expected length of hospital stay of more than 4 days from eight Swiss hospitals. These participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either protocol-guided individualised nutritional support to reach protein and caloric goals (intervention group) or standard hospital food (control group). Randomisation was done with variable block sizes and stratification according to study site and severity of malnutrition using an interactive web-response system. In the intervention group, individualised nutritional support goals were defined by specialist dietitians and nutritional support was initiated no later than 48 h after admission. Patients in the control group received no dietary consultation. The composite primary endpoint was any adverse clinical outcome defined as all-cause mortality, admission to intensive care, non-elective hospital readmission, major complications, and decline in functional status at 30 days, and it was measured in all randomised patients who completed the trial. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02517476. 5015 patients were screened, and 2088 were recruited and monitored between April 1, 2014, and Feb 28, 2018. 1050 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 1038 to the control group. 60 patients withdrew consent during the course of the trial (35 in the intervention group and 25 in the control group). During the hospital stay, caloric goals were reached in 800 (79%) and protein goals in 770 (76%) of 1015 patients in the intervention group. By 30 days, 232 (23%) patients in the intervention group experienced an adverse clinical outcome, compared with 272 (27%) of 1013 patients in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·64–0·97], p=0·023). By day 30, 73 [7%] patients had died in the intervention group compared with 100 [10%] patients in the control group (adjusted OR 0·65 [0·47–0·91], p=0·011). There was no difference in the proportion of patients who experienced side-effects from nutritional support between the intervention and the control group (162 [16%] vs 145 [14%], adjusted OR 1·16 [0·90–1·51], p=0·26). In medical inpatients at nutritional risk, the use of individualised nutritional support during the hospital stay improved important clinical outcomes, including survival, compared with standard hospital food. These findings strongly support the concept of systematically screening medical inpatients on hospital admission regarding nutritional risk, independent of their medical condition, followed by a nutritional assessment and introduction of individualised nutritional support in patients at risk. The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland.

This is a book for practitioners working in community-based healthcare as well as educators of future practitioners and researchers exploring this practice field and for people with chronic disabilities and their families and carers. The book invites readers to re-think and re-shape the way that community-based healthcare is practised by practitioners and experienced/engaged with by clients/patients and their families and other carers. Based on a PhD study of therapeutic relationships in community healthcare settings in NSW, Australia, and on real-life experiences of practitioners, clients and clients' families and care givers, this book paints a rich picture of the lived experiences of these participants in community-based healthcare. It examines the issues and challenges they face and the ways they deal with these. Key themes identified across the book are: the value and nature of relationships in this unique healthcare setting, the importance of time and using it well, the way good teamwork facilitates good community-based, patient-centred healthcare, balancing autonomy and equality with healthcare quality, practice wisdom embodied in healthcare, and ways of improving healthcare in clients' own homes -- Provided by the publisher.

Agitation is a common, challenging symptom affecting large numbers of people with dementia and impacting on quality of life (QoL). There is an urgent need for evidence-based, cost-effective psychosocial interventions to improve these outcomes, particularly in the absence of safe, effective pharmacological therapies. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a person-centred care and psychosocial intervention incorporating an antipsychotic review, WHELD, on QoL, agitation, and antipsychotic use in people with dementia living in nursing homes, and to determine its cost. This was a randomised controlled cluster trial conducted between 1 January 2013 and 30 September 2015 that compared the WHELD intervention with treatment as usual (TAU) in people with dementia living in 69 UK nursing homes, using an intention to treat analysis. All nursing homes allocated to the intervention received staff training in person-centred care and social interaction and education regarding antipsychotic medications (antipsychotic review), followed by ongoing delivery through a care staff champion model. The primary outcome measure was QoL (DEMQOL-Proxy). Secondary outcomes were agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory [CMAI]), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home Version [NPI-NH]), antipsychotic use, global deterioration (Clinical Dementia Rating), mood (Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia), unmet needs (Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly), mortality, quality of interactions (Quality of Interactions Scale [QUIS]), pain (Abbey Pain Scale), and cost. Costs were calculated using cost function figures compared with usual costs. In all, 847 people were randomised to WHELD or TAU, of whom 553 completed the 9-month randomised controlled trial. The intervention conferred a statistically significant improvement in QoL (DEMQOL-Proxy Z score 2.82, p = 0.0042; mean difference 2.54, SEM 0.88; 95% CI 0.81, 4.28; Cohen's D effect size 0.24). There were also statistically significant benefits in agitation (CMAI Z score 2.68, p = 0.0076; mean difference 4.27, SEM 1.59; 95% CI -7.39, -1.15; Cohen's D 0.23) and overall neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI-NH Z score 3.52, p < 0.001; mean difference 4.55, SEM 1.28; 95% CI -7.07,-2.02; Cohen's D 0.30). Benefits were greatest in people with moderately severe dementia. There was a statistically significant benefit in positive care interactions as measured by QUIS (19.7% increase, SEM 8.94; 95% CI 2.12, 37.16, p = 0.03; Cohen's D 0.55). There were no statistically significant differences between WHELD and TAU for the other outcomes. A sensitivity analysis using a pre-specified imputation model confirmed statistically significant benefits in DEMQOL-Proxy, CMAI, and NPI-NH outcomes with the WHELD intervention. Antipsychotic drug use was at a low stable level in both treatment groups, and the intervention did not reduce use. The WHELD intervention reduced cost compared to TAU, and the benefits achieved were therefore associated with a cost saving. The main limitation was that antipsychotic review was based on augmenting processes within care homes to trigger medical review and did not in this study involve proactive primary care education. An additional limitation was the inherent challenge of assessing QoL in this patient group. These findings suggest that the WHELD intervention confers benefits in terms of QoL, agitation, and neuropsychiatric symptoms, albeit with relatively small effect sizes, as well as cost saving in a model that can readily be implemented in nursing homes. Future work should consider how to facilitate sustainability of the intervention in this setting. ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62237498.

BACKGROUND African Americans and persons with low socioeconomic status (SES) are disproportionately affected by hypertension and receive less patient-centered care than less vulnerable patient populations. Moreover, continuing medical education (CME) and patient-activation interventions have infrequently been directed to improve the processes of care for these populations. OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness of patient-centered interventions targeting patients and physicians with the effectiveness of minimal interventions for underserved groups. DESIGN Randomized controlled trial conducted from January 2002 through August 2005, with patient follow-up at 3 and 12 months, in 14 urban, community-based practices in Baltimore, Maryland. PARTICIPANTS Forty-one primary care physicians and 279 hypertension patients. INTERVENTIONS Physician communication skills training and patient coaching by community health workers. MAIN MEASURES Physician communication behaviors; patient ratings of physicians’ participatory decision-making (PDM), patient involvement in care (PIC), reported adherence to medications; systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) and BP control. KEY RESULTS Visits of trained versus control group physicians demonstrated more positive communication change scores from baseline (−0.52 vs. −0.82, p = 0.04). At 12 months, the patient+physician intensive group compared to the minimal intervention group showed significantly greater improvements in patient report of physicians’ PDM (β = +6.20 vs. −5.24, p = 0.03) and PIC dimensions related to doctor facilitation (β = +0.22 vs. −0.17, p = 0.03) and information exchange (β = +0.32 vs. −0.22, p = 0.005). Improvements in patient adherence and BP control did not differ across groups for the overall patient sample. However, among patients with uncontrolled hypertension at baseline, non-significant reductions in systolic BP were observed among patients in all intervention groups—the patient+physician intensive (−13.2 mmHg), physician intensive/patient minimal (−10.6 mmHg), and the patient intensive/physician minimal (−16.8 mmHg), compared to the patient+physician minimal group (−2.0 mmHg). CONCLUSION Interventions that enhance physicians’ communication skills and activate patients to participate in their care positively affect patient-centered communication, patient perceptions of engagement in care, and may improve systolic BP among urban African-American and low SES patients with uncontrolled hypertension.

Background There is emerging consensus that enhanced inter-professional teamwork is necessary for the effective and efficient delivery of primary care, but there is less practical information specific to primary care available to guide practices on how to better work as teams. Objective The purpose of this study was to describe how primary care practices have overcome challenges to providing team-based primary care and the implications for care delivery and policy. Approach Practices for this qualitative study were selected from those recognized as patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) via the most recent National Committee for Quality Assurance PCMH tool, which included a domain on practice teamwork. Participants Sixty-three respondents, ranging from physicians to front-desk staff, were interviewed from May through December of 2013. Practice respondents came from 27 primary care practices ranging in size, type, geography, and population served. Key Results Practices emphasizing teamwork overcame common challenges through the incremental delegation of non-clinical tasks away from physicians. The roles of medical assistants and nurses are expanding to include template-guided information collection from patients prior to the physician office visit as well as many other tasks. The inclusion of staff input in care workflow redesign and the use of data to demonstrate how team care process changes improved patient care were helpful in gaining staff buy-in. Team “huddles” guided by pre-visit planning were reported to assist in role delegation, consistency of information collected from patients, and structured communication among team members. Nurse care managers were found to be important team members in working with patients and their physicians on care plan design and execution. Most practices had not participated in formal teamwork training, but respondents expressed a desire for training for key team members, particularly if they could access it on-site (e.g., via practice coaches or the Internet). Conclusions Participants who adopted new forms of delegation and care processes using teamwork approaches, and who were supported with resources, system support, and data feedback, reported improved provider satisfaction and productivity. There appears to be a need for more on-site teamwork training.

In this trial, an intervention involving a medically supervised nurse providing guideline-based management, as compared with usual care, resulted in improved medical outcomes in patients who had depression and diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both. Evidence-based care management for single conditions improves outcomes among patients with diabetes, 1 coronary heart disease, 2 and depression, 3 but organizing diagnosis-specific programs is complex and costly, so such programs are not routinely available. 4 , 5 Care for patients with multiple chronic illnesses is expensive, and coordination of care among specialties can be inadequate. 5 , 6 In previous trials involving high-risk Medicare patients with diabetes, heart disease, or both, nurse care-management interventions did not improve patient outcomes. 7 However, these interventions were primarily delivered by telephone, had no physician supervision, did not include medication recommendations to primary care physicians, and were not integrated into primary . . .

BackgroundPatient misunderstanding of prescription drug label instructions is a common cause of unintentional misuse of medication and adverse health outcomes. Those with limited literacy and English proficiency are at greater risk.ObjectiveTo test the effectiveness of a patient-centered drug label strategy, including a Universal Medication Schedule (UMS), to improve proper regimen use and adherence compared to a current standard.DesignTwo-arm, multi-site patient-randomized pragmatic trial.ParticipantsEnglish- and Spanish-speaking patients from eight community health centers in northern Virginia who received prescriptions from a central-fill pharmacy and who were 1) ≥30 years of age, 2) diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension, and 3) taking ≥2 oral medications.InterventionA patient-centered label (PCL) strategy that incorporated evidence-based practices for format and content, including prioritized information, larger font size, and increased white space. Most notably, instructions were conveyed with the UMS, which uses standard intervals for expressing when to take medicine (morning, noon, evening, bedtime).Main MeasuresDemonstrated proper use of a multi-drug regimen; medication adherence measured by self-report and pill count at 3 and 9 months.Key ResultsA total of 845 patients participated in the study (85.6 % cooperation rate). Patients receiving the PCL demonstrated slightly better proper use of their drug regimens at first exposure (76.9 % vs. 70.1 %, p = 0.06) and at 9 months (85.9 % vs. 77.4 %, p = 0.03). The effect of the PCL was significant for English-speaking patients (OR 2.21, 95 % CI 1.13–4.31) but not for Spanish speakers (OR 1.19, 95 % CI 0.63–2.24). Overall, the intervention did not improve medication adherence. However, significant benefits from the PCL were found among patients with limited literacy (OR 5.08, 95 % CI 1.15–22.37) and for those with medications to be taken ≥2 times a day (OR 2.77, 95 % CI 1.17–6.53).ConclusionsA simple modification to pharmacy-generated labeling, with minimal investment required, can offer modest improvements to regimen use and adherence, mostly among patients with limited literacy and more complex regimens.Trial Registration (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT00973180, NCT01200849

Purpose This study assessed the feasibility of implementing a novel model of integrated prostate cancer care involving an online prostate cancer-specific holistic needs assessment (sHNA) and shared digital communication between patients and their healthcare professionals (HCPs). The sHNA produces a semi-automated care plan that is finalised in consultation between the patient and their practice nurse. Methods Men living with and beyond prostate cancer were invited to participate in a 9-month non-randomised cluster controlled feasibility study. The intervention group was asked to complete the sHNA on three occasions. Data were collected using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) at baseline, 10 and 24 weeks, and 9 months. Outcomes included recruitment, retention, acceptability, and engagement with the sHNA and PROMs. Results Fourteen general practices (8 intervention and 6 control), and 41 men (29 intervention and 12 control) participated. Initial patient engagement with the sHNA was high, with all but one receiving practice nurse-led follow-up and an individualised care plan. The sHNA proved useful in identifying ‘red flag’ symptoms, and helping practice nurses decide when to seek further medical care for the patients. There was a high level of acceptability for patients and HCPs. However, integration of care did not occur as intended because of problems linking hospital and general practice IT systems. Conclusion While the study demonstrated the feasibility of implementing the sHNA, it did not meet the a priori progression criteria; as such, undertaking a definitive randomised controlled trial is not appropriate until the identified methodological and technical issues have been addressed.

AimThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of a team training program to support shared mental model (SMM) development in interprofessional rounds.Design and ParticipantsA three-arm randomized controlled trial study was conducted for interprofessional teams of 207 health profession learners who were randomized into three groups.Program DescriptionThe full team training program included a didactic training part on cognitive tools and a virtual simulation to support clinical teamwork in interprofessional round. Group 1 was assigned to the full program, group 2 to the didactic part, and group 3 (control group) with no intervention. The main outcome measure was team performance in full scale simulation. Secondary outcome was interprofessional attitudes.Program EvaluationTeamwork performance and interprofessional attitude scores of the full intervention group were significantly higher (P < 0.05) than those of the control group. The two intervention groups had significantly higher (P < 0.05) attitude scores on interprofessional teamwork compared with the control group.DiscussionOur study indicates the need of both cognitive tools and experiential learning modalities to foster SMM development for the delivery of optimal clinical teamwork performances. Given its scalability and practicality, we anticipate a greater role for virtual simulations to support interprofessional team training.