Michelle Collinson

The prevalence of pressure ulcers in community settings: an observational study.

BACKGROUND Changes in healthcare and ageing populations have led to an increasing emphasis on the provision of healthcare in the community. Quality initiatives in healthcare have led to a focus upon pressure ulcer rates. However, published data on pressure ulcer prevalence in a community setting is currently very limited. OBJECTIVE The objective of this cross-sectional observational study was to determine the prevalence of patients with pressure ulcers in a community setting in the United Kingdom. DESIGN A cross-sectional observational study. SETTING Two community settings in the North of England. PARTICIPANTS Patients in the community who were aged 18 years or older at the time of the pressure ulcer prevalence audit were included. There were no exclusion criteria and consent was not a requirement. METHODS Each site used a different method to collect the data as per their usual method of prevalence data collection. Site 1 assessed all patients on the community nursing caseload: patients in residential homes, rehabilitation units, specialist palliative care units and all nursing homes in the locality, whether they were known to have a pressure ulcer or not. Site 2 assessed only those on the community nursing caseload who were known to have a pressure ulcer. Site 1 collected data between 8th February and 2nd April 2010 and site 2 between 12th April and 7th May 2010. RESULTS In site 1, 185 patients were assessed as having a pressure ulcer Grade ≥ 1, a prevalence rate of 0.77 per 1000 adults. In Site 2 102 patients were assessed as having a Grade ≥ 1 pressure ulcer, a prevalence rate of 0.40 per 1000 adults. Removing patients in nursing homes from the calculation gives a prevalence of 0.38 per 1000 adults for site 1 and 0.39 per 1000 adults for site 2. CONCLUSIONS This study provides prevalence data in a community setting which can be used to assess resource allocation and staff training. This study has highlighted that differences in methodology can affect prevalence results, and this should be taken into account in future research.

The prevalence of pain at pressure areas and pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients

BackgroundPatients with pressure ulcers (PUs) report that pain is their most distressing symptom, but there are few PU pain prevalence studies. We sought to estimate the prevalence of unattributed pressure area related pain (UPAR pain) which was defined as pain, soreness or discomfort reported by patients, on an “at risk” or PU skin site, reported at a patient level.MethodsWe undertook pain prevalence surveys in 2 large UK teaching hospital NHS Trusts (6 hospitals) and a district general hospital NHS Trust (3 hospitals) during their routine annual PU prevalence audits. The hospitals provide secondary and tertiary care beds in acute and elective surgery, trauma and orthopaedics, burns, medicine, elderly medicine, oncology and rehabilitation. Anonymised individual patient data were recorded by the ward nurse and PU prevalence team. The analysis of this prevalence survey included data summaries; no inferential statistical testing was planned or undertaken. Percentages were calculated using the total number of patients from the relevant population as the denominator (i.e. including all patients with missing data for that variable).ResultsA total of 3,397 patients in 9 acute hospitals were included in routine PU prevalence audits and, of these, 2010 (59.2%) patients participated in the pain prevalence study. UPAR pain prevalence was 16.3% (327/2010). 1769 patients had no PUs and of these 223 patients reported UPAR pain, a prevalence of 12.6%. Of the 241 people with pressure ulcers, 104 patients reported pain, a UPAR pain prevalence of 43.2% (104/241).ConclusionOne in six people in acute hospitals experience UPAR pain on ‘at risk’ or PU skin sites; one in every 8 people without PUs and, more than 2 out of every five people with PUs. The results provide a clear indication that all patients should be asked if they have pain at pressure areas even when they do not have a PU.

Pressure ulcer related pain in community populations: a prevalence survey

BackgroundPressure ulcers are costly to the healthcare provider and can have a major impact on patient’s quality of life. One of the most distressing symptoms reported is pain. There is very little published data on the prevalence and details of pain experienced by patients with pressure ulcers, particularly in community populations. The study was conducted in two community NHS sites in the North of England.MethodsThe aim was to estimate the prevalence of pressure area related pain within a community population. We also explored the type and severity of the pain and its association with pressure ulcer classification. A cross-sectional survey was performed of community nurses caseloads to identify adult patients with pressure ulcers and associated pain. Consenting patients then had a full pain assessment and verification of pressure ulcer grade.ResultsA total of 287 patients were identified with pressure ulcers (0.51 per 1000 adult population). Of the 176 patients who were asked, 133 (75.6%) reported pain. 37 patients consented to a detailed pain assessment. Painful pressure ulcers of all grades and on nearly all body sites were identified. Pain intensity was not related to number or severity of pressure ulcer. Both inflammatory and neuropathic pain were reported at all body sites however the proportion of neuropathic pain was greater in pressure ulcers on lower limbs.ConclusionsThis study has identified the extent and type of pain suffered by community patients with pressure ulcers and indicates the need for systematic and regular pain assessment and treatment.

Delivering an Optimised Behavioural Intervention (OBI) to people with low back pain with high psychological risk; results and lessons learnt from a feasibility randomised controlled trial of Contextual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CCBT) vs. Physiotherapy

BackgroundLow Back Pain (LBP) remains a common and costly problem. Psychological obstacles to recovery have been identified, but psychological and behavioural interventions have produced only moderate improvements. Reviews of trials have suggested that the interventions lack clear theoretical basis, are often compromised by low dose, lack of fidelity, and delivery by non-experts. In addition, interventions do not directly target known risk mechanisms. We identified a theory driven intervention (Contexual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, CCBT) that directly targets an evidence-based risk mechanism (avoidance and ensured dose and delivery were optimised. This feasibility study was designed to test the credibility and acceptability of optimised CCBT against physiotherapy for avoidant LBP patients, and to test recruitment, delivery of the intervention and response rates prior to moving to a full definitive trial.MethodsA randomised controlled feasibility trial with patients randomised to receive CCBT or physiotherapy. CCBT was delivered by trained supervised psychologists on a one to one basis and comprised up to 8 one-hour sessions. Physiotherapy comprised back to fitness group exercises with at least 60 % of content exercise-based. Patients were eligible to take part if they had back pain for more than 3 months, and scored above a threshold indicating fear avoidance, catastrophic beliefs and distress.Results89 patients were recruited. Uptake rates were above those predicted. Scores for credibility and acceptability of the interventions met the set criteria. Response rates at three and six months fell short of the 75 % target. Problems associated with poor response rates were identified and successfully resolved, rates increased to 77 % at 3 months, and 68 % at 6 months. Independent ratings of treatment sessions indicated that CCBT was delivered to fidelity. Numbers were too small for formal analysis. Although average scores for acceptance were higher in the CCBT group than in the group attending physiotherapy (increase of 7.9 versus 5.1) and change in disability and pain from baseline to 6 months were greater in the CCBT group than in the physiotherapy group, these findings should be interpreted with caution.ConclusionsCCBT is a credible and acceptable intervention for LBP patients who exhibit psychological obstacles to recovery.Trial registrationISRCTN43733490, registered 15/12/2010.

Testing the credibility, feasibility and acceptability of an optimised behavioural intervention (OBI) for avoidant chronic low back pain patients: protocol for a randomised feasibility study

BackgroundChronic back pain continues to be a costly and prevalent condition. The latest NICE guidelines issued in 2009 state that for patients with persistent back pain (of between six weeks and twelve months duration), who are highly distressed and/or disabled and for whom exercise, manual therapy and acupuncture has not been beneficial, the evidence supports a combination of around 100 hours of combined physical and psychological treatment. This is costly, and may prove unacceptable to many patients. A key recommendation of these guidelines was for further randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological treatment and to target treatment to specific sub-groups of patients. Recent trials that have included psychological interventions have shown only moderate improvement at best, and results are not maintained long term. There is therefore a need to test theoretically driven interventions that focus on specific high-risk sub-groups, in which the intervention is delivered at full integrity against a credible control.Methods/designA feasibility study of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing psychologist-delivered Contextual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CCBT) against Treatment As Usual (TAU) physiotherapy delivered by physiotherapists for the treatment of chronic lower back pain in ‘avoidant’ patients. Ninety-two patients referred for physiotherapy will be recruited and randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive CCBT or TAU. Treatment groups will be balanced by centre and pain interference score. Primary outcomes include assessing the credibility and acceptability of the intervention, and to demonstrate proof of principle through a greater change in pain acceptance in the CCBT arm, measured by the Acceptance and Action –II and the Chronic Pain Acceptance questionnaires. In addition, the feasibility of carrying out a full trial will be explored with reference to recruitment and follow-up rates including the assessment of the burden of outcome measure completion. Secondary patient outcomes include disability, pain, fear of movement, mood, quality of life, and global recovery. Outcomes are measured at three and six months post-randomisation.DiscussionThis paper details the rationale, design, therapist training system and recruitment methods to be used in a feasibility study which will inform the design and efficient implementation of a future definitive RCT.Trial registrationISRCTN43733490

Effectiveness of systemic family therapy versus treatment as usual for young people after self-harm: a pragmatic, phase 3, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Summary Background Self-harm in adolescents is common and repetition occurs in a high proportion of these cases. Scarce evidence exists for effectiveness of interventions to reduce self-harm. Methods This pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial of family therapy versus treatment as usual was done at 40 UK Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) centres. We recruited young people aged 11–17 years who had self-harmed at least twice and presented to CAMHS after self-harm. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive manualised family therapy delivered by trained and supervised family therapists or treatment as usual by local CAMHS. Participants and therapists were aware of treatment allocation; researchers were masked. The primary outcome was hospital attendance for repetition of self-harm in the 18 months after group assignment. Primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN59793150. Findings Between Nov 23, 2009, and Dec 31, 2013, 3554 young people were screened and 832 eligible young people consented to participation and were randomly assigned to receive family therapy (n=415) or treatment as usual (n=417). Primary outcome data were available for 795 (96%) participants. Numbers of hospital attendances for repeat self-harm events were not significantly different between the groups (118 [28%] in the family therapy group vs 103 [25%] in the treatment as usual group; hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·87–1·49] p=0·33). Similar numbers of adverse events occurred in both groups (787 in the family therapy group vs 847 in the treatment as usual group). Interpretation For adolescents referred to CAMHS after self-harm, having self-harmed at least once before, our family therapy intervention conferred no benefits over treatment as usual in reducing subsequent hospital attendance for self-harm. Clinicians are therefore still unable to recommend a clear, evidence-based intervention to reduce repeated self-harm in adolescents. Funding National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Radical cystectomy (bladder removal) against intravesical BCG immunotherapy for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (BRAVO): a protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study

Introduction High-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) is a heterogeneous disease that can be difficult to predict. While around 25% of cancers progress to invasion and metastases, the remaining majority of tumours remain within the bladder. It is uncertain whether patients with HRNMIBC are better treated with intravesical maintenance BCG (mBCG) immunotherapy or primary radical cystectomy (RC). A definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare these two different treatments but may be difficult to recruit to and has not been attempted to date. Before undertaking such an RCT, it is important to understand whether such a comparison is possible and how best to achieve it. Methods and analysis BRAVO is a multi-centre, parallel-group, mixed-methods, individually randomised, controlled, feasibility study for patients with HRNMIBC. Participants will be randomised to receive either mBCG immunotherapy or RC. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of performing the definitive phase III trial via estimation of eligibility and recruitment rates, assessing uptake of allocated treatment and compliance with mBCG, determining quality-of-life questionnaire completion rates and exploring reasons expressed by patients for declining recruitment into the study. We aim to recruit 60 participants from six centres in the UK. Surgical trials with disparate treatment options find recruitment challenging from both the patient and clinician perspective. By building on the experiences of other similar trials through implementing a comprehensive training package aimed at clinicians to address these challenges (qualitative substudy), we hope that we can demonstrate that a phase III trial is feasible. Ethics and dissemination The study has ethical approval (16/YH/0268). Findings will be made available to patients, clinicians, the funders and the National Health Service through traditional publishing and social media. Trial registration number ISRCTN12509361; Pre results.

The PiTSTOP study: a feasibility cluster randomized trial of delirium prevention in care homes for older people

Background and objectives: delirium is a distressing but potentially preventable condition common in older people in long-term care. It is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, functional decline, hospitalization and significant healthcare costs. Multicomponent interventions, addressing delirium risk factors, have been shown to reduce delirium by one-third in hospitals. It is not known whether this approach is also effective in long-term care. In previous work, we designed a bespoke delirium prevention intervention, called ‘Stop Delirium!’ In preparation for a definitive trial of Stop Delirium, we sought to address key aspects of trial design for the particular circumstances of care homes. Design: a cluster randomized feasibility study with an embedded process evaluation. Setting and participants: residents of 14 care homes for older people in one metropolitan district in the UK. Intervention: Stop Delirium!: a 16-month-enhanced educational package to support care home staff to address key delirium risk factors. Control homes received usual care. Measurements: we collected data to determine the following: recruitment and attrition; delirium rates and variability between homes; feasibility of measuring delirium, resource use, quality of life, hospital admissions and falls; and intervention implementation and adherence. Results: two-thirds (215) of eligible care home residents were recruited. One-month delirium prevalence was 4.0% in intervention and 7.1% in control homes. Proposed outcome measurements were feasible, although our approach appeared to underestimate delirium. Health economic evaluation was feasible using routinely collected data. Conclusion: a definitive trial of delirium prevention in long-term care is needed but will require some further design modifications and pilot work.

Effectiveness of an implementation optimisation intervention aimed at increasing parent engagement in HENRY, a childhood obesity prevention programme - the Optimising Family Engagement in HENRY (OFTEN) trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundFamily-based interventions to prevent childhood obesity depend upon parents’ taking action to improve diet and other lifestyle behaviours in their families. Programmes that attract and retain high numbers of parents provide an enhanced opportunity to improve public health and are also likely to be more cost-effective than those that do not. We have developed a theory-informed optimisation intervention to promote parent engagement within an existing childhood obesity prevention group programme, HENRY (Health Exercise Nutrition for the Really Young). Here, we describe a proposal to evaluate the effectiveness of this optimisation intervention in regard to the engagement of parents and cost-effectiveness.Methods/designThe Optimising Family Engagement in HENRY (OFTEN) trial is a cluster randomised controlled trial being conducted across 24 local authorities (approximately 144 children’s centres) which currently deliver HENRY programmes. The primary outcome will be parental enrolment and attendance at the HENRY programme, assessed using routinely collected process data. Cost-effectiveness will be presented in terms of primary outcomes using acceptability curves and through eliciting the willingness to pay for the optimisation from HENRY commissioners. Secondary outcomes include the longitudinal impact of the optimisation, parent-reported infant intake of fruits and vegetables (as a proxy to compliance) and other parent-reported family habits and lifestyle.DiscussionThis innovative trial will provide evidence on the implementation of a theory-informed optimisation intervention to promote parent engagement in HENRY, a community-based childhood obesity prevention programme. The findings will be generalisable to other interventions delivered to parents in other community-based environments. This research meets the expressed needs of commissioners, children’s centres and parents to optimise the potential impact that HENRY has on obesity prevention. A subsequent cluster randomised controlled pilot trial is planned to determine the practicality of undertaking a definitive trial to robustly evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the optimised intervention on childhood obesity prevention.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02675699. Registered on 4 February 2016.

MIDSHIPS: Multicentre Intervention Designed for Self-Harm using Interpersonal Problem-Solving: protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study

BackgroundAround 150,000 people each year attend hospitals in England due to self-harm, many of them more than once. Over 5,000 people die by suicide each year in the UK, a quarter of them having attended hospital in the previous year because of self-harm. Self-harm is a major identifiable risk factor for suicide. People receive variable care at hospital; many are not assessed for their psychological needs and little psychological therapy is offered. Despite its frequent occurrence, we have no clear research evidence about how to reduce the repetition of self-harm. Some people who have self-harmed show less active ways of solving problems, and brief problem-solving therapies are considered the most promising psychological treatments.Methods/DesignThis is a pragmatic, individually randomised, controlled, feasibility study comparing interpersonal problem-solving therapy plus treatment-as-usual with treatment-as-usual alone, for adults attending a general hospital following self-harm. A total of 60 participants will be randomised equally between the treatment arms, which will be balanced with respect to the type of most recent self-harm event, number of previous self-harm events, gender and age. Feasibility objectives are as follows: a) To establish and field test procedures for implementing the problem-solving intervention; b) To determine the feasibility and best method of participant recruitment and follow up; c) To assess therapeutic delivery; d) To assess the feasibility of obtaining the definitive trial’s primary and secondary outcomes; e) To assess the perceived burden and acceptability of obtaining the trial’s self-reported outcome data; f) To inform the sample size calculation for the definitive trial.DiscussionThe results of this feasibility study will be used to determine the appropriateness of proceeding to a definitive trial and will allow us to design an achievable trial of interpersonal problem-solving therapy for adults who self-harm.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials (ISRCTN54036115)