Natasha Mitchell

Effects of computerized decision support systems on nursing performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review

Objective: To examine the effect of computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) on nursing performance and patient outcomes. Method: Fifteen databases, including Medline and CINAHL, were searched up to May 2006 together with reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies that assessed the effects of CDSS use by nurses in a clinical setting on measurable professional and/or patient outcomes were included. Results: Eight studies, three comparing nurses using CDSS with nurses not using CDSS and five comparing nurses using CDSS with other health professionals not using CDSS, were included. Risk of contamination was a concern in four studies. The effect of CDSS on nursing performance and patient outcomes was inconsistent. Conclusion: The introduction of CDSS may not necessarily lead to a positive outcome; further studies are needed in order to identify contexts in which CDSS use by nurses is most effective. CDSS are complex interventions and should be evaluated as such; future studies should explore the impact of the users and the protocol on which the CDSS is based, reporting details of both. Contamination is a significant issue when evaluating CDSS, so it is important that randomization is at the practitioner or the unit level. Future systematic reviews should focus on particular uses of CDSS.

Listen to the data when results are not significant

Unexpected non-significant results from randomised trials can be difficult to accept. Catherine Hewitt, Natasha Mitchell, and David Torgerson find that some authors continue to support interventions despite evidence that they might be harmful

Screening in the community to reduce fractures in older women (SCOOP): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Despite effective assessment methods and medications targeting osteoporosis and related fractures, screening for fracture risk is not currently advocated in the UK. We tested whether a community-based screening intervention could reduce fractures in older women. METHODS We did a two-arm randomised controlled trial in women aged 70-85 years to compare a screening programme using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) with usual management. Women were recruited from 100 general practitioner (GP) practices in seven regions of the UK: Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Norwich, Sheffield, Southampton, and York. We excluded women who were currently on prescription anti-osteoporotic drugs and any individuals deemed to be unsuitable to enter a research study (eg, known dementia, terminally ill, or recently bereaved). The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals who had one or more osteoporosis-related fractures over a 5-year period. In the screening group, treatment was recommended in women identified to be at high risk of hip fracture, according to the FRAX 10-year hip fracture probability. Prespecified secondary outcomes were the proportions of participants who had at least one hip fracture, any clinical fracture, or mortality; and the effect of screening on anxiety and health-related quality of life. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN 55814835. FINDINGS 12 483 eligible women were identified and participated in the trial, and 6233 women randomly assigned to the screening group between April 15, 2008, and July 2, 2009. Treatment was recommended in 898 (14%) of 6233 women. Use of osteoporosis medication was higher at the end of year 1 in the screening group compared with controls (15% vs 4%), with uptake particularly high (78% at 6 months) in the screening high-risk subgroup. Screening did not reduce the primary outcome of incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·85-1·03, p=0·178), nor the overall incidence of all clinical fractures (0·94, 0·86-1·03, p=0·183), but screening reduced the incidence of hip fractures (0·72, 0·59-0·89, p=0·002). There was no evidence of differences in mortality, anxiety levels, or quality of life. INTERPRETATION Systematic, community-based screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK is feasible, and could be effective in reducing hip fractures. FUNDING Arthritis Research UK and Medical Research Council.

Supporting nurse decision making in primary care: exploring use of and attitude to decision tools

Nurses are increasingly working more autonomously in extended roles, yet we know little about the nature of the decisions they make. Decisions vary in terms of complexity, ambiguity and presentation, and the nature of the decision task impacts on the process of decision making, such as the likelihood of using a decision tool. Thus, knowledge about the nature of nursing decisions is essential for development of effective decision tools. This article presents an analysis of 410 nurse—patient consultations and interviews with 76 primary care nurses, and explores the nature of the decisions that primary care nurses make and the impact of that on their use of and attitudes towards decision tools.

Effect of Collaborative Care vs Usual Care on Depressive Symptoms in Older Adults With Subthreshold Depression: The CASPER Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance There is little evidence to guide management of depressive symptoms in older people. Objective To evaluate whether a collaborative care intervention can reduce depressive symptoms and prevent more severe depression in older people. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized clinical trial conducted from May 24, 2011, to November 14, 2014, in 32 primary care centers in the United Kingdom among 705 participants aged 65 years or older with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) subthreshold depression; participants were followed up for 12 months. Interventions Collaborative care (n=344) was coordinated by a case manager who assessed functional impairments relating to mood symptoms. Participants were offered behavioral activation and completed an average of 6 weekly sessions. The control group received usual primary care (n=361). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was self-reported depression severity at 4-month follow-up on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; score range, 0-27). Included among 10 prespecified secondary outcomes were the PHQ-9 score at 12-month follow-up and the proportion meeting criteria for depressive disorder (PHQ-9 score ≥10) at 4- and 12-month follow-up. Results The 705 participants were 58% female with a mean age of 77 (SD, 7.1) years. Four-month retention was 83%, with higher loss to follow-up in collaborative care (82/344 [24%]) vs usual care (37/361 [10%]). Collaborative care resulted in lower PHQ-9 scores vs usual care at 4-month follow-up (mean score with collaborative care, 5.36 vs with usual care, 6.67; mean difference, −1.31; 95% CI, −1.95 to −0.67; P < .001). Treatment differences remained at 12 months (mean PHQ-9 score with collaborative care, 5.93 vs with usual care, 7.25; mean difference, −1.33; 95% CI, −2.10 to −0.55). The proportions of participants meeting criteria for depression at 4-month follow-up were 17.2% (45/262) vs 23.5% (76/324), respectively (difference, −6.3% [95% CI, −12.8% to 0.2%]; relative risk, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.61-1.27]; P = .25) and at 12-month follow-up were 15.7% (37/235) vs 27.8% (79/284) (difference, −12.1% [95% CI, −19.1% to −5.1%]; relative risk, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.91]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance Among older adults with subthreshold depression, collaborative care compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant difference in depressive symptoms at 4-month follow-up, of uncertain clinical importance. Although differences persisted through 12 months, findings are limited by attrition, and further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN02202951

A national survey of computerized decision support systems available to nurses in England

AIM To examine the characteristics of computerized decision support systems (CDSS) currently available to nurses working in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHOD A questionnaire survey sent to a stratified random sample of 50% of all NHS care providers (Trusts) in England, asking respondents to provide information on CDSS currently used by nurses. RESULTS Responses were received from 108 of the 277 Trusts included in the sample. Electronic patient record systems were the most common type of CDSS reported by Trusts (n = 61) but they were least likely to have features that have been associated with improved clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS The availability of CDSS with features that have been associated with improved patient outcomes for nurses in the NHS in England is limited. There is some evidence that the nature of the Trust affects whether or not nurses have access to CDSS to assist their decision making. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT The implementation of CDSS is increasing throughout the NHS. Many CDSS are introduced without adequate evidence to support its introduction and there is little evaluation of the benefits once they are implemented. Policy makers and nursing management should consider whether the introduction of CDSS aids nurse decision making and benefits patient outcomes.

Can we improve recruitment to trials and informed consent by improving participant information sheets? - A nested RCT

Methods CASPER is a UK NIHR-funded trial of Collaborative Care to prevent depression in adults aged 75+. During the CASPER set-up phase we produced an information sheet compliant with National Research Ethics Service (NRES) guidance (the ‘standard sheet’). We decided to try to enhance recruitment by improving the PIS (the ‘enhanced sheet’). The nested study comprises: first, development and testing of an ‘enhanced sheet’; second, comparison of the ‘standard’ and ‘enhanced’ versions in a nested RCT. The comprehensibility of the NRES-approved standard sheet was assessed by asking cohorts of 10 older adults to take part in individual user testing interviews. After reading the sheet, participants were asked to find answers in the sheet to 18 factual questions and show their understanding of found information. The sheet was then re-written, re-structured and re-designed, drawing on graphics and writing expertise and the user testing data. The ‘enhanced sheet’ was user-tested on further cohorts of 10 people and amended according to the data obtained. In a nested RCT, potential CASPER participants will be posted either the ‘standard’ or ‘enhanced’ sheet, to assess effects on interest in participation and recruitment. Responders will be asked to complete an abbreviated version of the Joffe Quality of Informed Consent measure [1]. We will also conduct 2 focus groups with participants to explore the role of the sheet in their decision to participate (or not).

Scoop pen sub-study-a ‘trial within a trial’ of enclosing a pen in questionnaire mailings to increase response rate

Results Of the 3,789 participants sent a 60-month questionnaire in the pen group, 3,500 (92.4%) returned it compared with 3,462/3,793 (91.3%) in the control group (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.37, p=0.08). There was evidence of a reduction of the number of reminders required (p=0.02) and the time taken to respond (p=0.01) in the pen group. Some difference was found in the completeness of the primary outcome (p=0.05). The pooled OR of response rates from the meta-analysis was 1.21 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.39, p=0.01).