Trish A. Gray

Individualised patient care as an adjunct to standard care for promoting adherence to ocular hypotensive therapy: an exploratory randomised controlled trial

PurposeTo evaluate the impact of individualised patient care, as an adjunct to standard care, on adherence to ocular hypotensive therapy.MethodsA two-arm, single-masked exploratory randomised controlled trial recruited patients newly prescribed ocular hypotensive therapy. The intervention involved an individual assessment of health-care needs and beliefs and a 1-year follow-up period according to need. The primary outcome was refill adherence, measured by collating prescription and dispensing data for 12 months. Secondary outcomes included self-reported adherence, glaucoma knowledge, beliefs about illness and medicines, quality of care, intraocular pressure (IOP) fluctuation, and changes in clinical management assessed at 12 months. The strength of the intervention was measured following withdrawal by reviewing clinical outcomes for a further 12 months.ResultsIn all, 127 patients were recruited (91% response rate). Intervention-arm patients collected significantly more prescriptions than control-arm patients. Self-report adherence was significantly better in the intervention-arm for patients who forgot drops and those who intentionally missed drops. The intervention group demonstrated significantly more glaucoma knowledge, expressed a significantly stronger belief in the necessity of eye drops and believed that they had more personal control over managing their condition. Control-arm patients had more IOP fluctuation and changes in clinical management. However, this finding only reached significance at 24 months.ConclusionModelling patient care according to health-care needs and beliefs about illness and medicines can have a significant impact on improving adherence to therapy for this patient group, with the potential benefit of improving clinical outcomes.

Preliminary survey of educational support for patients prescribed ocular hypotensive therapy

PurposeTo establish the impact of educational support on patients’ knowledge of glaucoma and adherence, in preparation for an intervention study.MethodsStructured observation encapsulated the educational support provided during clinical consultations and patient interviews captured the depth of glaucoma knowledge, problems associated with glaucoma therapy, and adherence issues.ResultsOne hundred and thirty-eight patients completed the study. Education was didactic in nature, limited for many patients and inconsistent across clinics. Patients showed generally poor knowledge of glaucoma with a median score of 6 (range 0–16). A significant association was found between educational support and knowledge for newly prescribed patients (Kendalls tau=0.30, P=0.003), but no association was found for follow-up patients (Kendalls tau=0.11, P=0.174). Only five (6%) patients admitted to a doctor that they did not adhere to their drop regimen, yet 75 (94%) reported at interview that they missed drops.ConclusionsAlthough important, knowledge alone may not sufficiently improve adherence: a patient-centred approach based on ongoing support according to need may provide a more effective solution for this patient group.

Do systematic reviews address community healthcare professionals’ wound care uncertainties? Results from evidence mapping in wound care

Background Complex wounds such as leg and foot ulcers are common, resource intensive and have negative impacts on patients’ wellbeing. Evidence-based decision-making, substantiated by high quality evidence such as from systematic reviews, is widely advocated for improving patient care and healthcare efficiency. Consequently, we set out to classify and map the extent to which up-to-date systematic reviews containing robust evidence exist for wound care uncertainties prioritised by community-based healthcare professionals. Methods We asked healthcare professionals to prioritise uncertainties based on complex wound care decisions, and then classified 28 uncertainties according to the type and level of decision. For each uncertainty, we searched for relevant systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts of reviews against the following criteria: meeting an a priori definition of a systematic review, sufficiently addressing the uncertainty, published during or after 2012, and identifying high quality research evidence. Results The most common uncertainty type was ‘interventions’ 24/28 (85%); the majority concerned wound level decisions 15/28 (53%) however, service delivery level decisions (10/28) were given highest priority. Overall, we found 162 potentially relevant reviews of which 57 (35%) were not systematic reviews. Of 106 systematic reviews, only 28 were relevant to an uncertainty and 18 of these were published within the preceding five years; none identified high quality research evidence. Conclusions Despite the growing volume of published primary research, healthcare professionals delivering wound care have important clinical uncertainties which are not addressed by up-to-date systematic reviews containing high certainty evidence. These are high priority topics requiring new research and systematic reviews which are regularly updated. To reduce clinical and research waste, we recommend systematic reviewers and researchers make greater efforts to ensure that research addresses important clinical uncertainties and is of sufficient rigour to inform practice.

Rapid research and implementation priority setting for wound care uncertainties

Introduction People with complex wounds are more likely to be elderly, living with multimorbidity and wound related symptoms. A variety of products are available for managing complex wounds and a range of healthcare professionals are involved in wound care, yet there is a lack of good evidence to guide practice and services. These factors create uncertainty for those who deliver and those who manage wound care. Formal priority setting for research and implementation topics is needed to more accurately target the gaps in treatment and services. We solicited practitioner and manager uncertainties in wound care and held a priority setting workshop to facilitate a collaborative approach to prioritising wound care-related uncertainties. Methods We recruited healthcare professionals who regularly cared for patients with complex wounds, were wound care specialists or managed wound care services. Participants submitted up to five wound care uncertainties in consultation with their colleagues, via an on-line survey and attended a priority setting workshop. Submitted uncertainties were collated, sorted and categorised according professional group. On the day of the workshop, participants were divided into four groups depending on their profession. Uncertainties submitted by their professional group were viewed, discussed and amended, prior to the first of three individual voting rounds. Participants cast up to ten votes for the uncertainties they judged as being high priority. Continuing in the professional groups, the top 10 uncertainties from each group were displayed, and the process was repeated. Groups were then brought together for a plenary session in which the final priorities were individually scored on a scale of 0–10 by participants. Priorities were ranked and results presented. Nominal group technique was used for generating the final uncertainties, voting and discussions. Results Thirty-three participants attended the workshop comprising; 10 specialist nurses, 10 district nurses, seven podiatrists and six managers. Participants had been qualified for a mean of 20.7 years with a mean of 16.8 years of wound care experience. One hundred and thirty-nine uncertainties were submitted electronically and a further 20 were identified on the day of the workshop following lively, interactive group discussions. Twenty-five uncertainties from the total of 159 generated made it to the final prioritised list. These included six of the 20 new uncertainties. The uncertainties varied in focus, but could be broadly categorised into three themes: service delivery and organisation, patient centred care and treatment options. Specialist nurses were more likely to vote for service delivery and organisation topics, podiatrists for patient centred topics, district nurses for treatment options and operational leads for a broad range. Conclusions This collaborative priority setting project is the first to engage front-line clinicians in prioritising research and implementation topics in wound care. We have shown that it is feasible to conduct topic prioritisation in a short time frame. This project has demonstrated that with careful planning and rigor, important questions that are raised in the course of clinicians’ daily decision making can be translated into meaningful research and implementation initiatives that could make a difference to service delivery and patient care.

The effects of care bundles on patient outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundCare bundles are a set of three to five evidence-informed practices performed collectively and reliably to improve the quality of care. Care bundles are used widely across healthcare settings with the aim of preventing and managing different health conditions. This is the first systematic review designed to determine the effects of care bundles on patient outcomes and the behaviour of healthcare workers in relation to fidelity with care bundles.MethodsThis systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A total of 5796 abstracts were retrieved through a systematic search for articles published between January 1, 2001, to February 4, 2017, in the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, PsychInfo, British Library, Conference Proceeding Citation Index, OpenGrey trials (including cluster-randomised trials) and non-randomised studies (comprising controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, cohort studies) of care bundles for any health condition and any healthcare settings were considered. Following the removal of duplicated studies, two reviewers independently screen 3134 records. Three authors performed data extraction independently. We compared the care bundles with usual care to evaluate the effects of care bundles on the risk of negative patient outcomes. Random-effect models were used to further explore the effects of subgroups.ResultsIn total, 37 studies (6 randomised trials, 31 controlled before-after studies) were eligible for inclusion. The effect of care bundles on patient outcomes is uncertain. For randomised trial data, the pooled relative risk of negative effects between care bundle and control groups was 0.97 [95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; 2049 participants]. The relative risk of negative patient outcomes from controlled before-after studies favoured the care bundle treated groups (0.66 [95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; 119,178 participants]). However, using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of all of the evidence to be very low (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness).ConclusionsVery low quality evidence from controlled before-after studies suggests that care bundles may reduce the risk of negative outcomes when compared with usual care. By contrast, the better quality evidence from six randomised trials is more uncertain.Trial registrationPROSPERO, CRD42016033175

Specifying active components of educational interventions to promote adherence to treatment in glaucoma patients: application of a taxonomy of behavior change techniques.

Purpose In response to recent calls for clearer specification of behavior change interventions, the purpose of this study was to apply a system of taxonomy for behavior change techniques (BCTs) to two educational interventions to improve adherence to glaucoma eye drops. Clarification of constituent BCTs will promote easy and reliable application of the interventions in clinical settings and research. Methods A published taxonomy of BCTs was used to code two interventions (group and individual) to increase adherence to eye drops. Intervention materials were coded by assigning a BCT label to each text unit. We noted the frequency with which each BCT occurred, compared the interventions in terms of the BCTs that were delivered, and identified whether the taxonomy was sufficient to describe the intervention components. Results The individual intervention consisted of 94 text units. Fifty-seven were identified as targeting behavior change and coded using 18 BCTs, many coded more than once. In the group intervention, 165 units of text were identified, and 125 were coded using 22 BCTs. The most frequently coded BCT was “provide information about behavior–health link” in the group intervention and “prompt barrier identification” in the individual intervention. The interventions included similar BCTs. All text units targeting behavior change were codable into BCTs. Conclusion The similarity of the two interventions may have implications for the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. The taxonomy was found sufficient to describe both interventions. This level of specification can be used to ensure that precisely the same intervention that has been pilot tested is reproducible in the clinical setting and in any further research.