Conectar
Approximately, 20 million older adults undergo major elective surgery annually, yet less than 10% engage in advance care planning (ACP). This is a critical missed opportunity to optimally engage in patient-aligned medical decisions and communications in the perioperative setting. The PREPARE ACP programme (easy-to-read advance directives (ADs) and a patient-directed, online ACP programme) has been shown to increase ACP documentation and patient and clinician empowerment to discuss ACP. Yet, a gap remains in extending PREPARE’s use to surgical populations. We hypothesise that by delivering PREPARE in a patient-facing electronic health record (EHR) centric presurgery workflow for older adults, supported by automated patient reminders and outreach from a healthcare navigator (HCN), we can enable patients and/or surgical teams to engage in ACP discussions.
This is a three-site, single-blinded, pragmatic randomised trial comparing increasing intensity of ACP-focused, patient-facing EHR messaging and HCN support. The outreach occurs prior to a new presurgical clinic visit. We will enrol 6000 patients (2000 each site) aged 65 and older and randomise them equally to the following study arms: (Arm 1) ACP-related cover letter and PREPARE URL information sent via patient portal and postal mail (includes cover letter, AD and PREPARE pamphlet); (Arm 2) Arm 1 plus reminder message via text or MyChart message and (Arm 3) Arm 2 plus HCN outreach and support. The primary outcome is clinically meaningful ACP documentation in the EHR (ie, surrogate designation, documented discussions and ADs) within 6 months of the new surgical visit. The rate of ACP documentation will be compared between treatment groups using generalised estimating equations. Secondary outcomes include a validated four-item ACP engagement survey, administered 2 weeks after the presurgical visit and 6 months later. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle and recent Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines.
The study will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki, Protection of Human Volunteers (21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50), Institutional Review Boards (21 CFR 56) and Obligations of Clinical Investigators (21 CFR 312). The protocol and consent form were reviewed and approved by Advarra, an National Insitutes of Health (NIH)-approved, commercial, centralised Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB/Independent Ethics Committee of each participating centre reviewed and approved the protocol and consent and obtained reliance agreements with Advarra prior to study initiation. The study is guided by input from patient and clinical advisory boards and a data safety monitoring board. The results of the study will be disseminated to both academic and community stakeholders, complying with all applicable privacy laws.
ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06090552.
Advarra Pro 00070994.
23-38948.
Protocol Date: 24 October 2024. Protocol Version: 4.
To develop and validate a screening tool to identify patients with cardiovascular disease at risk of poor oral health and requiring referrals.
This study was part of a larger pilot study involving a cross-sectional survey and an oral health assessment conducted with patients with cardiovascular disease.
A four-item screening tool was developed by an expert panel and validated through a cross-sectional survey of patients with cardiovascular disease. The survey contained the tool and the oral health impact profile (OHIP-14) (first gold standard). Additionally, all survey participants were provided a clinical oral health assessment (second gold standard). Sensitivity and specificity analysis was undertaken comparing the tool to the two gold standards to assess patients with cardiovascular disease at risk of poor oral health.
Three hundred and twenty-one participants completed the cross-sectional survey and eighty nine undertook the oral health assessment. Results from both approaches showed that the tool had high sensitivities (OHIP-14 = 89%, Oral assessment = 88%) and low specificities (OHIP-14 = 33% and Oral assessment = 24%).
The four-item screening tool is a simple and valid tool to identify patients with cardiovascular disease at risk of poor oral health and requiring a dental referral. The tool could be incorporated into routine practice of nurses across various cardiac settings.
To gain a greater understanding of how compression therapy affects quality of life, this systematic review appraised existing published studies measuring the impact of compression therapy on health quality of life (HRQoL), and pain, among people with venous leg ulcers (VLU).
Five databases were searched, and two authors extracted data and appraised the quality of selected papers using the RevMan risk of bias tool. Due to heterogeneity in the types of compression and instruments used to evaluate HRQoL, meta-analysis was not appropriate; thus, a narrative synthesis of findings was undertaken.
Ten studies were included, 9 RCTs and one before-after study. The studies employed nine different HRQoL tools to measure the impact of a variety of compression therapy systems, with or without an additional exercise programme, versus other compression systems or usual care, and the results are mixed. With the use of the Cardiff Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule, the SF-8 and the SF-12, study authors found no differences in QoL scores between the study groups. This is similar to one study using QUALYs (Iglesias et al., 2004). Conversely, for studies using EuroQol-5D, VEINES-QOL, SF-36 and CIVIQ-20 differences in QoL scores between the study groups were noted, in favour of the study intervention groups. Two further studies using QUALYs found results that favoured a two-layer cohesive compression bandage and the TLCCB group, respectively. Results for the five studies that assessed pain are also mixed, with one study finding no difference between study groups, one finding that pain increased over the study period and three studies finding that pain reduced in the intervention groups. All studies were assessed as being at risk of bias in one or more domains.
Results were varied, reflecting uncertainty in determining the impact of compression therapy on quality of life and pain among people with a venous leg ulcer. The heterogeneity of the compression systems and the measures used to evaluate HRQoL make it a challenge to interpret the overall evidence. Further studies should strive for homogeneity in design, interventions and comparators to enhance both internal and external validity.
FreshRSS 