OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses\' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness.
METHODS: Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses.
RESULTS: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570-572 (98.1%-98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the \'other\' ethnicity subgroup.
CONCLUSIONS: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients\' experience of care.
UNASSIGNED: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required.
CONCLUSIONS: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients\' experience of care.
UNASSIGNED: CONSORT and CONSERVE.
UNASSIGNED: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings.

Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are key in improving healthcare quality, but no PREM exists for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This study aimed to co-produce a PREM with IBD service users for IBD service evaluation and quality improvement programme.
A pool of 75 items was drawn from published survey instruments covering interactions with services and aspects of living with IBD. In Stage 1, during two workshops, eight expert service users reduced candidate items through a ranked-choice voting exercise and suggested further items. During Stage 2, 18 previously uninvolved people with IBD assessed the face and content validity of the candidate items in \'Think Aloud\' interviews. During two final workshops (Stage 3), the expert service users removed, modified and added items based on the interview findings to produce a final version of the PREM.
Stage 1 generated a draft working PREM mapped to the following four domains: Patient-Centred Care; Quality; Accessibility; Communication and Involvement. The PREM included a set of nine items created by the expert group which shifted the emphasis from \'self-management\' to \'living with IBD\'. Stage 2 interviews showed that comprehension of the PREM was very good, although there were concerns about the wording, IBD-relevance and ambiguity of some items. During the final two workshops in Stage 3, the expert service users removed 7 items, modified 15 items and added seven new ones based on the interview findings, resulting in a 38-item PREM.
This study demonstrates how extensive service user involvement can inform PREM development.
Patients were involved as active members of the research team and as research participants to co-produce and validate a PREM for IBD services. In Stage 1, eight expert service users (\'the expert group\') reduced candidate items for the PREM through a voting exercise and suggested new items. During Stage 2, 18 previously uninvolved people with IBD (the \'think aloud\' participants) assessed the validity of the candidate items in \'Think Aloud\' interviews as research participants. In Stage 3, the expert group removed, changed and added items based on the interview findings to produce a final version of the 38-item PREM. This study shows how service user involvement can meaningfully inform PREM development.

暂无摘要。

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Internationally, stigma towards people with mental illness has reduced due to greater understanding, education and advocacy in the community, and more focus on recovery-oriented care within practice guidelines. However, many people with a diagnosis of BPD continue to experience stigma and difficulty accessing health services. Contributing factors include lack of understanding of BPD and effective management by health professionals, stigma from the general population and within healthcare services, and financial and geographical barriers. Mental health nurses comprise a large part of the healthcare workforce responsible for the day-to-day care of people diagnosed with BPD. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE: This paper investigates how Australian consumer perspectives on BPD management have changed over time. Comments from a large survey, delivered to consumers in 2011 (N = 153) and 2017 (N = 424), were analysed for common themes. Themes were broadly related to NHMRC BPD Guidelines sections released in 2013. These data sets therefore present an opportunity to evaluate changes in consumer perspectives pre- and post-Guideline release. Although no direct causal relationship can be drawn, analysing these changes can potentially assist with understanding the impact of the Guidelines in practice. No such analysis of the Australian Guidelines has been conducted to date in the existing literature. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Many people diagnosed with BPD continue to experience stigma, barriers to treatment and difficulty accessing appropriate services. Widespread practical implementation of the Guidelines was not apparent; however, improved general awareness and understanding of BPD from consumers and health professionals were evident. Improved education and practice across each and all aspects of the Guidelines are indicated. The Guidelines need review to ensure they are in-line with current evidence-based practice, as well as effective health professional education, support and funding to embed the revised Guidelines into practice. ABSTRACT: Introduction Internationally, many individuals diagnosed with BPD continue to experience stigma within health care and are more likely to be viewed as manipulative and evoke negative responses from clinicians, compared with other mental health consumers. Aim/Question To understand Australian consumer perspectives regarding BPD management, and how these have changed between 2011 and 2017. To comment on how NHMRC BPD Guidelines, released 2013, are faring in practice. Method Individuals who identified a BPD diagnosis completed a 75-question survey, delivered online Australia-wide, in 2011 (N = 153) and 2017 (N = 424), providing comparative data sets to evaluate changes in consumer perspective on BPD management. Results Many people diagnosed with BPD experience difficulties when seeking help, stigma within health services and barriers to treatment. Improved general awareness, communication and understanding of BPD from consumers and health professionals were evident. Discussion Consumers demonstrated increased BPD-literacy and help-seeking behaviours in 2017, providing opportunity for health professionals to build stronger therapeutic relationships. Widespread practical implementation of the Guidelines does not appear to have been achieved. More health professional education, updated Guidelines, funding and strategies to embed these Guidelines into practice are needed. Implications for Practice Mental health nurses regularly provide care to people diagnosed with BPD; with practical education and support, they and other health professionals can improve their confidence in practice and provide better quality care to consumers.

The objective of the study was to develop and test feasibility of a framework of patient-important practical issues.
Guidelines and shared decision-making tools help facilitate discussions about patient-important outcomes of care alternatives, but typically ignore practical issues patients consider when implementing care into their daily routines. Using grounded theory, practical issues in the HealthTalk.org registry and in Option Grids were identified and categorized into a framework. We integrated the framework into the MAGIC authoring and publication platform and digitally structured authoring and publication platform and appraised its use in The BMJ Rapid Recommendations.
The framework included the following 15 categories: medication routine, tests and visits, procedure and device, recovery and adaptation, coordination of care, adverse effects, interactions and antidote, physical well-being, emotional well-being, pregnancy and nursing, costs and access, food and drinks, exercise and activities, social life and relationships, work and education, travel and driving. Implementation in 15 BMJ Rapid Recommendations added 283 issues to 35 recommendations. The most frequently used category was procedure and device, and the least frequent was social life and relationship.
Adding practical issues systematically to evidence summaries is feasible and can inform guidelines and tools for shared decision-making. How this inclusion can improve patient-centered care remains to be determined.

The Heart Manual (HM) is the UK\'s leading facilitated home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme for individuals recovering from myocardial infarction and revascularisation. This audit explored patient-reported outcomes of home-based CR in relation to current Scottish, UK and European guidelines.
Patients across the UK returned their questionnaire after completing the HM programme to the HM Department (NHS Lothian).
Qualitative data from 457 questionnaires returned between 2011 and 2018 were included for thematic analysis. Seven themes were identified from the guidelines. This guided initial deductive coding and provided the basis for inductive subthemes to emerge.
Themes included: (1) health behaviour change and modifiable risk reduction, (2) psychosocial support, (3) education, (4) social support, (5) medical risk management, (6) vocational rehabilitation and (7) long-term strategies and maintenance. Both (1) and (2) were reported as having the greatest impact on patients\' daily lives. Subthemes for (1) included: guidance, engagement, awareness, consequences, attitude, no change and motivation. Psychosocial support comprised: stress management, pacing, relaxation, increased self-efficacy, validation, mental health and self-perception. This was followed by (3) and (4). Patients less frequently referred to (5), (6) and (7). Additional themes highlighted the impact of the HM programme and that patients attributed the greatest impact to a combination of all the above themes.
This audit highlighted the HM as comprehensive and inclusive of key elements proposed by Scottish, UK and EU guidelines. Patients reported this had a profound impact on their daily lives and proved advantageous for CR.

There is a lack of consensus on what constitutes successful arteriovenous fistula (AVF) cannulation. The purpose of this study was to describe outcomes of successful cannulation of the AVF from both patient and healthcare provider perspectives. This was a mixed method study. Results reflecting the patient\'s description of success through interviews were reported previously. A sample of nursing and physician experts in vascular access completed a one-time survey. Results from healthcare providers suggest they consider cannulator ability to assess the AVF, knowledge of AVF anatomy, and patient-centered care as most important to cannulation success. Patient comfort, patient-centered care, and available support staff (i.e., expert cannulators) were perceived by both patients and healthcare provider groups as contributing to success. Strategies that promote patient comfort, patient-centered care, and having access to cannulation experts have the potential to improve cannulation outcomes.