UNASSIGNED: Governments across the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region have prioritised dashboards for reporting COVID-19 data. The ubiquitous use of dashboards for public reporting is a novel phenomenon.
UNASSIGNED: This study explores the development of COVID-19 dashboards during the first year of the pandemic and identifies common barriers, enablers and lessons from the experiences of teams responsible for their development.
UNASSIGNED: We applied multiple methods to identify and recruit COVID-19 dashboard teams, using a purposive, quota sampling approach. Semi-structured group interviews were conducted from April to June 2021. Using elaborative coding and thematic analysis, we derived descriptive and explanatory themes from the interview data. A validation workshop was held with study participants in June 2021.
UNASSIGNED: Eighty informants participated, representing 33 national COVID-19 dashboard teams across the WHO European Region. Most dashboards were launched swiftly during the first months of the pandemic, February to May 2020. The urgency, intense workload, limited human resources, data and privacy constraints and public scrutiny were common challenges in the initial development stage. Themes related to barriers or enablers were identified, pertaining to the pre-pandemic context, pandemic itself, people and processes and software, data and users. Lessons emerged around the themes of simplicity, trust, partnership, software and data and change.
UNASSIGNED: COVID-19 dashboards were developed in a learning-by-doing approach. The experiences of teams reveal that initial underpreparedness was offset by high-level political endorsement, the professionalism of teams, accelerated data improvements and immediate support with commercial software solutions. To leverage the full potential of dashboards for health data reporting, investments are needed at the team, national and pan-European levels.

BACKGROUND: National initiatives launched to improve the quality of care have grown exponentially over the last decade. Public reporting, accreditation and governmental inspection form the basis for quality in Flemish (Belgian) hospitals. Due to the lack of evidence for these national initiatives and the questions concerning their sustainability, our research aims to identify cornerstones of a sustainable national quality policy for acute-care hospitals based on international expert opinion.
METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using in-depth semi-structured interviews with 12 renowned international quality and patient safety experts selected by purposive sampling. Interviews focussed on participants\' perspectives and their recommendations for a future, sustainable quality policy. Inductive analysis was carried out with themes being generated from the data using the constant comparison method.
RESULTS: Three major and five minor themes were identified and integrated into a framework as a basis for national quality policies. Quality culture, minimum requirements for quality education and quality control as well as continuous learning and improvement act as cornerstones of this framework.
CONCLUSIONS: Complementary to the current national policy, this study demonstrated the need for profound attention to quality cultures in acute-care hospitals. Policymakers need to provide a control system and minimum requirements for quality education for all healthcare workers. A model for continuous learning and improvement with data feedback loops has to be installed in each hospital to obtain a sustainable quality system. This framework can inspire policymakers to further develop bottom-up initiatives in co-governance with all relevant stakeholders adapted to individual hospitals\' context.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based interventions are needed to treat burn wound infection (BWI). Evidence syntheses have been limited by heterogeneity of indicators used to report BWI across trials. Consistent reporting of BWI would be facilitated by an agreed minimum set of indicators. The Infection Consensus in Burns study aimed to achieve expert consensus about a core indicator set (CIS) for BWI.
METHODS: The CIS was established through development of a long list of BWI indicators identified from a systematic review and expert input. In a Delphi survey, UK expert participants rated the indicators according to use in everyday practice, importance for diagnosis and frequency of observation in patients with BWI. Indicators were included in the CIS if ≥75% of participants agreed it was important for diagnosis and used in everyday practice, and ≥50% of participants rated it as frequently observed in patients with BWI.
RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-five indicators were identified from the systematic review and reduced to 29 survey items through merging of items with the same meaning. Seventy-five UK experts participated in the Delphi survey. Following a single survey round and a consensus meeting with an expert panel, four items were included in the CIS: pyrexia, spreading erythema, change in white cell count, and presence of pathogenic microbes.
CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate evidence synthesis, a single-country systematic, expert-informed approach was taken to develop a CIS to be reported consistently across trials reporting BWI as an outcome. Future work requires verification of the CIS with international experts.

Social distancing and shielding measures have been put in place to reduce social interaction and slow the transmission of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). For older people, self-isolation presents particular challenges for mental health and social relationships. As time progresses, continued social distancing could have a compounding impact on these concerns.
This project aims to provide a tool for older people and their families and peers to improve their well-being and health during and after regulated social distancing. First, we will evaluate the tool\'s feasibility, acceptability, and usability to encourage positive nutrition, enhance physical activity, and enable virtual interaction while social distancing. Second, we will be implementing the app to provide an online community to assist families and peer groups in maintaining contact with older people using goal setting. Anonymized data from the app will be aggregated with other real-world data sources to develop a machine learning algorithm to improve the identification of patients with COVID-19 and track for real time use by health systems.
Development of this project is occurring at the time of publication, and therefore, a case study design was selected to provide a systematic means of capturing software engineering in progress. The app development framework for software design was based on agile methods. The evaluation of the app\'s feasibility, acceptability and usability shall be conducted using Public Health England\'s guidance on evaluating digital health products, Bandura\'s model of health promotion, the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and the Nonadoption, Abandonment and Challenges to the Scale-up, Spread and Suitability (NASSS) framework.
Making use of a pre-existing software framework for health behavior change, a proof of concept was developed, and a multistage app development and deployment for the solution was created. Grant submissions to fund the project and study execution have been sought at the time of publication, and prediscovery iteration of the solution has begun. Ethical approval for a feasibility study design is being sought.
This case study lays the foundations for future app development to combat mental and societal issues arising from social distancing measures. The app will be tested and evaluated in future studies to allow continuous improvement of the app. This novel contribution will provide an evidence-based exemplar for future app development in the space of social isolation and loneliness.

Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted on the COVID-19 outbreak, which together with the SRs on previous coronavirus outbreaks, form important sources of evidence for clinical decision and policy making. Here, we investigated the methodological quality of SRs on COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Online searches were performed to obtain SRs on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data. In total, of 49 SRs that were finally included in our study, 17, 16, and 16 SRs were specifically on COVID-19, MERS, and SARS, respectively. The growth rate of SRs on COVID-19 was the highest (4.54/month) presently. Of the included SRs, 6, 12, and 31 SRs were of moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. SRs on SARS showed the optimum quality among the SRs on the three diseases. Subgroup analyses showed that the SR topic (P < .001), the involvement of a methodologist (P < .001), and funding support (P = .046) were significantly associated with the methodological quality of the SR. According to the adherence scores, adherence to AMSTAR-2 items sequentially decreased in SRs on SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. The methodological quality of most SRs on coronavirus outbreaks is unsatisfactory, and those on COVID-19 have higher risks of poor quality, despite the rapid actions taken to conduct SRs. The quality of SRs should be improved in the future. Readers must exercise caution in accepting and using the results of these SRs.

Trial registration is widely endorsed as it is considered not only to enhance transparency and quality of reporting but also to help safeguard against outcome reporting bias and probably spin, known as specific reporting that could distort the interpretation of results thus mislead readers. We planned to investigate the current registration status of recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture, outcome reporting bias in the prospectively registered trials, and the association between trial registration and presence of spin and methodological factors in acupuncture RCTs.
Acupuncture RCTs published in English in recent 5 years (January 2013 to December 2017) were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Trial registration records identified in the publications and trial registries were classified into prospectively registered, retrospectively registered, or unregistered. Primary outcomes were identified and the direction of the results was judged as statistically significant (positive) or statistically nonsignificant (negative). We compared registered and published primary outcomes to assess outcome reporting bias and assessed whether discrepancies favored statistically significant outcomes. Frequency and strategies of spin in published reports with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes were then identified. We also analyzed whether the trial registration status was associated with spin and quality of methodological factors.
Of the 322 included RCTs, 41.9% (n = 135) were prospectively registered. Among 64 studies that were prospectively registered and specified primary outcomes, 25 trials had the discrepancies between the registered and published primary outcomes and 60% of them (15 trials) favored the statistically significant findings. Among 169 studies that specified primary outcomes, trial registration status was not associated with the direction of results, i.e., statistically significant or not. Spin was identified in 56.4% out of 78 studies with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes and claiming efficacy with no consideration of statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes was the most common strategy for spin. Trial registration status was not statistically different between studies with and without spin.
While trial registration seemed to have improved over time, primary outcomes in registered records and publications were often inconsistent, tending to favor statistically significant findings and spin was common in studies with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes. Journal editors and researchers in this field should be alerted to still prevalent reporting bias and spin.

Quality improvement (QI) may help to avert or mitigate the risks of suboptimal care, but it is often poorly reported in the healthcare literature. We aimed to identify the influences on reporting QI in the area of perioperative care, with a view to informing improvements in reporting QI across healthcare.
Qualitative interview study.
Healthcare and academic organisations in Australia, Europe and North America.
Stakeholders involved in or influencing the publication, writing or consumption of reports of QI studies in perioperative care.
Forty-two participants from six countries took part in the study. Participants included 15 authors (those who write QI reports), 12 consumers of QI reports (practitioners who apply QI research in practice), 11 journal editors and 4 authors of reporting guidelines. Participants identified three principal challenges in achieving high-quality QI reporting. First, the broad scope of QI reporting-ranging from small local projects to multisite research across different disciplines-causes uncertainty about where QI work should be published. Second, context is fundamental to the success of a QI intervention but is difficult to report in ways that support replication and development. Third, reporting is adversely affected by both proximal influences (such as lack of time to write up QI) and more distal, structural influences (such as norms about the format and content of biomedical research reporting), leading to incomplete reporting of QI findings.
Divergent terminology and understandings of QI, along with existing reporting norms and the challenges of capturing context adequately yet succinctly, make for challenges in reporting QI. We offer suggestions for improvement.