The top 10 research priorities in psoriatic arthritis: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and prioritize the top 10 research questions for PsA. METHODS: The British Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium (BritPACT) formed a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) comprising of people living with PsA, carers and clinicians, supported by the James Lind Alliance (JLA). This PSP followed the established three-stage JLA process: first, an online survey of people living with PsA, carers and clinicians to identify PsA questions, asking, 'What do you think are the most important unanswered questions in psoriatic arthritis research?' The questions were checked against existing evidence to establish 'true uncertainties' and grouped as 'indicative questions' reflecting the overarching themes. Then a second online survey ranked the 'true uncertainties' by importance. Finally, a workshop including people living with PsA and clinician stakeholders finalized the top 10 research priorities. RESULTS: The initial survey attracted 317 respondents (69% people living with PsA, 15% carers), with 988 questions. This generated 46 indicative questions. In the second survey, 422 respondents (78% people living with PsA, 4% carers) prioritized these. Eighteen questions were taken forward to the final online workshop. The top unanswered PsA research question was 'What is the best strategy for managing patients with psoriatic arthritis including non-drug and drug treatments?' Other top 10 priorities covered diagnosis, prognosis, outcome assessment, flares, comorbidities and other aspects of treatment (https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk). CONCLUSION: The top 10 priorities will guide PsA research and enable PsA researchers and those who fund research to know the most important questions for people living with PsA.

Characterizing Hospitalist Practice and Perceptions of Critical Care Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Intensivist shortages have led to increasing hospitalist involvement in critical care delivery. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the practice of hospitalists practicing in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. DESIGN: Survey of hospital medicine physicians. SETTING: This survey was conducted as a needs assessment for the ongoing efforts of the Critical Care Task Force of the Society of Hospital Medicine Education Committee. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalists in the United States. INTERVENTION: An iteratively developed, 25-item, webbased survey. MEASUREMENTS: Results were compiled from all respondents then analyzed in subgroups. Various items were examined for correlations. RESULTS: A total of 425 hospitalists completed the survey. Three hundred and twenty-five (77%) provided critical care services, and 280 (66%) served as primary physicians in the ICU. Hospitalists were significantly more likely to serve as primary physicians in rural ICUs (85% of rural respondents vs 62% of nonrural; P < .001 for association). Half of the rural hospitalists who were primary physicians for ICU patients felt obliged to practice beyond their scope, and 90% at least occasionally perceived that they had insufficient support from board-certified intensivists. Among respondents serving as primary physicians for ICU patients, 67% reported at least moderate difficulty transferring patients to higher levels of ICU care. Difficulty transferring patients was the only item significantly correlated with the perception of being expected to practice beyond one's scope (P < .05 for association). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals. Without major changes in intensivist staffi ng or patient distribution, this is unlikely to change.

Reducing the use of seclusion for mental disorder in a prison: implementing a high support unit in a prison using participant action research.

BACKGROUND: Vulnerable prisoners and mentally disordered offenders who present with risk of harm to self or others were accommodated in Special Observation Cells (SOCs) isolated from others for considerable periods of time. This practice has been criticised by the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The objective of this initiative was to reduce the use of seclusion within the prison and to improve the care of vulnerable and mentally ill prisoners within the prison. RESULTS: The prison studied is a committal centre for sentenced prisoners with an official bed capacity of 630. The forensic mental health in-reach team, in co-operation with the prison health service followed the 'spiral' of planning, action and fact finding about the results of the action. In December 2010 a 10 bed High Support Unit (HSU) was established within the prison. During the first year, 96 prisoners were admitted. A third (35%) reported psychotic symptoms, 28% were referred due to the immediate risk of self-harm, 17% were accommodated for medical treatments and increased observation, 13% received specialised treatment by the Addiction Psychiatry team, 6% presented with emotional distress. One prisoner was accommodated on the HSU due to the acute risk he posed to others. A major mental illness was diagnosed in 29%, 20% required short-term increased support for crisis intervention and were found not to have a mental illness. A further 10% were deemed to be feigning symptoms of mental illness to seek refuge in the HSU. 7% had personality disorder as their primary diagnosis and 4% had a learning disability. Stratifying risk within the prison population through the provision of the HSU decreased the total episodes of seclusion in the prison by 59% (p < 0.001) in addition to providing a more effective psychiatric in-reach service to the prison. Pathways between the prison and the forensic psychiatric hospital saw no change in activity but improved continuity of care. CONCLUSIONS: The next step is to further stratify risk by establishing a low support unit to serve as a step-down from the high support unit.