Temporal association between invasive procedures and infective endocarditis.

OBJECTIVE: Antibiotic prophylaxis has been recommended for patients at increased risk of infective endocarditis (IE) undergoing specific invasive procedures (IPs) despite a lack of data supporting its use. Therefore, antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations ceased in the mid-2000s for all but those at high IE risk undergoing invasive dental procedures. We aimed to quantify any association between IPs and IE. METHODS: All 14 731 IE hospital admissions in England between April 2010 and March 2016 were identified from national admissions data, and medical records were searched for IP performed during the 15-month period before IE admission. We compared the incidence of IP during the 3 months immediately before IE admission (case period) with the incidence during the preceding 12 months (control period) to determine whether the odds of developing IE were increased in the 3 months after certain IP. RESULTS: The odds of IE were increased following permanent pacemaker and defibrillator implantation (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.85, p<0.001), extractions/surgical tooth removal (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.76, p=0.047), upper (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.85, p<0.001) and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.04, p<0.001) and bone marrow biopsy (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.69, p=0.039). Using an alternative analysis, bronchoscopy (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.68, p=0.049) and blood transfusions/red cell/plasma exchange (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.35, p=0.012) were also associated with IE. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies a significant association between specific IPs (permanent pacemaker and defibrillator implantation, dental extraction, gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy) and subsequent IE that warrants re-evaluation of current antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations to prevent IE in high IE risk individuals.

Estimating the minimum important difference in the DEMQOL instrument in people with dementia.

PURPOSE: The Dementia-Related Quality of Life (DEMQOL) measure and the DEMQOL-Utility Score (DEMQOL-U) are validated tools for measuring quality of life (QOL) in people with dementia. What score changes translate to a clinically significant impact on patients' lives was unknown. This study establishes the minimal important differences (MID) for these two instruments. METHODS: Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MID scores from patients enrolled in a randomised controlled trial. For the anchor-based method, the global QOL (Q29) item from the DEMQOL was chosen as the anchor for DEMQOL and both Q29 and EQ-5D for DEMQOL-U. A one category difference in Q29, and a 0.07 point difference in EQ-5D score, were used to classify improvement and deterioration, and the MID scores were calculated for each category. These results were compared with scores obtained by the distribution-based methods. RESULTS: A total of 490 people with dementia had baseline DEMQOL data, of these 386 had 8-month data, and 344 had 12-month DEMQOL data. The absolute change in DEMQOL for a combined 1-point increase or decrease in the Q29 anchor was 5.2 at 8 months and 6.0 at 12 months. For the DEMQOL-U, the average absolute change at 8 and 12 months was 0.032 and 0.046 for the Q29 anchor and 0.020 and 0.024 for EQ-5D anchor. CONCLUSION: We present MID scores for the DEMQOL and DEMQOL-U instruments obtained from a large cohort of patients with dementia. An anchored-based estimate of the MID for the DEMQOL is around 5 to 6 points; and 0.02 to 0.05 points for the DEMQOL-U. The results of this study can guide clinicians and researchers in the interpretation of these instruments comparisons between groups or within groups of people with dementia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17993825 on 11th October 2016.

Treatment effects may remain the same even when trial participants differed from the target population.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been criticized for lacking external validity. We assessed whether a trial in people with type I diabetes mellitus mirrored the wider population and applied sample-weighting methods to assess the impact of differences on our trial's findings. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The Relative Effectiveness of Pumps over MDI and Structured Education trial was nested within a large UK cohort capturing demographic, clinical, and quality of life data for people with type I diabetes mellitus undergoing structured diabetes-specific education. We first assessed whether our RCT participants were comparable with this cohort using propensity score modeling. After this, we reweighted the trial population to better match the wider cohort and re-estimated the treatment effect. RESULTS: Trial participants differed from the cohort in regard to sex, weight, HbA1c, and also quality of life and satisfaction with current treatment. Nevertheless, the treatment effects derived from alternative model weightings were similar to that of the original RCT. CONCLUSION: Our RCT participants differed in composition to the wider population, but the original findings were unaffected by sampling adjustments. We encourage investigators take steps to address criticisms of generalizability but doing so is problematic; external data, even if available, may contain limited information and analyses can be susceptible to model misspecification.

Healthcare access for asylum seekers and refugees in England: a mixed methods study exploring service users' and health care professionals' awareness.

BACKGROUND: With the aim of decreasing immigration, the British government extended charging for healthcare in England for certain migrants in 2017. There is concern these policies amplify the barriers to healthcare already faced by asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs). Awareness has been shown to be fundamental to access. This article jointly explores (i) health care professionals' (HCPs) awareness of migrants' eligibility for healthcare, and (ii) ASRs' awareness of health services. METHODS: Mixed methods were used. Quantitative survey data explored HCPs' awareness of migrants' eligibility to healthcare after the extension of charging regulations. Qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with ASRs were analyzed thematically using Saurman's domains of awareness as a framework. RESULTS: In total 514 HCPs responded to the survey. Significant gaps in HCPs' awareness of definitions, entitlements and charging regulations were identified. 80% of HCP respondents were not confident defining the immigration categories upon which eligibility for care rests. Only a small minority (6%) reported both awareness and understanding of the charging regulations. In parallel, the 18 ASRs interviewed had poor awareness of their eligibility for free National Health Service care and suitability for particular services. This was compounded by language difficulties, social isolation, frequent asylum dispersal accommodation moves, and poverty. CONCLUSION: This study identifies significant confusion amongst both HCP and ASR concerning eligibility and healthcare access. The consequent negative impact on health is concerning given the contemporary political climate, where eligibility for healthcare depends on immigration status.

Ethical Grand Rounds: Teaching Ethics at the Point of Care.

We offer an educational innovation called Ethical Grand Rounds (EGR) as a teaching strategy to enhance ethical decision-making. Nursing students participate in EGR-flexible ethical laboratories, where they take stands on ethical dilemmas, arguing for--or against--an ethical principle. This process provides the opportunity to move past normative ethics, that is, an ideal ethical stance in accord with ethical conduct codes, to applied ethics, what professional nurses would do in actual clinical practice, given the constraints that exist in contemporary care settings. EGR serves as a vehicle to translate "what ought to be" into "what is."

The statistical interpretation of pilot trials: should significance thresholds be reconsidered?

BACKGROUND: In an evaluation of a new health technology, a pilot trial may be undertaken prior to a trial that makes a definitive assessment of benefit. The objective of pilot studies is to provide sufficient evidence that a larger definitive trial can be undertaken and, at times, to provide a preliminary assessment of benefit. METHODS: We describe significance thresholds, confidence intervals and surrogate markers in the context of pilot studies and how Bayesian methods can be used in pilot trials. We use a worked example to illustrate the issues raised. RESULTS: We show how significance levels other than the traditional 5% should be considered to provide preliminary evidence for efficacy and how estimation and confidence intervals should be the focus to provide an estimated range of possible treatment effects. We also illustrate how Bayesian methods could also assist in the early assessment of a health technology. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that in pilot trials the focus should be on descriptive statistics and estimation, using confidence intervals, rather than formal hypothesis testing and that confidence intervals other than 95% confidence intervals, such as 85% or 75%, be used for the estimation. The confidence interval should then be interpreted with regards to the minimum clinically important difference. We also recommend that Bayesian methods be used to assist in the interpretation of pilot trials. Surrogate endpoints can also be used in pilot trials but they must reliably predict the overall effect on the clinical outcome.