A Web-Based Peer Support Network to Help Care Partners of People With Serious Illness: Co-Design Study.

BACKGROUND: Care partners of people with serious illness experience significant challenges and unmet needs during the patient's treatment period and after their death. Learning from others with shared experiences can be valuable, but opportunities are not consistently available. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to design and prototype a regional, facilitated, and web-based peer support network to help active and bereaved care partners of persons with serious illness be better prepared to cope with the surprises that arise during serious illness and in bereavement. METHODS: An 18-member co-design team included active care partners and those in bereavement, people who had experienced serious illness, regional health care and support partners, and clinicians. It was guided by facilitators and peer network subject-matter experts. We conducted design exercises to identify the functions and specifications of a peer support network. Co-design members independently prioritized network specifications, which were incorporated into an early iteration of the web-based network. RESULTS: The team prioritized two functions: (1) connecting care partners to information and (2) facilitating emotional support. The design process generated 24 potential network specifications to support these functions. The highest priorities included providing a supportive and respectful community; connecting people to trusted resources; reducing barriers to asking for help; and providing frequently asked questions and responses. The network platform had to be simple and intuitive, provide technical support for users, protect member privacy, provide publicly available information and a private discussion forum, and be easily accessible. It was feasible to enroll members in the ConnectShareCare web-based network over a 3-month period. CONCLUSIONS: A co-design process supported the identification of critical features of a peer support network for care partners of people with serious illnesses in a rural setting, as well as initial testing and use. Further testing is underway to assess the long-term viability and impact of the network.

Definitions of serious injury in long-term residential care: a systematic review protocol.

Background: Evidence indicates that the reporting of serious injury in long-term residential care has increased substantially over the past decade. However, what constitutes a serious injury in residential care is poorly and inconsistently defined. This may result in incidences being unnecessarily reported as a serious injury. It is therefore, crucial to develop a consistent definition of serious injury to reduce reporting burden and to facilitate comparison between different residential care settings and across jurisdictions. This protocol describes the methods for a systematic review of existing definitions from the literature to inform the development of a consistent definition of serious injury in long-term residential care. Methods: A wide range of published peer-reviewed and grey literature will be sought for this review, including guidance and policy documents. Searches will be conducted of databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, SocINDEX, Academic Search Ultimate, and Westlaw International. Grey literature database searches will include Trip and Social Care Online. Country specific searches of government and health and social care websites will be conducted. Quality appraisal will be facilitated using the Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool and Tyndall's checklist. The level of confidence in the findings will be assessed using the GRADE CERQual approach. A customised data extraction form will be used to extract data to reduce the risk of bias. Conceptual content analysis of data will facilitate identification of definitions of serious injury and their frequency within texts. Conclusions: The findings will inform the development of a consistent definition of serious injury in long-term residential care that will reduce reporting burden, facilitate the accuracy of data collected and allow for comparison across jurisdictions. A more universal and consistent definition will enable regulators, policy makers, service providers and researchers to develop policy and practical interventions to prevent the occurrence of serious injury in long-term residential care.

Do extremely preterm infants need retinopathy of prematurity screening earlier than 31 weeks postmenstrual age?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of screening all extremely preterm infants for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) at 4 weeks chronologic age, which is earlier than recommended by the 2018 AAP guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of infants <27 weeks gestation from two tertiary NICUs between 2006 and 2018 who survived until first eye examination. RESULTS: 550 infants (gestational age 25.1 ± 1.2 weeks and birth weight 758 ± 323 g) had 1310 examinations performed by 32 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA), and 676 (51.6%) of these were prior to 31 weeks PMA. No examinations in infants prior to 31 weeks PMA met the criteria for laser therapy. Of 87/550 infants (15.8%) who required laser therapy, none did so prior to 32 weeks PMA. CONCLUSIONS: No infants born <27 weeks gestation were found to have severe ROP prior to 31 weeks PMA, supporting the most recent AAP recommendation of initiating ROP screening at 31 weeks PMA for extremely preterm infants.