When is a fracture not just a fracture? Exploring emergency nurses' knowledge of osteoporosis in the West of Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis and fragility fractures are set to rise with the global ageing population. Prevalence will continue to significantly impact people's quality of life and healthcare expenditure. Emergency nurses are ideally placed to highlight the importance of screening, and treatment, to the public. For emergency nurses to impart information to patients it is essential they have accurate, evidence-based knowledge. This study aims to determine if emergency nurses' knowledge of osteoporosis is sufficient to educate the public. METHOD: A cross sectional descriptive design of 210 emergency nurses using the 'Osteoporosis Knowledge Questionnaire' (OKQ) was administered in four hospitals in the West of Ireland. Data was analysed using SPSS v28. RESULTS: A 66 % response rate was achieved. The mean score on the OKQ was 12.13 out of a possible 22. This suggests emergency nurses' knowledge of osteoporosis is substandard. Level of education has the greatest impact on participants (p = 0.005). Results indicated that emergency nurses acknowledge their responsibility regarding health promotion but lack the knowledge to undertake the role. CONCLUSION: Emergency nurses play a pivotal role in reducing osteoporosis and fragility fractures, by disseminating information to patients on prevention and management. This study highlighted that educational initiatives are required to address the deficiencies amongst emergency nurses' understanding of osteoporosis. Enhancing knowledge will inevitably lead to increased public awareness in tackling this global health crisis.

Comparison of outpatient and home-based exercise training programmes for COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a common, preventable and treatable disease. Exercise training programmes (ETPs) improve symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and exercise capacity, but the optimal setting is unknown. In this review, we compared the effects of ETPs in different settings on HRQoL and exercise capacity. We searched (5 July 2016) the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization trials portal. We selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias with two independent reviewers. We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% CI. We assessed the quality of evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Ten trials (934 participants) were included. Hospital (outpatient) and home-based ETPs (seven trials) were equally effective at improving HRQoL on the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) (dyspnoea: MD -0.09, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.10; fatigue: MD -0.00, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.17; emotional: MD 0.10, 95% CI: -0.24 to 0.45; and mastery: MD -0.02, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.25; moderate quality) and on the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (MD -0.82, 95% CI: -7.47 to 5.83, low quality). Hospital (outpatient) and community-based ETPs (three trials) were equally effective at improving HRQoL (CRQ dyspnoea: MD 0.29, 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.62, moderate quality; fatigue: MD -0.02, 95% CI: -1.09 to 1.05, low quality; emotional: MD 0.10, 95% CI: -0.40 to 0.59, moderate quality; and mastery: MD -0.08, 95% CI: -0.45 to 0.28, moderate quality). There was no difference in exercise capacity. There was low to moderate evidence that outpatient and home-based ETPs are equally effective. See related Editorial.

Conceptualising a model to guide nursing and midwifery in the community guided by an evidence review.

BACKGROUND: Successful models of nursing and midwifery in the community delivering healthcare throughout the lifespan and across a health and illness continuum are limited, yet necessary to guide global health services. Primary and community health services are the typical points of access for most people and the location where most care is delivered. The scope of primary healthcare is complex and multifaceted and therefore requires a practice framework with sound conceptual and theoretical underpinnings. The aim of this paper is to present a conceptual model informed by a scoping evidence review of the literature. METHODS: A scoping evidence review of the literature was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Databases included CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SocINDEX using the EBSCO platform and the Cochrane Library using the keywords: model, nursing, midwifery, community, primary care. Grey literature for selected countries was searched using the Google 'advanced' search interface. Data extraction and quality appraisal for both empirical and grey literature were conducted independently by two reviewers. From 127 empirical and 24 non-empirical papers, data extraction parameters, in addition to the usual methodological features, included: the nature of nursing and midwifery; the population group; interventions and main outcomes; components of effective nursing and midwifery outcomes. RESULTS: The evidence was categorised into six broad areas and subsequently synthesised into four themes. These were not mutually exclusive: (1) Integrated and Collaborative Care; (2) Organisation and Delivery of Nursing and Midwifery Care in the Community; (3) Adjuncts to Nursing Care and (4) Overarching Conceptual Model. It is the latter theme that is the focus of this paper. In essence, the model depicts a person/client on a lifespan and preventative-curative trajectory. The health related needs of the client, commensurate with their point position, relative to both trajectories, determines the nurse or midwife intervention. Consequently, it is this need, that determines the discipline or speciality of the nurse or midwife with the most appropriate competencies. CONCLUSION: Use of a conceptual model of nursing and midwifery to inform decision-making in primary/community based care ensures clinical outcomes are meaningful and more sustainable. Operationalising this model for nursing and midwifery in the community demands strong leadership and effective clinical governance.

Appreciative Inquiry: An alternative to behaviour management.

Appreciative Inquiry is an approach to organisational change that has been effective and popular around the world for the past two decades. What could it have to offer us as an alternative to traditional 'behaviour management'? Traditionally, in modern dementia care, we take a psychiatric approach to the range of actions that people engage in when stressed or traumatised by the cognitive, social and psychological losses associated with dementia. We call them symptoms of an illness - Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia. Then, we medicate them away because if they are symptoms then medical solutions are called for. We may obtain a better outcome from a different direction. Appreciative Inquiry focuses on an organization as a 'solution designed in its own time to meet a challenge or satisfy a need of society'. This approach focuses on what is working well and is effective in organisations rather than seeing the organisation as a problem to be solved. In this way, we may approach the individual person as a solution designed in its own time to meet a challenge or satisfy a need. Using the 4Ds of the Appreciative Inquiry approach, this article examines the process of Discovery, Dream, Design and Destiny, as it is applied to a case example of a care situation that usually ends with disruption and distress. By formulating affirmative topic choices, the staff group and individual carers may resolve issues with what people with dementia do or say in a way that is humane and hopeful.

Nurses' knowledge of pain and its management in older people.

Aim To identify nurses' knowledge of pain and its management in older people in acute hospitals. Method A quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional design was used to survey a convenience sample of nurses. Data were collected using the Pain in the Elderly Questionnaire. Results The overall mean total score on the questionnaire was 65%, with scores ranging from 7-100%. While there is no recommended score, results indicate lack of nurse knowledge. The four questions with the lowest percentage of correct scores were related to pharmacology. Less than 25% of nurses had recent pain management education. Conclusion These findings indicate a knowledge deficit among nurses regarding pain and its management in older people, particularly in relation to opioid management. To improve pain management, nurses caring for older people would benefit from participation in an education programme with clinical application, such as expert-led, real-life or simulation demonstrations rather than lecture/discussion format only.

Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Widespread application of pulmonary rehabilitation (also known as respiratory rehabilitation) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be preceded by demonstrable improvements in function (health-related quality of life, functional and maximal exercise capacity) attributable to the programmes. This review updates the review reported in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation versus usual care on health-related quality of life and functional and maximal exercise capacity in persons with COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified additional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register. Searches were current as of March 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD in which health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and/or functional (FEC) or maximal (MEC) exercise capacity were measured. We defined 'pulmonary rehabilitation' as exercise training for at least four weeks with or without education and/or psychological support. We defined 'usual care' as conventional care in which the control group was not given education or any form of additional intervention. We considered participants in the following situations to be in receipt of usual care: only verbal advice was given without additional education; and medication was altered or optimised to what was considered best practice at the start of the trial for all participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We calculated mean differences (MDs) using a random-effects model. We requested missing data from the authors of the primary study. We used standard methods as recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: Along with the 31 RCTs included in the previous version (2006), we included 34 additional RCTs in this update, resulting in a total of 65 RCTs involving 3822 participants for inclusion in the meta-analysis.We noted no significant demographic differences at baseline between members of the intervention group and those who received usual care. For the pulmonary rehabilitation group, the mean forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) was 39.2% predicted, and for the usual care group 36.4%; mean age was 62.4 years and 62.5 years, respectively. The gender mix in both groups was around two males for each female. A total of 41 of the pulmonary rehabilitation programmes were hospital based (inpatient or outpatient), 23 were community based (at community centres or in individual homes) and one study had both a hospital component and a community component. Most programmes were of 12 weeks' or eight weeks' duration with an overall range of four weeks to 52 weeks.The nature of the intervention made it impossible for investigators to blind participants or those delivering the programme. In addition, it was unclear from most early studies whether allocation concealment was undertaken; along with the high attrition rates reported by several studies, this impacted the overall risk of bias.We found statistically significant improvement for all included outcomes. In four important domains of quality of life (QoL) (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) scores for dyspnoea, fatigue, emotional function and mastery), the effect was larger than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.5 units (dyspnoea: MD 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.03; N = 1283; studies = 19; moderate-quality evidence; fatigue: MD 0.68, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92; N = 1291; studies = 19; low-quality evidence; emotional function: MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.78; N = 1291; studies = 19; mastery: MD 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95; N = 1212; studies = 19; low-quality evidence). Statistically significant improvements were noted in all domains of the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and improvement in total score was better than 4 units (MD -6.89, 95% CI -9.26 to -4.52; N = 1146; studies = 19; low-quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis using the trials at lower risk of bias yielded a similar estimate of the treatment effect (MD -5.15, 95% CI -7.95 to -2.36; N = 572; studies = 7).Both functional exercise and maximal exercise showed statistically significant improvement. Researchers reported an increase in maximal exercise capacity (mean Wmax (W)) in participants allocated to pulmonary rehabilitation compared with usual care (MD 6.77, 95% CI 1.89 to 11.65; N = 779; studies = 16). The common effect size exceeded the MCID (4 watts) proposed by Puhan 2011(b). In relation to functional exercise capacity, the six-minute walk distance mean treatment effect was greater than the threshold of clinical significance (MD 43.93, 95% CI 32.64 to 55.21; participants = 1879; studies = 38).The subgroup analysis, which compared hospital-based programmes versus community-based programmes, provided evidence of a significant difference in treatment effect between subgroups for all domains of the CRQ, with higher mean values, on average, in the hospital-based pulmonary rehabilitation group than in the community-based group. The SGRQ did not reveal this difference. Subgroup analysis performed to look at the complexity of the pulmonary rehabilitation programme provided no evidence of a significant difference in treatment effect between subgroups that received exercise only and those that received exercise combined with more complex interventions. However, both subgroup analyses could be confounded and should be interpreted with caution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary rehabilitation relieves dyspnoea and fatigue, improves emotional function and enhances the sense of control that individuals have over their condition. These improvements are moderately large and clinically significant. Rehabilitation serves as an important component of the management of COPD and is beneficial in improving health-related quality of life and exercise capacity. It is our opinion that additional RCTs comparing pulmonary rehabilitation and conventional care in COPD are not warranted. Future research studies should focus on identifying which components of pulmonary rehabilitation are essential, its ideal length and location, the degree of supervision and intensity of training required and how long treatment effects persist. This endeavour is important in the light of the new subgroup analysis, which showed a difference in treatment effect on the CRQ between hospital-based and community-based programmes but no difference between exercise only and more complex pulmonary rehabilitation programmes.

The cost-effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: the PRINCE cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme (SEPRP) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) relative to usual practice in primary care. The programme consisted of group-based sessions delivered jointly by practice nurses and physiotherapists over 8 weeks. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 32 general practices in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: 350 adults with COPD, 69% of whom were moderately affected. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention arm (n=178) received a 2 h group-based SEPRP session per week over 8 weeks delivered jointly by a practice nurse and physiotherapist at the practice surgery or nearby venue. The control arm (n=172) received the usual practice in primary care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental costs, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) scores, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained estimated using the generic EQ5D instrument, and expected cost-effectiveness at 22 weeks trial follow-up. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with an increase of €944 (95% CIs 489 to 1400) in mean healthcare cost and €261 (95% CIs 226 to 296) in mean patient cost. The intervention was associated with a mean improvement of 1.11 (95% CIs 0.35 to 1.87) in CRQ Total score and 0.002 (95% CIs -0.006 to 0.011) in QALYs gained. These translated into incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €850 per unit increase in CRQ Total score and €472 000 per additional QALY gained. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective at respective threshold values of €5000, €15 000, €25 000, €35 000 and €45 000 was 0.980, 0.992, 0.994, 0.994 and 0.994 in the CRQ Total score analysis compared to 0.000, 0.001, 0.001, 0.003 and 0.007 in the QALYs gained analysis. CONCLUSIONS: While analysis suggests that SEPRP was cost-effective if society is willing to pay at least €850 per one-point increase in disease-specific CRQ, no evidence exists when effectiveness was measured in QALYS gained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52 403 063.

The effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme for improving the health status of people with moderate and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: the PRINCE cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme on the health status of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). DESIGN: Two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 32 general practices in the Republic of Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: 350 participants with a diagnosis of moderate or severe COPD. INTERVENTION: Experimental group received a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme, delivered by the practice nurse and physiotherapist. Control group received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Health status as measured by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) at baseline and at 12-14 weeks postcompletion of the programme. RESULTS: Participants allocated to the intervention group had statistically significant higher mean change total CRQ scores (adjusted mean difference (MD) 1.11, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.87). However, the CI does not exclude a smaller difference than the one that was prespecified as clinically important. Participants allocated to the intervention group also had statistically significant higher mean CRQ Dyspnoea scores after intervention (adjusted MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.78) and CRQ Physical scores (adjusted MD 0.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.60). However, CIs for both the CRQ Dyspnoea and CRQ Physical subscales do not exclude smaller differences as prespecified as clinically important. No other statistically significant differences between groups were seen. CONCLUSIONS: A primary care based structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme is feasible and may increase local accessibility to people with moderate and severe COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN52403063.

A cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a structured pulmonary rehabilitation education programme for improving the health status of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): The PRINCE Study protocol.

BACKGROUND: A key strategy in improving care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the provision of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes. Pulmonary rehabilitation programmes have been successful in improving patients' sense of dyspnoea and Health Related Quality of Life. However, the effectiveness of structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programmes delivered at the level of the general practice on the health status of people with COPD remains uncertain and there is a need for a robust and fair assessment of this. The PRINCE study will evaluate the effectiveness of a Structured Education Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programme (SEPRP), delivered at the level of the general practice, on the health status of people with COPD. METHODS/DESIGN: The PRINCE Trial is a two-armed, single blind cluster randomised trial conducted in the primary care setting in Ireland. Randomisation to control and intervention is at the level of the General Practice. Participants in the intervention arm will receive a SEPRP and those allocated to the control arm will receive usual care. Delivery of the SEPRP will be by a practice nurse and physiotherapist in the General Practice (GP) site. The primary outcome measure of the study will be health status as measured by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ). Blinded outcome assessment will be undertaken at baseline and at twelve-fourteen weeks after completion of the programme. A comparison of outcomes between the intervention and control sites will be made to examine if differences exist and, if so, to what extent between control and experimental groups. Sample size calculations estimate that 32 practices with a minimum of 10 participants per practice are required, in total, to be randomised to control and intervention arms for power of at least 80% with alpha levels of 0.05, to determine a clinically significant change of 0.5 units in the CRQ. A cost effectiveness analysis will also be conducted. DISCUSSION: The results of this trial are directly applicable to primary care settings in Ireland. Should a SEPRP delivered by practice nurses and physiotherapists in primary care be found to be effective in improving patients' sense of dyspnoea and HRQoL, then the findings would be applicable to many thousands of individuals in Ireland and beyond.