IMPOSE (IMProving Outcomes after Sepsis)—the effect of a multidisciplinary follow-up service on health-related quality of life in patients postsepsis syndromes—a double-blinded randomised controlled trial: protocol

Introduction Patients post sepsis syndromes have a poor quality of life and a high rate of recurring illness or mortality. Follow-up clinics have been instituted for patients postgeneral intensive care but evidence is sparse, and there has been no clinic specifically for survivors of sepsis. The aim of this trial is to investigate if targeted screening and appropriate intervention to these patients can result in an improved quality of life (Short Form 36 health survey (SF36V.2)), decreased mortality in the first 12 months, decreased readmission to hospital and/or decreased use of health resources. Methods and analysis 204 patients postsepsis syndromes will be randomised to one of the two groups. The intervention group will attend an outpatient clinic two monthly for 6 months and receive screening and targeted intervention. The usual care group will remain under the care of their physician. To analyse the results, a baseline comparison will be carried out between each group. Generalised estimating equations will compare the SF36 domain scores between groups and across time points. Mortality will be compared between groups using a Cox proportional hazards (time until death) analysis. Time to first readmission will be compared between groups by a survival analysis. Healthcare costs will be compared between groups using a generalised linear model. Economic (health resource) evaluation will be a within-trial incremental cost utility analysis with a societal perspective. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted by the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC; HREC/13/QRBW/17), The University of Queensland HREC (2013000543), Griffith University (RHS/08/14/HREC) and the Australian Government Department of Health (26/2013). The results of this study will be submitted to peer-reviewed intensive care journals and presented at national and international intensive care and/or rehabilitation conferences.

Fidgeting is associated with lower mortality risk

Context Evidence from prospective cohort studies has suggested that high volumes of reported daily sitting time is associated with mortality.1 ,2 However, not all have observed the same association.3 Fidgeting (small movements associated with nervousness or impatience), could provide additional energy expenditure when sitting, although the relationship with sitting and health outcomes had yet to be examined. Hagger-Johnson et al examined data from nearly 13 000 women to determine whether fidgeting modified the association between sitting time and mortality. Methods This study featured prospective data from 12 778 participants (aged 37–78 years) in the Women's Cohort Study (UK). Average daily sitting time was reported for weekdays and weekend days, and combined …

Novel application of a discrete choice experiment to identify preferences for a national healthcare-associated infection surveillance programme: A cross-sectional study

Objective: To identify key stakeholder preferences and priorities when considering a national healthcare-associated infection (HAI) surveillance programme through the use of a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Setting: Australia does not have a national HAI surveillance programme. An online web-based DCE was developed and made available to participants in Australia. Participants: A sample of 184 purposively selected healthcare workers based on their senior leadership role in infection prevention in Australia. Primary and secondary outcomes: A DCE requiring respondents to select 1 HAI surveillance programme over another based on 5 different characteristics (or attributes) in repeated hypothetical scenarios. Data were analysed using a mixed logit model to evaluate preferences and identify the relative importance of each attribute. Results: A total of 122 participants completed the survey (response rate 66%) over a 5-week period. Excluding 22 who mismatched a duplicate choice scenario, analysis was conducted on 100 responses. The key findings included: 72% of stakeholders exhibited a preference for a surveillance programme with continuous mandatory core components (mean coefficient 0.640 (p<0.01)), 65% for a standard surveillance protocol where patient-level data are collected on infected and non-infected patients (mean coefficient 0.641 (p<0.01)), and 92% for hospital-level data that are publicly reported on a website and not associated with financial penalties (mean coefficient 1.663 (p<0.01)). Conclusions: The use of the DCE has provided a unique insight to key stakeholder priorities when considering a national HAI surveillance programme. The application of a DCE offers a meaningful method to explore and quantify preferences in this setting.