A systematic review of the psychobiological burden of informal caregiving for patients with dementia: focus on cognitive and biological markers of chronic stress

As the physiological impact of chronic stress is difficult to study in humans, naturalistic stressors are invaluable sources of information in this area. This review systematically evaluates the research literature examining biomarkers of chronic stress, including neurocognition, in informal dementia caregivers. We identified 151 papers for inclusion in the final review, including papers examining differences between caregivers and controls as well as interventions aimed at counteracting the biological burden of chronic caregiving stress. Results indicate that cortisol was increased in caregivers in a majority of studies examining this biomarker. There was mixed evidence for differences in epinephrine, norepinephrine and other cardiovascular markers. There was a high level of heterogeneity in immune system measures. Caregivers performed more poorly on attention and executive functioning tests. There was mixed evidence for memory performance. Interventions to reduce stress improved cognition but had mixed effects on cortisol. Risk of bias was generally low to moderate. Given the rising need for family caregivers worldwide, the implications of these findings can no longer be neglected.

Linearity analysis and comparison study on the epoc® point-of-care blood analysis system in cardiopulmonary bypass patients

The epoc® blood analysis system (Epocal Inc., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) is a newly developed in vitro diagnostic hand-held analyzer for testing whole blood samples at point-of-care, which provides blood gas, electrolytes, ionized calcium, glucose, lactate, and hematocrit/calculated hemoglobin rapidly. The analytical performance of the epoc® system was evaluated in a tertiary hospital, see related research article “Analytical evaluation of the epoc® point-of-care blood analysis system in cardiopulmonary bypass patients” [1]. Data presented are the linearity analysis for 9 parameters and the comparison study in 40 cardiopulmonary bypass patients on 3 epoc® meters, Instrumentation Laboratory GEM4000, Abbott iSTAT, Nova CCX, and Roche Accu-Chek Inform II and Performa glucose meters.

The quality of diabetes care in the community: practice, policy and culture

Aim: Diabetes is an important barometer of health system performance. This chronic condition is a source of significant morbidity, premature mortality and a major contributor to health care costs. There is an increasing focus internationally, and more recently nationally, on system, practice and professional-level initiatives to promote the quality of care. The aim of this thesis was to investigate the ‘quality chasm’ around the organisation and delivery of diabetes care in general practice, to explore GPs’ attitudes to engaging in quality improvement activities and to examine efforts to improve the quality of diabetes care in Ireland from practice to policy. Methods: Quantitative and qualitative methods were used. As part of a mixed methods sequential design, a postal survey of 600 GPs was conducted to assess the organization of care. This was followed by an in-depth qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 31 GPs from urban and rural areas. The qualitative methodology was also used to examine GPs’ attitudes to engaging in quality improvement. Data were analysed using a Framework approach. A 2nd observation study was used to assess the quality of care in 63 practices with a special interest in diabetes. Data on 3010 adults with Type 2 diabetes from 3 primary care initiatives were analysed and the results were benchmarked against national guidelines and standards of care in the UK. The final study was an instrumental case study of policy formulation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 members of the Expert Advisory Group (EAG) for Diabetes. Thematic analysis was applied to the data using 3 theories of the policy process as analytical tools. Results: The survey response rate was 44% (n=262). Results suggested care delivery was largely unstructured; 45% of GPs had a diabetes register (n=157), 53% reported using guidelines (n=140), 30% had formal call recall system (n=78) and 24% had none of these organizational features (n=62). Only 10% of GPs had a formal shared protocol with the local hospital specialist diabetes team (n=26). The lack of coordination between settings was identified as a major barrier to providing optimal care leading to waiting times, overburdened hospitals and avoidable duplication. The lack of remuneration for chronic disease management had a ripple effect also creating costs for patients and apathy among GPs. There was also a sense of inertia around quality improvement activities particularly at a national level. This attitude was strongly influenced by previous experiences of change in the health system. In contrast GP’s spoke positively about change at a local level which was facilitated by a practice ethos, leadership and special interest in diabetes. The 2nd quantitative study found that practices with a special interest in diabetes achieved a standard of care comparable to the UK in terms of the recording of clinical processes of care and the achievement of clinical targets; 35% of patients reached the HbA1c target of <6.5% compared to 26% in England and Wales. With regard to diabetes policy formulation, the evolving process of action and inaction was best described by the Multiple Streams Theory. Within the EAG, the formulation of recommendations was facilitated by overarching agreement on the “obvious” priorities while the details of proposals were influenced by personal preferences and local capacity. In contrast the national decision-making process was protracted and ambiguous. The lack of impetus from senior management coupled with the lack of power conferred on the EAG impeded progress. Conclusions: The findings highlight the inconsistency of diabetes care in Ireland. The main barriers to optimal diabetes management center on the organization and coordination of care at the systems level with consequences for practice, providers and patients. Quality improvement initiatives need to stimulate a sense of ownership and interest among frontline service providers to address the local sense of inertia to national change. To date quality improvement in diabetes care has been largely dependent the “special interest” of professionals. The challenge for the Irish health system is to embed this activity as part of routine practice, professional responsibility and the underlying health care culture.

The effectiveness of using patient-reported outcome measures as quality improvement tools

Aim: To investigate the value of using PROMs as quality improvement tools. Methods: Two systematic reviews were undertaken. The first reviewed the quantitative literature on the impact of PROMs feedback and the second reviewed the qualitative literature on the use of PROMs in practice. These reviews informed the focus of the primary research. A cluster randomised controlled trial (PROFILE) examined the impact of providing peer benchmarked PROMs feedback to consultant orthopaedic surgeons on improving outcomes for hip replacement surgery. Qualitative interviews with surgeons in the intervention arm of the trial examined the view of and reactions to the feedback. Results: The quantitative review of 17 studies found weak evidence to suggest that providing PROMs feedback to professionals improves patient outcomes. The qualitative review of 16 studies identified the barriers and facilitators to the use of PROMs based on four themes: practical considerations, attitudes towards the data, methodological concerns and the impact of feedback on care. The PROFILE trial included 11 surgeons and 215 patients in the intervention arm, and 10 surgeons and 217 patients in the control arm. The trial found no significant difference in the Oxford Hip Score between the arms (-0.7, 95% CI -1.9-0.5, p=0.2). Interviews with surgeons revealed mixed opinions about the value of the PROMs feedback and the information did not promote explicit changes to their practice. Conclusion: It is important to use PROMs which have been validated for the specific purpose of performance measurement, consult with professionals when developing a PROMs feedback intervention, communicate with professionals about the objectives of the data collection, educate professionals on the properties and interpretation of the data, and support professionals in using the information to improve care. It is also imperative that the burden of data collection and dissemination of the information is minimised.

Valuing maternity care: a comparison of stated preference methods with an application to cost-benefit analysis

This research investigates whether a reconfiguration of maternity services, which collocates consultant- and midwifery-led care, reflects demand and value for money in Ireland. Qualitative and quantitative research is undertaken to investigate demand and an economic evaluation is performed to evaluate the costs and benefits of the different models of care. Qualitative research is undertaken to identify women’s motivations when choosing place of delivery. These data are further used to inform two stated preference techniques: a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and contingent valuation method (CVM). These are employed to identify women’s strengths of preferences for different features of care (DCE) and estimate women’s willingness to pay for maternity care (CVM), which is used to inform a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) on consultant- and midwifery-led care. The qualitative research suggests women do not have a clear preference for consultant or midwifery-led care, but rather a hybrid model of care which closely resembles the Domiciliary Care In and Out of Hospital (DOMINO) scheme. Women’s primary concern during care is safety, meaning women would only utilise midwifery-led care when co-located with consultant-led care. The DCE also finds women’s preferred package of care closely mirrors the DOMINO scheme with 39% of women expected to utilise this service. Consultant- and midwifery-led care would then be utilised by 34% and 27% of women, respectively. The CVM supports this hierarchy of preferences where consultant-led care is consistently valued more than midwifery-led care – women are willing to pay €956.03 for consultant-led care and €808.33 for midwifery-led care. A package of care for a woman availing of consultant- and midwifery-led care is estimated to cost €1,102.72 and €682.49, respectively. The CBA suggests both models of care are cost-beneficial and should be pursued in Ireland. This reconfiguration of maternity services would maximise women’s utility, while fulfilling important objectives of key government policy.