Effectiveness of a programme of exercise on physical function in survivors of critical illness following discharge from the ICU: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (REVIVE)

Background: Following discharge home from the ICU, patients often suffer from reduced physical function, exercise capacity, health-related quality of life and social functioning. There is usually no support to address these longer term problems, and there has been limited research carried out into interventions which could improve patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 6-week programme of exercise on physical function in patients discharged from hospital following critical illness compared to standard care.

Methods/Design: The study design is a multicentre prospective phase II, allocation-concealed, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled clinical trial. Participants randomised to the intervention group will complete three exercise sessions per week (two sessions of supervised exercise and one unsupervised session) for 6 weeks. Supervised sessions will take place in a hospital gymnasium or, if this is not possible, in the participants home and the unsupervised session will take place at home. Blinded outcome assessment will be conducted at baseline after hospital discharge, following the exercise intervention, and at 6 months following baseline assessment (or equivalent time points for the standard care group). The primary outcome measure is physical function as measured by the physical functioning subscale of the Short-Form-36 health survey following the exercise programme. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, anxiety and depression, self efficacy to exercise and healthcare resource use. In addition, semi-structured interviews will be conducted to explore participants’ perceptions of the exercise programme, and the feasibility (safety, practicality and acceptability) of providing the exercise programme will be assessed. A within-trial cost-utility analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared to standard care will also be conducted.

Discussion: If the exercise programme is found to be effective, this study will improve outcomes that are meaningful to patients and their families. It will inform the design of a future multicentre phase III clinical trial of exercise following recovery from critical illness. It will provide useful information which will help the development of services for patients after critical illness.

Rural women in Europe: the impact of place and culture on gender mainstreaming the European Rural Development Programme

Gender relations are socially constructed. Space and culture are key factors in this process. We consider how women’s identity is constructed in rural areas of Europe. In particular, we examine the ability of gender mainstreaming to advance gender equality through the EU Rural Development Programme – the single most expensive European policy. We offer both overarching theoretical perspectives and specific case studies.

How Prepared are UK Medical Graduates for Practice? Final report from a programme of research commissioned by the General Medical Council

This programme of research aimed to understand the extent to which current UK medical graduates are prepared for practice. Commissioned by the General Medical Council, we conducted: (1) A Rapid Review of the literature between 2009 and 2013; (2) narrative interviews with a range of stakeholders; and (3) longitudinal audio-diaries with Foundation Year 1 doctors. The Rapid Review (RR) resulted in data from 81 manuscripts being extracted and mapped against a coding framework (including outcomes from Tomorrow's Doctors (2009) (TD09)). A narrative synthesis of the data was undertaken. Narrative interviews were conducted with 185 participants from 8 stakeholder groups: F1 trainees, newly registered trainee doctors, clinical educators, undergraduate and postgraduate deans and foundation programme directors, other healthcare professionals, employers, policy and government and patient and public representatives. Longitudinal audio-diaries were recorded by 26 F1 trainees over 4 months. The data were analysed thematically and mapped against TD09. Together these data shed light onto how preparedness for practice is conceptualised, measured, how prepared UK medical graduates are for practice, the effectiveness of transition interventions and the currently debated issue of bringing full registration forward to align with medical students’ graduation. Preparedness for practice was conceptualised as both a long- and short-term venture that included personal readiness as well as knowledge, skills and attitudes. It has mainly been researched using self-report measures of generalised incidents that have been shown to be problematic. In terms of transition interventions: assistantships were found to be valuable and efficacious for proactive students as team members, shadowing is effective when undertaken close to employment/setting of F1 post and induction is generally effective but of inconsistent quality. The August transition was highlighted in our interview and audio-diary data where F1s felt unprepared, particularly for the step-change in responsibility, workload, degree of multitasking and understanding where to go for help. Evidence of preparedness for specific tasks, skills and knowledge was contradictory: trainees are well prepared for some practical procedures but not others, reasonably well prepared for history taking and full physical examinations, but mostly unprepared for adopting an holistic understanding of the patient, involving patients in their care, safe and legal prescribing, diagnosing and managing complex clinical conditions and providing immediate care in medical emergencies. Evidence for preparedness for interactional and interpersonal aspects of practice was inconsistent with some studies in the RR suggesting graduates were prepared for team working and communicating with colleagues and patients, but other studies contradicting this. Interview and audio-diary data highlights concerns around F1s preparedness for communicating with angry or upset patients and relatives, breaking bad news, communicating with the wider team (including interprofessionally) and handover communication. There was some evidence in the RR to suggest that graduates were unprepared for dealing with error and safety incidents and lack an understanding of how the clinical environment works. Interview and audio-diary data backs this up, adding that F1s are also unprepared for understanding financial aspects of healthcare. In terms of being personally prepared, RR, interview and audio diary evidence is mixed around graduates’ preparedness for identifying their own limitations, but all data points to graduates’ difficulties in the domain of time management. In terms of personal and situational demographic factors, the RR found that gender did not typically predict perceptions of preparedness, but graduates from more recent cohorts, graduate entry students, graduates from problem based learning courses, UK educated graduates and graduates with an integrated degree reported feeling better prepared. The longitudinal audio-diaries provided insights into the preparedness journey for F1s. There seems to be a general development in the direction of trainees feeling more confident and competent as they gain more experience. However, these developments were not necessarily linear as challenging circumstances (e.g. new specialty, new colleagues, lack of staffing) sometimes made them feel unprepared for situations where they had previously indicated preparedness.