Bringing values back into evidence-based nursing: the role of patients in resisting empiricism

We examine problems resulting from the narrow empirical focus associated with evidence-based nursing, including the deleterious influence of vested interests, disattention to patients’ experiences, underestimation of the importance of social processes, lack of an individualized research perspective, marginalization of other forms of knowledge, and the undermining of patients’ autonomy. Addressing each problem in turn, we argue that inclusion of patients at all stages of evidence-based practice can counter or ameliorate these problems. While we concede that patient involvement is not a complete solution to the problem of empiricism, it is the most effective means available to defend nursing values.

Bias in research

The aim of this article is to outline types of ‘bias’ across research designs, and consider strategies to minimise bias. Evidence-based nursing, defined as the “process by which evidence, nursing theory, and clinical expertise are critically evaluated and considered, in conjunction with patient involvement, to provide the delivery of optimum nursing care,”1 is central to the continued development of the nursing professional. Implementing evidence into practice requires nurses to critically evaluate research, in particular assessing the rigour in which methods were undertaken and factors that may have biased findings.

Understanding the practice nurse’s role in the cancer care tapestry

Background: The are currently 2 million people in the UK living with or
after cancer, and this number is expected to double by 2030 (Maddams et
al, 2012). However, many report unmet physical and psychological needs.

Aim: To determine the learning needs of practice nurses to take on an
enhanced role with people affected by cancer, particularly after primary
treatment, and to develop a course to meet these needs.

Method: The Macmillan Steering Group designed and developed a course for practice
nurses to identify their learning needs, enabling participating practice
nurses to work collaboratively with each other and the course facilitator.
There was strong patient involvement throughout. The course was
evaluated by self-assessment of knowledge, skills and confidence, patient
satisfaction questionnaires and in-depth, qualitative telephone interviews
with the participants and their supporting GPs.

Results: The practice nurses reported changed practice, with increased confidence in discussing
issues relating to cancer and its treatment with patients and relatives.
They understood the importance of supported self-management and were
able to signpost patients to appropriate sources of information and
support. Many of the practice nurses started initiating and undertaking
Cancer Care Reviews, both as planned appointments and opportunistically.
Over the past year, a further nine pilots have been completed throughout
the UK, demonstrating that these results are reproducible in other settings.

Conclusions: With appropriate support and training and protected time
to include cancer care into their everyday work, practice nurses can take
on an important role in the support and care of people affected by cancer

Provision of resin bonded bridgework for a patient with microstomia secondary to scleroderma

Scleroderma is a connective tissue disorder that can present with orofacial involvement. A 48 year-old patient presented to Cork University Dental Hospital with concerns about the appearance of her upper central incisor teeth, which had become progressively mobile in recent years. A diagnosis of localised scleroderma had been made a number of years previously by her medical practitioner and the patient reported that her scleroderma-associated microstomia had progressed significantly in recent years. Most reports of this condition advocate the use of sectional impression trays and sectional dentures to replace missing teeth. This report describes the use of resin-bonded bridgework (RBB) and discusses the possible advantages of this treatment option over those already presented in the literature.

Presentation of lacrimo-auriculodento- digital (LADD) syndrome in a young female patient

BACKGROUND: Lacrimo-auriculo-dento-digital (LADD) syndrome (OMIM #149730) is an autosomal-dominant congenital disorder that can be caused by heterozygous mutations in the tyrosine kinase domains of the genes encoding fibroblast growth factor receptors 2 (FGFR2) and 3 (FGFR3), and has been found in association with a mutation in the FGF10 gene, which encodes an Fgfr ligand. Clinical signs vary, but the condition is characterised by involvement of the lacrimal and salivary systems, cup-shaped ears, hearing loss and dental abnormalities. Additional features may include involvement of the hands and feet with other body systems particularly the kidneys.

CASE REPORT: Previous literature on the subject has been reviewed and this case is the first presentation of LADD syndrome in the Republic of Ireland, as a sporadic case in a 12-year-old girl who exhibited a range of dental and digital anomalies.

TREATMENT: Her general medical practitioner managed her medical care whilst her oral care necessitated a multidisciplinary approach involving restorative and orthodontic elements.

FOLLOW-UP: The initial restorative phase of treatment has successfully improved the appearance of the patient's anterior teeth using direct resin composite build-ups.

Parents’ and young people’s involvement in designing a trial of ventilator weaning

Consulting with users is considered best practice and is highly recommended in designing new trials. As part of our feasibility work, we undertook a consultation exercise with parents, ex-patients and young people prior to designing a trial of protocol-based ventilator weaning. Our aims were to (1) ascertain views on the relevance and importance of the trial; (2) determine the important parent/patient outcome measures; and (3) ascertain views on informed consent in a cluster randomized controlled trial. We conducted audio-recorded face-to-face, telephone and focus group interviews with parents and young people. Data were content analysed to generate information to address our specific consultation objectives. The setting was the north-western region of England. A total of 16 participants were interviewed: 2 parents of paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) survivors; 1 PICU survivor; and 13 young people from the former Medicines for Children Research Network. The trial objectives were deemed important and relevant, and participants considered the most important outcome measure to be the length of time on ventilation. Parents and young people did not consider written informed consent to be a necessary requirement in the context of this trial, rather awareness of unit participation in the trial was important with the opportunity of opting out of data collection. This consultation provided useful, pragmatic insights to inform trial design. We encountered significant challenges in recruiting parents and young people for this consultation exercise, and novel recruitment methods need to be considered for future work in this field. Patient and public involvement is essential to ensure that future trials answer parent-relevant questions and have meaningful outcome measures, as well as involving parents and young people in the general development of health care services.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic effects of radiotherapy than do clinician-reported outcomes. We did a quality of life (QoL) substudy to assess PROs up to 24 months after conventionally fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP) trial.

METHODS: The CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 57 UK hospitals took part in the QoL substudy. Men with localised prostate cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy were eligible for trial entry if they had histologically confirmed T1b-T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, an estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less than 30%, prostate-specific antigen concentration less than 30 ng/mL, and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a standard fractionation schedule of 74 Gy in 37 fractions or one of two hypofractionated schedules: 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted block sizes of six and nine, stratified by centre and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Treatment allocation was not masked. UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), including Short Form (SF)-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and SF-12 quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, pre-radiotherapy, 10 weeks post-radiotherapy, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial completed accrual on June 16, 2011, and the QoL substudy was closed to further recruitment on Nov 1, 2009. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint of the QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97182923.

FINDINGS: 2100 participants in the CHHiP trial consented to be included in the QoL substudy: 696 assigned to the 74 Gy schedule, 698 assigned to the 60 Gy schedule, and 706 assigned to the 57 Gy schedule. Of these individuals, 1659 (79%) provided data pre-radiotherapy and 1444 (69%) provided data at 24 months after radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 50·0 months (IQR 38·4-64·2) on April 9, 2014, which was the most recent follow-up measurement of all data collected before the QoL data were analysed in September, 2014. Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19 fractions groups at 2 years showed no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men; moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59). We saw no differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months.

INTERPRETATION: The incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy. If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findings will add to the growing evidence for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules becoming the standard treatment for localised prostate cancer.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Personal and Public Involvement and its impact - Monitoring, measuring and evaluating the impact of Personal and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland.

Introduction
This report details the findings from research conducted across Northern Ireland’s Health and Social Care Trusts during 2015 which examines the current state of Personal and Public Involvement (PPI). This is about how service users, carers and patients engage with staff, management and directors of statutory health and social care organisations. Most statutory health and social care organisations must, under legislation, meet the requirements of PPI. PPI has been part of health and social care policy in Northern Ireland since 2007 and became law two years later with the introduction of the Health and Social Care Reform Act (2009). It is, therefore, timely that PPI is now assessed in this systematic way in order to both examine the aspects which are working well and to highlight those areas where improvements need to be made. As far as possible, this Summary Report is written in an accessible way, avoiding jargon and explaining key research terms, so as to ensure it is widely understood. This is in keeping with established good practice in service user involvement research. This summary, therefore, gives a picture of PPI in Northern Ireland currently. There is also a fuller report which gives a lot more details about the research and findings. Information on this is available from the Public Health Agency and/or the Patient and Client Council.