Thunderstorm Related Asthma - the Epidemic of 24/25 June 1994

Background A large epidemic of asthma occurred following a thunderstorm in southern and central England on 24/25 June 1994. A collaborative study group was formed. Objectives To describe the epidemic and the meteorological, aerobiological and other environmental characteristics associated with it. Methods Collation of data from the Meteorological Office, the Pollen Research Unit, the Department of the Environment's Automatic Urban Network, from health surveillance by the Department of Health and the National Poisons Unit, from clinical experience in general practice and hospitals, and from an immunological study of some of the affected cases from north east London. Results The thunderstorm was a Mesoscale Convective System, an unusual and large form of storm with several centres and severe wind gusts. It occurred shortly after the peak grass pollen concentration in the London area. A sudden and extensive epidemic occurred within about an hour affecting possibly several thousand patients. Emergency services were stretched but the epidemic did not last long. Cases had high serum levels of IgE antibody to mixed grass pollen. Conclusion This study supports the view that patients with specific IgE to grass pollen are at risk of thunderstorm-related asthma. The details of the causal pathway from storm to asthma attack are not clear. Case-control and time series studies are being carried out.

Carers and Co-Production: Enabling Expertise through Experience?

Purpose To provide a brief overview of the literature to date which has focussed on co-production within mental healthcare in the UK, including service user and carer involvement and collaboration. Design The paper presents key outcomes from studies which have explicitly attempted to introduce co-produced care in addition to specific tools designed to encourage co-production within mental health services. The paper debates the cultural and ideological shift required for staff, service users and family members to undertake co-produced care and outlines challenges ahead with respect to service redesign and new roles in practice. Findings Informal carers (family and friends) are recognised as a fundamental resource for mental health service provision, as well as a rich source of expertise through experience, yet their views are rarely solicited by mental health professionals or taken into account during decision-making. This issue is considered alongside new policy recommendations which advocate the development of co-produced services and care. Research Limitations Despite the launch of a number of initiatives designed to build on peer experience and support, there has been a lack of attention on the differing dynamic which remains evident between healthcare professionals and people using mental health services. Co-production sheds a light on the blurring of roles, trust and shared endeavour (Slay and Stephens, 2013) but, despite an increase in peer recovery workers across England, there has been little research or service development designed to focus explicitly on this particular dynamic. Practical Implications Despite these challenges, coproduction in mental healthcare represents a real opportunity for the skills and experience of family members to be taken into account and could provide a mechanism to achieve the ‘triangle of care’ with input, recognition and respect given to all (service users, carers, professionals) whose lives are touched by mental distress. However, lack of attention in relation to carer perspectives, expertise and potential involvement could undermine the potential for coproduction to act as a vehicle to encourage person-centred care which accounts for social in addition to clinical factors. Social Implications The families of people with severe and enduring mental illness (SMI) assume a major responsibility for the provision of care and support to their relatives over extended time periods (Rose et al, 2004). Involving carers in discussions about care planning could help to provide a wider picture about the impact of mental health difficulties, beyond symptom reduction. The ‘co-production of care’ reflects a desire to work meaningfully and fully with service users and carers. However, to date, little work has been undertaken in order to coproduce services through the ‘triangle of care’ with carers bringing their own skills, resources and expertise. Originality/Value This paper debates the current involvement of carers across mental healthcare and debates whether co-production could be a vehicle to utilise carer expertise, enhance quality and satisfaction with mental healthcare. The critique of current work highlights the danger of increasing expectations on service providers to undertake work aligned to key initiatives (shared decision-making, person-centred care, co-production), that have common underpinning principles but, in the absence of practical guidance, could be addressed in isolation rather than as an integrated approach within a ‘triangle of care’.

Understanding the Patient Experience Through the Power of Film: a Mixed Method Qualitative Research Project

Film is a highly attractive teaching instrument for the study of different terminal diseases, exploring bioethics (Beauchamp and Childress, 2009) and is a preferred medium over traditional lectures (Edmunds, 2013) to provide realistic examples for adult learners. It can tap into ethical issues; facilitate decision-making; and examine underlying issues such as euthanasia; assisted suicide; and professional responsibility. Contrast this with standard means of teaching, such as scenarios- although a useful pedagogic tool, these are limited because students must imagine the clinical scenario. Film can fill that imaginative gap (Volandes, 2007). It can be utilised as an active teaching strategy for a variety of topics in nursing (Edmunds, 2013) providing a unique way to promote active learning in nursing education (Herrman, 2006). The objectives of the study, aim to help pre registration student nurses from each year of study to engage with their role as health care professionals; provide open discussion and debate on how they view the personal experience of illness/disease/disability/death and to reflect on their role and provision of patient care. It is delivered in 3 tiers to provide a range of data for thematic analysis; 1) Film screening followed by a ‘5 minute reaction’ discussion and post screening questionnaire; 2) Pre screening guided activities for reflection and discussion; 3) Focus groups. This project meets identified aims from the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF) by fostering creative and innovative approaches to teaching and learning; facilitating and supporting the design and delivery of continuing education development programmes and activities; and demonstrates professionalism that staff and institutions bring to teaching. Preliminary feedback and themes will be presented.

Improving Patients’ Experience and Outcome of Total Joint Replacement: the RESTORE Programme

BACKGROUND: Total hip replacements (THRs) and total knee replacements (TKRs) are common elective procedures. In the REsearch STudies into the ORthopaedic Experience (RESTORE) programme, we explored the care and experiences of patients with osteoarthritis after being listed for THR and TKR up to the time when an optimal outcome should be expected. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a programme of research studies to work towards improving patient outcomes after THR and TKR. METHODS: We used methodologies appropriate to research questions: systematic reviews, qualitative studies, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), feasibility studies, cohort studies and a survey. Research was supported by patient and public involvement. RESULTS: Systematic review of longitudinal studies showed that moderate to severe long-term pain affects about 7–23% of patients after THR and 10–34% after TKR. In our cohort study, 10% of patients with hip replacement and 30% with knee replacement showed no clinically or statistically significant functional improvement. In our review of pain assessment few research studies used measures to capture the incidence, character and impact of long-term pain. Qualitative studies highlighted the importance of support by health and social professionals for patients at different stages of the joint replacement pathway. Our review of longitudinal studies suggested that patients with poorer psychological health, physical function or pain before surgery had poorer long-term outcomes and may benefit from pre-surgical interventions. However, uptake of a pre-operative pain management intervention was low. Although evidence relating to patient outcomes was limited, comorbidities are common and may lead to an increased risk of adverse events, suggesting the possible value of optimising pre-operative management. The evidence base on clinical effectiveness of pre-surgical interventions, occupational therapy and physiotherapy-based rehabilitation relied on small RCTs but suggested short-term benefit. Our feasibility studies showed that definitive trials of occupational therapy before surgery and post-discharge group-based physiotherapy exercise are feasible and acceptable to patients. Randomised trial results and systematic review suggest that patients with THR should receive local anaesthetic infiltration for the management of long-term pain, but in patients receiving TKR it may not provide additional benefit to femoral nerve block. From a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, local anaesthetic infiltration was a cost-effective treatment in primary THR. In qualitative interviews, patients and health-care professionals recognised the importance of participating in the RCTs. To support future interventions and their evaluation, we conducted a study comparing outcome measures and analysed the RCTs as cohort studies. Analyses highlighted the importance of different methods in treating and assessing hip and knee osteoarthritis. There was an inverse association between radiographic severity of osteoarthritis and pain and function in patients waiting for TKR but no association in THR. Different pain characteristics predicted long-term pain in THR and TKR. Outcomes after joint replacement should be assessed with a patient-reported outcome and a functional test. CONCLUSIONS: The RESTORE programme provides important information to guide the development of interventions to improve long-term outcomes for patients with osteoarthritis receiving THR and TKR. Issues relating to their evaluation and the assessment of patient outcomes are highlighted. Potential interventions at key times in the patient pathway were identified and deserve further study, ultimately in the context of a complex intervention.