Self-reported symptoms and motor tests via telemetry in a 36-month levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel infusion trial

Objective To investigate if a home environment test battery can be used to measure effects of Parkinson’s disease (PD) treatment intervention and disease progression. Background Seventy-seven patients diagnosed with advanced PD were recruited in an open longitudinal 36-month study at 10 clinics in Sweden and Norway; 40 of them were treated with levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) and 37 patients were candidates for switching from oral PD treatment to LCIG. They utilized a mobile device test battery, consisting of self-assessments of symptoms and objective measures of motor function through a set of fine motor tests (tapping and spiral drawings), in their homes. Both the LCIG-naïve and LCIG-non-naïve patients used the test battery four times per day during week-long test periods. Methods Assessments The LCIG-naïve patients used the test battery at baseline (before LCIG), month 0 (first visit; at least 3 months after intraduodenal LCIG), and thereafter quarterly for the first year and biannually for the second and third years. The LCIG-non-naïve patients used the test battery from the first visit, i.e. month 0. Out of the 77 patients, only 65 utilized the test battery; 35 were LCIG-non-naïve and 30 LCIG-naïve. In 20 of the LCIG-naïve patients, assessments with the test battery were available during oral treatment and at least one test period after having started infusion treatment. Three LCIG-naïve patients did not use the test battery at baseline but had at least one test period of assessments thereafter. Hence, n=23 in the LCIG-naïve group. In total, symptom assessments in the full sample (including both patient groups) were collected during 379 test periods and 10079 test occasions. For 369 of these test periods, clinical assessments including UPDRS and PDQ-39 were performed in afternoons at the start of the test periods. The repeated measurements of the test battery were processed and summarized into scores representing patients’ symptom severities over a test period, using statistical methods. Six conceptual dimensions were defined; four subjectively-reported: ‘walking’, ‘satisfied’, ‘dyskinesia’, and ‘off’ and two objectively-measured: ‘tapping’ and ‘spiral’. In addition, an ‘overall test score’ (OTS) was defined to represent the global health condition of the patient during a test period. Statistical methods Change in the test battery scores over time, that is at baseline and follow-up test periods, was assessed with linear mixed-effects models with patient ID as a random effect and test period as a fixed effect of interest. The within-patient variability of OTS was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), for the two patient groups. Correlations between clinical rating scores and test battery scores were assessed using Spearman’s rank correlations (rho). Results In LCIG-naïve patients, mean OTS compared to baseline was significantly improved from the first test period on LCIG treatment until month 24. However, there were no significant changes in mean OTS scores of LCIG-non-naïve patients, except for worse mean OTS at month 36 (p<0.01, n=16). The mean scores of all subjectively-reported dimensions improved significantly throughout the course of the study, except ‘walking’ at month 36 (p=0.41, n=4). However, there were no significant differences in mean scores of objectively-measured dimensions between baseline and other test periods, except improved ‘tapping’ at month 6 and month 36, and ‘spiral’ at month 3 (p<0.05). The LCIG-naïve patients had a higher within-subject variability in their OTS scores (ICC=0.67) compared to LCIG-non-naïve patients (ICC=0.71). The OTS correlated adequately with total UPDRS (rho=0.59) and total PDQ-39 (rho=0.59). Conclusions In this 3-year follow-up study of advanced PD patients treated with LCIG we found that it is possible to monitor PD progression over time using a home environment test battery. The significant improvements in the mean OTS scores indicate that the test battery is able to measure functional improvement with LCIG sustained over at least 24 months.

Factors associated with evidence-based practice among registered nurses in Sweden : a national cross-sectional study

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is emphasized to increase the quality of care and patient safety. EBP is often described as a process consisting of distinct activities including, formulating questions, searching for information, compiling the appraised information, implementing evidence, and evaluating the resulting practice. To increase registered nurses' (RNs') practice of EBP, variables associated with such activities need to be explored. The aim of the study was to examine individual and organizational factors associated with EBP activities among RNs 2 years post graduation. Methods: A cross-sectional design based on a national sample of RNs was used. Data were collected in 2007 from a cohort of RNs, included in the Swedish Longitudinal Analyses of Nursing Education/Employment study. The sample consisted of 1256 RNs (response rate 76%). Of these 987 RNs worked in healthcare at the time of the data collection. Data was self-reported and collected through annual postal surveys. EBP activities were measured using six single items along with instruments measuring individual and work-related variables. Data were analyzed using logistic regression models. Results: Associated factors were identified for all six EBP activities. Capability beliefs regarding EBP was a significant factor for all six activities (OR = 2.6 - 7.3). Working in the care of older people was associated with a high extent of practicing four activities (OR = 1.7 - 2.2). Supportive leadership and high collective efficacy were associated with practicing three activities (OR = 1.4 - 2.0). Conclusions: To be successful in enhancing EBP among newly graduated RNs, strategies need to incorporate both individually and organizationally directed factors.

Facilitators and barriers to applying a national quality registry for quality improvement in stroke care

BACKGROUND: National quality registries (NQRs) purportedly facilitate quality improvement, while neither the extent nor the mechanisms of such a relationship are fully known. The aim of this case study is to describe the experiences of local stakeholders to determine those elements that facilitate and hinder clinical quality improvement in relation to participation in a well-known and established NQR on stroke in Sweden. METHODS: A strategic sample was drawn of 8 hospitals in 4 county councils, representing a variety of settings and outcomes according to the NQR's criteria. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 25 managers, physicians in charge of the Riks-Stroke, and registered nurses registering local data at the hospitals. Interviews, including aspects of barriers and facilitators within the NQR and the local context, were analysed with content analysis. RESULTS: An NQR can provide vital aspects for facilitating evidence-based practice, for example, local data drawn from national guidelines which can be used for comparisons over time within the organisation or with other hospitals. Major effort is required to ensure that data entries are accurate and valid, and thus the trustworthiness of local data output competes with resources needed for everyday clinical stroke care and quality improvement initiatives. Local stakeholders with knowledge of and interest in both the medical area (in this case stroke) and quality improvement can apply the NQR data to effectively initiate, carry out, and evaluate quality improvement, if supported by managers and co-workers, a common stroke care process and an operational management system that embraces and engages with the NQR data. CONCLUSION: While quality registries are assumed to support adherence to evidence-based guidelines around the world, this study proposes that a NQR can facilitate improvement of care but neither the registry itself nor the reporting of data initiates quality improvement. Rather, the local and general evidence provided by the NQR must be considered relevant and must be applied in the local context. Further, the quality improvement process needs to be facilitated by stakeholders collaborating within and outside the context, who know how to initiate, perform, and evaluate quality improvement, and who have the resources to do so.