Dataset Information

Nurse-Led Randomized Controlled Trials in the Perioperative Setting: A Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:Nurses provide care at each phase of the complex, perioperative pathway and are well placed to identify areas of care requiring investigation in randomized controlled trials. Yet, currently, the scope of nurse-led randomized controlled trials conducted within the perioperative setting are unknown. This scoping review aims to identify areas of perioperative care in which nurse-led randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to identify issues impacting upon the quality of these trials and identify gaps for future investigation. Methods:This scoping review was conducted in reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with a date range of 2014-19. Sources of unpublished literature included Open Grey, and ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, Clinical Trials.gov and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. After title and abstract checking, full-text retrieval and data extraction, studies were appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists for randomized controlled trials. Data were synthesized according to the main objectives. Key information was tabulated. Results:From the 86 included studies, key areas where nurses have led randomized controlled trials include patient or caregiver anxiety; postoperative pain relief; surgical site infection prevention: patient and caregiver knowledge; perioperative hypothermia prevention; postoperative nausea and vomiting; in addition to other diverse outcomes. Issues impacting upon quality (including poorly reported randomization), and gaps for future investigation (including a focus on vulnerable populations), are evident. Conclusion:Nurse-led randomized controlled trials in the perioperative setting have focused on key areas of perioperative care. Yet, opportunities exist for nurses to lead experimental research in other perioperative priority areas and within different populations that have been neglected, such as in the population of older adults undergoing surgery.

SUBMITTER: Munday J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7419608 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nurse-Led Randomized Controlled Trials in the Perioperative Setting: A Scoping Review.

Munday Judy J Higgins Niall N Mathew Saira S Dalgleish Lizanne L Batterbury Anthony S AS Burgess Luke L Campbell Jill J Delaney Lori J LJ Griffin Bronwyn R BR Hughes James A JA Ingleman Jessica J Keogh Samantha S Coyer Fiona F

Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare 20200721

<h4>Purpose</h4>Nurses provide care at each phase of the complex, perioperative pathway and are well placed to identify areas of care requiring investigation in randomized controlled trials. Yet, currently, the scope of nurse-led randomized controlled trials conducted within the perioperative setting are unknown. This scoping review aims to identify areas of perioperative care in which nurse-led randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to identify issues impacting upon the quality of th ...[more]

PMID: 32821111

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEvidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is required to guide treatment of critically ill children, but the number of RCTs available is limited and the publications are often difficult to find. The objectives of this review were to systematically identify RCTs in pediatric critical care and describe their methods and reporting.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and CENTRAL (from inception to April 16, 2013) and reference lists of included RCTs and relevant systematic reviews. We included published RCTs administering any intervention to children in a pediatric ICU. We excluded trials conducted in neonatal ICUs, those enrolling exclusively preterm infants, and individual patient crossover trials. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and abstracted data. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.ResultsWe included 248 RCTs: 45 (18%) were multicentered and 14 (6%) were multinational. Trials most frequently enrolled both medical and surgical patients (43%) but postoperative cardiac surgery was the single largest population studied (19%). The most frequently evaluated types of intervention were medications (63%), devices (11%) and nutrition (8%). Laboratory or physiological measurements were the most frequent type of primary outcomes (18%). Half of these trials (50%) reported blinding. Of the 107 (43%) trials that reported an a priori sample size, 34 (32%) were stopped early. The median number of children randomized per trial was 49 and ranged from 6 to 4,947. The frequency of RCT publications increased at a mean rate of 0.7 RCTs per year (P<0.001) from 1 to 20 trials per year.ConclusionsThis scoping review identified the available RCTs in pediatric critical care and made them accessible to clinicians and researchers (http://epicc.mcmaster.ca). Most focused on medications and intermediate or surrogate outcomes, were single-centered and were conducted in North America and Western Europe. The results of this review underscore the need for trials with rigorous methodology, appropriate outcome measures, and improved quality of reporting to ensure that high quality evidence exists to support clinical decision-making in this vulnerable population.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for central venous access devices, however, high complication rates remain. Scoping reviews map the available evidence and demonstrate evidence deficiencies to focus ongoing research priorities.MethodA scoping review (January 2006-December 2015) of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve central venous access device outcomes; including peripherally inserted central catheters, non-tunneled, tunneled and totally implanted venous access catheters. MeSH terms were used to undertake a systematic search with data extracted by two independent researchers, using a standardized data extraction form.ResultsIn total, 178 trials were included (78 non-tunneled [44%]; 40 peripherally inserted central catheters [22%]; 20 totally implanted [11%]; 12 tunneled [6%]; 6 non-specified [3%]; and 22 combined device trials [12%]). There were 119 trials (68%) involving adult participants only, with 18 (9%) pediatric and 20 (11%) neonatal trials. Insertion-related themes existed in 38% of trials (67 RCTs), 35 RCTs (20%) related to post-insertion patency, with fewer trials on infection prevention (15 RCTs, 8%), education (14RCTs, 8%), and dressing and securement (12 RCTs, 7%). There were 46 different study outcomes reported, with the most common being infection outcomes (161 outcomes; 37%), with divergent definitions used for catheter-related bloodstream and other infections.ConclusionMore high quality randomized trials across central venous access device management are necessary, especially in dressing and securement and patency. These can be encouraged by having more studies with multidisciplinary team involvement and consumer engagement. Additionally, there were extensive gaps within population sub-groups, particularly in tunneled devices, and in pediatrics and neonates. Finally, outcome definitions need to be unified for results to be meaningful and comparable across studies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The implementation of evidence-based interventions for people with dementia is complex and challenging. However, successful implementation might be a key element to ensure evidence-based practice and high quality of care. There is a need to improve implementation processes in dementia care by better understanding the arising challenges. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify recent knowledge concerning barriers and facilitators to implementing nurse-led interventions in dementia care. METHODS:We performed a scoping review using the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Studies explicitly reporting on the implementation process and factors influencing the implementation of a nurse-led intervention in dementia care in all settings were included. We searched eight databases from January 2015 until January 2019. Two authors independently selected the studies. For data analysis, we used an inductive approach to build domains and categories. RESULTS:We included 26 studies in the review and identified barriers as well as facilitators in five domains: policy (e.g. financing issues, health insurance), organisation (e.g. organisational culture and vision, resources, management support), intervention/implementation (e.g. complexity of the intervention, perceived value of the intervention), staff (e.g. knowledge, experience and skills, attitude towards the intervention), and person with dementia/family (e.g. nature and stage of dementia, response of persons with dementia and their families). CONCLUSIONS:Besides general influencing factors for implementing nursing interventions, we identified dementia-specific factors reaching beyond already known barriers and facilitators. A pre-existing person-centred culture of care as well as consistent team cultures and attitudes have a facilitating effect on implementation processes. Furthermore, there is a need for interventions that are highly flexible and sensitive to patients' condition, needs and behaviour.

Project description:BackgroundHeart failure (HF) imposes a substantial burden on patients and healthcare systems. Hospital-to-home transitional care, involving time-limited interventions delivered predominantly by nurses, was introduced to lighten this burden. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness and dose-response of nurse-led transitional care interventions (TCIs) on healthcare utilization among patients with HF.MethodsHealth-related databases were systematically searched for articles published from January 2000 to June 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared nurse-led TCIs with usual care for adults hospitalized with HF and reported the following healthcare utilization outcomes: all-cause readmissions, HF-specific readmissions, emergency department visits, or length of hospital stay. Random-effects meta-analysis, meta-regression analysis, and dose-response analysis were performed to estimate the treatment effects and explain the heterogeneity.ResultsTwenty-five RCTs including 8422 patients with HF were included. Nurse-led TCIs for patients with HF resulted in a mean 9% (RR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 46%) and 29% (RR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.84; p < 0.0001; I2 = 0%) reduction in all-cause and HF-specific readmission risks respectively compared to usual care. The interventions were also effective in shortening the length of hospital stay (MD = -2.37; 95% CI = -3.16 to -1.58; p < 0.0001; I2 = 14%). However, no significant reduction was found for emergency department visits (RR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.10; p = 0.58; I2 = 0%). The effect of meta-regression coefficients on all-cause and HF-specific readmissions was not statistically significant for any prespecified trial-level characteristic. Dose-response analysis revealed that the HF-specific readmission risk decreased in a dose-dependent manner with the complexity and intensity of nurse-led TCIs.ConclusionsNurse-led TCIs were effective in decreasing all-cause and HF-specific readmission risks, as well as in reducing the length of hospital stay; however, the interventions were not effective in reducing the frequency of emergency department visits.

Dataset Information

Nurse-Led Randomized Controlled Trials in the Perioperative Setting: A Scoping Review.

Publications

Nurse-Led Randomized Controlled Trials in the Perioperative Setting: A Scoping Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets