Dataset Information

Development and evaluation of guidelines for prevention of retraumatisation in torture survivors during surgical care: protocol for a multistage qualitative study

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Healthcare professionals working in somatic departments are not trained to recognise signs of torture or provide appropriate healthcare to torture survivors, which may result in retraumatisation during surgical treatment.

Methods and analysis

This protocol outlines a four-stage qualitative-method strategy for the development and evaluation of guidelines for prevention of retraumatisation of torture survivors during surgical care. The systematic search for literature review in stages 1 and 2 was conducted in August 2019 and March 2021, respectively, using nine databases. The search strategies employed in stage 1, without imposing any date limits, resulted in the inclusion of eight studies that addressed inadequate healthcare strategies associated with retraumatisation. The clinical guidelines review in stage 2 will include publications from 2000 onwards, which will be appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation Version II instrument. Following multi-institutional recruitment in Norway, stage 3 will explore survivors’ experiences of receiving surgical treatment using indepth interviews (n=8–12), which will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the interpretative phenomenological analysis approach. In stage 4a, based on the findings from stages 1, 2 and 3, a set of clinical guidelines for preventing retraumatisation during surgical treatment will be developed. Next, the feasibility and acceptability of the guidelines will be assessed in stage 4b in three interdisciplinary focus group interviews (n=5 per group) and text condensation analyses.

Ethics and dissemination

The Regional (South-East C) Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics approved the study in May 2021 (#227624). In stages 3 and 4, an informational letter and an informed consent form will be distributed to the participants to sign before the interview. The study results will be disseminated through publications, conference presentations, and national and local public forums to healthcare professionals, service managers, policymakers and refugee-supporting agencies.

SUBMITTER: Schippert A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8573660 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesInsufficient training and the absence of guidelines increase the risk of retraumatisation in torture survivors during surgical procedures. This study aims to develop guidelines to mitigate this risk and gather healthcare professionals' experiences treating torture survivors and insights on the guideline's feasibility and acceptability.DesignThe study was conducted in two phases. Phase 'a' involved developing guidelines based on reviews of torture survivors' encounters in somatic care and potential retraumatisation triggers, as well as a qualitative study on survivors' experiences during surgical interventions. The development process adhered to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) principles and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument for methodological rigour. Phase 'b' involved focus groups and individual interviews with healthcare professionals to explore challenges in caring for torture survivors and to evaluate the guidelines.SettingThe study, conducted from May to August 2023, involved participants from surgical departments in three hospitals in southern and southeastern Norway.ParticipantsTwenty-one healthcare professionals, including surgeons, anaesthesiologists, nurses and a dentist, participated in the study. Both focus group interviews and individual interviews were conducted.ResultsPhase 'a': guidelines comprising six sections were developed: an introduction, general guidelines and four sections covering the preoperative, perioperative and postoperative surgical stages. Phase 'b': healthcare professionals struggled to understand torture's complexities and identify survivors' unique needs. They faced challenges using interpreters and assisting patients with strong reactions. While the guidelines were viewed as practical and useful for raising awareness, their length was questioned.ConclusionsWe provide recommendations for preventing retraumatisation in torture survivors undergoing surgical treatment. The guidelines may serve as a starting point for offering safe and individualised care to torture survivors. Teaching institutions and hospitals may incorporate the guidelines into healthcare professionals' education.

Project description:Torture survivors experience chronic, somatic pain that may be exacerbated by environmental, social, and structural factors that extend beyond immediate traumatic events and diagnoses. We conducted a systematic review of research describing the types and efficacy of treatments for chronic somatic pain in a global population of torture survivors. In this systematic review, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE (1974 to present), and PubMed. We used all appropriate controlled vocabulary and keywords for interventions and treatments for chronic somatic pain in torture survivors. The population included survivors of torture of any age and in any country. Outcomes included pain relief, pain intensity, distress level, and quality of life. Four authors participated in screening, full-text review, and quality assessment, with each title and abstract being independently reviewed by two authors. This study is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. We included six pre-post intervention studies and four pilot or modified randomized controlled trials (RCTs), for a total of ten studies included in the analysis. Different combinations of interventions targeted pain reduction in refugees, the majority of whom were torture survivors as the primary (n = 1) or secondary (n = 9) outcome. Sample sizes varied from eight to 470 participants. We identified three main types of interventions: multimodal combined, manual therapy, and specific types of talk therapy. Five studies demonstrated positive outcomes on pain and its intensity, three reported no effect, and two had mixed outcomes. Pain in torture survivors is often considered a symptom secondary to mental health illness and not targeted directly. Instead, combined interventions are mainly directed at posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. Most studies noted promising preliminary results and plans to conduct RCTs to increase the reproducibility and quality of their pilot data.

Project description:BackgroundAn estimated 87% of torture survivors experience chronic pain such as brachial plexopathy from upper extremity suspension or lumbosacral plexus injury from leg hyperextension. However, a vast majority of pain is undetected by evaluators due to a lack of diagnostic tools and confounding psychiatric illness. This diagnostic gap results in exclusive psychological treatment rather than multimodal therapies, substantially limiting rehabilitation. We hypothesized that the United Nations Istanbul Protocol (UNIP) would have a sensitivity of approximately 15% for pain detection, and that the use of a validated pain screen would improve its sensitivity by at least 29%, as compared to the reference standard (pain specialist evaluation).Methods and findingsThis prospective blind-comparison-to-gold-standard study of survivors of torture, as defined by the World Medical Association, took place at Weill Cornell Medicine between February 1, 2017, and June 21, 2019. 11 women and 9 men, for a total of 20 participants, were included in the analysis. Five participants received 2 UNIP evaluations, for a total of 25 unique evaluations included in the analysis. Participants were representative of a global population, with home countries in Africa, Central America, South Asia, the Caribbean, and the Middle East. Methods of torture experienced were homogeneous, following the predictable pattern of systematic torture. Participants first received the standard evaluation protocol for torture survivors (UNIP) by a trained evaluator, and subsequently received a validated pain screen (Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPISF]) followed by a noninvasive examination by a pain specialist physician (reference standard). The primary outcome was the diagnostic and treatment capability of the standard protocol (index test) versus the validated pain screen (BPISF), as compared to the reference standard. Trained evaluators performing the initial assessment with the UNIP (index test) were blinded to the study, and the pain specialist physician (reference standard) was blinded to the outcome of the initial UNIP evaluation and the BPISF; data from the initial UNIP assessment were not gathered by the principal investigator until all other study procedures were completed. Providers using only the UNIP captured pain in a maximum of 16% of evaluations, as compared to 85% of participants being diagnosed with pain by the reference standard. When employed, the validated pain screen had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 72%-100%) and a negative predictive value of 100%, as compared to a sensitivity of 24% (95% CI 8%-50%) and a negative predictive value of 19% (95% CI 5%-46%) for the index test. The difference in the sensitivity of the UNIP as compared to the BPISF was significant, with p < 0.001. No adverse events owing to participation in the study were reported by participants. Limitations of the study include small sample size, its single-site nature, and the exclusion of individuals who did not speak 1 of the 5 study languages.ConclusionsThese data indicate that a validated pain screen can supplement the current global standard assessment of torture survivors, the UNIP, to increase the accuracy of pain diagnosis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03018782.

Project description:BackgroundSurgical site infections (SSI) occur in up to 10% of surgeries. Wound care practices to prevent infections are guided by Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs), yet their contribution to improving patient outcomes relies on their quality and adoption in practice. We critically evaluated the quality of CPGs for SSI prevention during pre-, intra- and post-operative phases of care.MethodsWe systematically reviewed the literature from 1990-2018 using the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest databases and five guidelines repositories. We extracted characteristics of each guideline using purposely-developed data collection tools. We assessed overall quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool.ResultsCombined searches of databases and repositories yielded 5,910 citations. Of these, we reviewed 215 full text documents. The final sample included 15 documents: 6 complete CPGs, 3 CPG updates, and 6 supplementary documents. The overall %mean scores across AGREE II domains for CPGs were: 1) scope and purpose (%mean ± SD = 86.3±23.5); 2) stakeholder involvement (%mean ± SD = 64±31.0); 3) rigour of development (%mean ± SD = 68.7±30.6); 4) clarity and presentation (%mean ± SD = 88.5±16.7); 5) applicability (%mean ± SD = 44±30.2); and, 5) editorial independence (%mean ± SD = 61±37.6). Based on individual AGREE II domains and overall scores, we appraised 4 out of 6 CPGs (inclusive of updates) as "recommended" for use in practice. Overall agreement among appraisers was excellent (ICC 0.86 [95%CI 0.73-0.94] - 0.98 [95%CI 0.96-0.99]; p <0.001).DiscussionInternational interest in CPG development has resulted in refinements to methodologies, which has led to improvements in the overall quality of the product.Implications for translationGiven the domains that received the lowest scores, it is clear that we need more consumer involvement and better consideration of the implementation challenges with CPG uptake and sustainability.