Outcome of case management based on the strengths model compared to standard care. A randomised controlled trial

2002 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 147-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tommy Björkman ◽  
Lars Hansson ◽  
Mikael Sandlund
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Case Management ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of specialty outpatient versus nurse-led telephonic palliative care of older adults with advanced illness

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e025692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corita R Grudzen ◽  
Deborah J Shim ◽  
Abigail M Schmucker ◽  
Jeanne Cho ◽  
Keith S Goldfeld
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Case Management ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
End Stage

IntroductionEmergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. However, the optimal modality for providing such interventions is unknown. This study aims to compare nurse-led telephonic case management to specialty outpatient palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness on: (1) quality of life in patients; (2) healthcare utilisation; (3) loneliness and symptom burden and (4) caregiver strain, caregiver quality of life and bereavement.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled trial in ED patients comparing two established models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. We will enrol 1350 patients aged 50+ years and 675 of their caregivers across nine EDs. Eligible patients: (1) have advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumour) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, end-stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/m2, or global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease stage III, IV or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease); (2) speak English; (3) are scheduled for ED discharge or observation status; (4) reside locally; (5) have a working telephone and (6) are insured. Patients will be excluded if they: (1) have dementia; (2) have received hospice care or two or more palliative care visits in the last 6 months or (3) reside in a long-term care facility. We will use patient-level block randomisation, stratified by ED site and disease. Effectiveness will be compared by measuring the impact of each intervention on the specified outcomes. The primary outcome will measure change in patient quality of life.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained at all study sites. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT03325985; Pre-results.

A randomised controlled trial of intrapleural balloon intercostal chest drains to prevent drain displacement

2021 ◽  
pp. 2101753
Author(s):  
Rachel M Mercer ◽  
Eleanor Mishra ◽  
Radhika Banka ◽  
John P Corcoran ◽  
Cyrus Daneshvar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Problem ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Chest Drain ◽  
Drain Removal ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundChest drain displacement is a common clinical problem, occurring in 9–42% of cases and results in treatment failure or additional pleural procedures conferring unnecessary risk. A novel chest drain with an integrated intrapleural balloon may reduce the risk of displacement.MethodsProspective randomised controlled trial comparing the balloon drain to standard care (12 F chest drain with no balloon) with the primary outcome of objectively-defined unintentional or accidental chest drain displacement.Results267 patients were randomised (primary outcome data available in 257, 96.2%). Displacement occurred less frequently using the balloon drain (displacement 5/128, 3.9%; standard care displacement 13/129, 10.1%) but this was not statistically significant (Odds Ratio (OR) for drain displacement 0.36, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.0, χ2 1df=2.87, p=0.09). Adjusted analysis to account for minimisation factors and use of drain sutures demonstrated balloon drains were independently associated with reduced drain fall out rate (adjusted OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.87, p=0.028). Adverse events were higher in the balloon arm than the standard care arm (balloon drain 59/131, 45.0%; standard care 18/132, 13.6%; χ2 1df=31.3, p<0.0001).ConclusionBalloon drains reduce displacement compared with standard drains independent of the use of sutures but are associated with increased adverse events specifically during drain removal. The potential benefits of the novel drain should be weighed against the risks, but may be considered in practices where sutures are not routinely used.

The Nature stroke study; NASTRU - A randomised controlled trial of nature-based post-stroke fatigue rehabilitation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna María Pálsdóttir ◽  
Kjerstin Stigmar ◽  
Bo Norrving ◽  
Patrik Grahn ◽  
Ingemar F Petersson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Perceived Value ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Fatigue is common after stroke and contributes to disability and impaired quality of life. Currently, there is insufficient evidence on the efficacy of any intervention for post-stroke fatigue. The aim of the study was to examine whether 10 weeks Nature-based rehabilitation (NRB) as add-on to standard care may improve post-stroke fatigue, perceived value of everyday occupations, function, activity and participation compared to standard care only (Clinical Trial.gov Identifier: NCT02435043, 2012/352, 05-06-2015). The study was carried out as a single blinded two-armed randomised controlled trial. Stroke survivors identified through routine 3-month follow-up visit (sub-acute) or medical records (chronic stroke > 1 year earlier) were randomised to Standard care + NBR or Standard care only. Blinded evaluations were conducted at follow-up 8 and 14 months after randomisation. The primary outcomes were post-stroke fatigue (Mental Fatigue Scale, total score) and perceived value of everyday occupations (Oval-pd) 8 months after randomisation. About a quarter of the screened patients were eligible; half accepted to participate and 101 were randomised, mean age 67 years, 60% female. The patients with sub-acute stroke were highly compliant with the intervention. Fatigue decreased to a value below the suggested cut-off for mental fatigue (<10.5) in the intervention group but not in the control group; no statistically significant differences were found though between the groups. Conclusion: NASTRU is the first randomised study on NBR for patients with post stroke fatigue. NBR was feasible and well tolerated. The study was underpowered due to difficulties in recruiting participants. No significant differences were detected between intervention and control group. A larger RCT is warranted. Keywords: clinical trial, enriched environment, everyday occupations, horticulture therapy, quality of life.

scholarly journals Group antenatal care (Pregnancy Circles) for diverse and disadvantaged women: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with integral process and economic evaluations

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Meg Wiggins ◽  
Mary Sawtell ◽  
Octavia Wiseman ◽  
Christine McCourt ◽  
Sandra Eldridge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Antenatal Care ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
The World ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Group antenatal care has been successfully implemented around the world with suggestions of improved outcomes, including for disadvantaged groups, but it has not been formally tested in the UK in the context of the NHS. To address this the REACH Pregnancy Circles intervention was developed and a randomised controlled trial (RCT), based on a pilot study, is in progress. Methods The RCT is a pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised, parallel group RCT designed to test clinical and cost-effectiveness of REACH Pregnancy Circles compared with standard care. Recruitment will be through NHS services. The sample size is 1732 (866 randomised to the intervention and 866 to standard care). The primary outcome measure is a ‘healthy baby’ composite measured at 1 month postnatal using routine maternity data. Secondary outcome measures will be assessed using participant questionnaires completed at recruitment (baseline), 35 weeks gestation (follow-up 1) and 3 months postnatal (follow-up 2). An integrated process evaluation, to include exploration of fidelity, will be conducted using mixed methods. Analyses will be on an intention to treat as allocated basis. The primary analysis will compare the number of babies born “healthy” in the control and intervention arms and provide an odds ratio. A cost-effectiveness analysis will compare the incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years and per additional ‘healthy and positive birth’ of the intervention with standard care. Qualitative data will be analysed thematically. Discussion This multi-site randomised trial in England is planned to be the largest trial of group antenatal care in the world to date; as well as the first rigorous test within the NHS of this maternity service change. It has a recruitment focus on ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse and disadvantaged participants, including non-English speakers. Trial registration Trial registration; ISRCTN, ISRCTN91977441. Registered 11 February 2019 - retrospectively registered. The current protocol is Version 4; 28/01/2020.

scholarly journals The effectiveness of peroneal nerve functional electrical simulation for the reduction of bradykinesia in Parkinson’s disease: A feasibility study for a randomised control trial

2020 ◽  
pp. 026921552097251
Author(s):  
Paul N Taylor ◽  
Trish Sampson ◽  
Ben Beare ◽  
Maggie Donavon-Hall ◽  
Peter W Thomas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Functional Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Peroneal Nerve ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Objectives: To assess the feasibility of a multi-site randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of functional electrical stimulation on bradykinesia in people with Parkinson’s disease. Design: A two-arm assessor blinded randomised controlled trial with an 18 weeks intervention period and 4 weeks post-intervention follow-up. Setting: Two UK hospitals; a therapy outpatient department in a district general hospital and a specialist neuroscience centre. Participants: A total of 64 participants with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease and slow gait <1.25 ms−1. Interventions: Functional electrical stimulation delivered to the common peroneal nerve while walking in addition to standard care compared with standard care alone. Main measures: Feasibility aims included the determination of sample size, recruitment and retention rates, acceptability of the protocol and confirmation of the primary outcome measure. The outcome measures were 10 m walking speed, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39, EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level, New Freezing of Gait questionnaire, Falls Efficacy Score International and falls diary. Participants opinion on the study design and relevance of outcome measures were evaluated using an embedded qualitative study. Results: There was a mean difference between groups of 0.14 ms−1 (CI 0.03, 0.26) at week 18 in favour of the treatment group, which was maintained at week 22, 0.10 ms−1 (CI –0.05, 0.25). There was a mean difference in UPDRS motor examination score of –3.65 (CI –4.35, 0.54) at week 18 which was lost at week 22 –0.91 (CI –2.19, 2.26). Conclusion: The study design and intervention were feasible and supportive for a definitive trial. While both the study protocol and intervention were acceptable, recommendations for modifications are made.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document