Process, structural, and outcome quality indicators to support perioperative opioid stewardship: a rapid review

Opioids are effective analgesics but can cause harm. Opioid stewardship is key to ensuring that opioids are used effectively and safely. There is no agreed set of quality indicators relating to the use of opioids perioperatively. This work is part of the Yorkshire Cancer Research Bowel Cancer Quality Improvement programme and aims to develop useful quality indicators for the improvement of care and patient outcomes at all stages of the perioperative journey.A rapid review was performed to identify original research and reviews in which quality indicators for perioperative opioid use are described. A data tool was developed to enable reliable and reproducible extraction of opioid quality indicators.A review of 628 abstracts and 118 full-text publications was undertaken. Opioid quality indicators were identified from 47 full-text publications. In total, 128 structure, process and outcome quality indicators were extracted. Duplicates were merged, with the final extraction of 24 discrete indicators. These indicators are based on five topics: patient education, clinician education, pre-operative optimization, procedure, and patient-specific prescribing and de-prescribing and opioid-related adverse drug events.The quality indicators are presented as a toolkit to contribute to practical opioid stewardship. Process indicators were most commonly identified and contribute most to quality improvement. Fewer quality indicators relating to intraoperative and immediate recovery stages of the patient journey were identified. An expert clinician panel will be convened to agree which of the quality indicators identified will be most valuable in our region for the management of patients undergoing surgery for bowel cancer.

An observational study to evaluate three pilot programmes of retesting chlamydia-positive individuals within 6 months in the South West of England

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate 3 pilot chlamydia retesting programmes in South West England which were initiated prior to the release of new National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) guidelines recommending retesting in 2014.

METHODS

Individuals testing positive between August 2012 and July 2013 in Bristol (n=346), Cornwall (n=252) and Dorset (n=180) programmes were eligible for inclusion in the retesting pilots. The primary outcomes were retest within 6 months (yes/no) and repeat diagnosis at retest (yes/no), adjusted for area, age and gender.

RESULTS

Overall 303/778 (39.0%) of participants were retested within 6 months and 31/299 (10.4%) were positive at retest. Females were more likely to retest than males and Dorset had higher retesting rates than the other areas.

CONCLUSIONS

More than a third of those eligible were retested within the time frame of the study. Chlamydia retesting programmes appear feasible within the context of current programmes to identify individuals at continued risk of infection with relatively low resource and time input.

Could a peer-led intervention increase uptake of chlamydia screening? A proof of principle pilot study

BACKGROUND

Uptake of the English National Chlamydia Screening Programme is lower than predicted necessary to result in a rapid fall in chlamydia prevalence. Peer-led approaches may increase screening uptake but their feasibility and acceptability to young people is not known.

METHODS

Focus groups and interviews with young women and men. Following interview, chlamydia postal kits were introduced to participants and their opinions on giving these out to their peers sought. Participants were asked for their views and experiences of discussing chlamydia screening and distributing kits to their friends 4-8 weeks after the focus group/interview. All kits returned to the laboratory over a 9-month period were recorded.

RESULTS

Six men (mean age 19 years) and six women (mean age 20 years) were recruited. In total 45 kits were distributed, 33 (73%) to female participants. 22 (67%) and 3 (25%) of kits given to females and males, respectively, were given to peers. Ten kits (22%; seven female, three male) all of which had been given out by females, were returned for testing. Participants generally felt positive about the idea of peer-led screening (PLS) using postal kits. However, embarrassment was a key theme, particularly among men. Generally women but not men were able to discuss PLS among their close friends. Both sexes felt PLS would be easier if kits were readily available in multiple sites, and chlamydia screening was more widely promoted.

CONCLUSION

Female PLS but not male PLS was successful in recruiting peers to participate in chlamydia screening. An evaluation of the acceptability and cost-effectiveness of PLS is now indicated.

Partner notification of chlamydia infection in primary care: randomised controlled trial and analysis of resource use

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a practice nurse led strategy to improve the notification and treatment of partners of people with chlamydia infection.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

27 general practices in the Bristol and Birmingham areas.

PARTICIPANTS

140 men and women with chlamydia (index cases) diagnosed by screening of a home collected urine sample or vulval swab specimen.

INTERVENTIONS

Partner notification at the general practice immediately after diagnosis by trained practice nurses, with telephone follow up by a health adviser; or referral to a specialist health adviser at a genitourinary medicine clinic.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was the proportion of index cases with at least one treated sexual partner. Specified secondary outcomes included the number of sexual contacts elicited during a sexual history, positive test result for chlamydia six weeks after treatment, and the cost of each strategy in 2003 sterling prices.

RESULTS

65.3% (47/72) of participants receiving practice nurse led partner notification had at least one partner treated compared with 52.9% (39/68) of those referred to a genitourinary medicine clinic (risk difference 12.4%, 95% confidence interval -1.8% to 26.5%). Of 68 participants referred to the clinic, 21 (31%) did not attend. The costs per index case were 32.55 pounds sterling for the practice nurse led strategy and 32.62 pounds sterling for the specialist referral strategy.

CONCLUSION

Practice based partner notification by trained nurses with telephone follow up by health advisers is at least as effective as referral to a specialist health adviser at a genitourinary medicine clinic, and costs the same. Trial registration Clinical trials: NCT00112255.

Multi-technique comparison of source and primary transfer soil samples: an experimental investigation

The comparison of soil samples is of long-standing and increasing interest in forensic science. Routine comparisons should involve the use of several techniques in combination. A wide range of analytical techniques can be used, choice being dependent on several factors including sample size and character, time constraints and cost limitations. In this paper results are presented for experiments carried out to test the effectiveness of four of the available analytical techniques (spectro-photometric colour determination, laser diffraction particle size analysis, stable isotope analysis and chemical element analysis) used to compare single source and primary transfer soil samples. Four soil types and five footwear types were used. All four techniques showed excellent precision and good resolving power between soil types. Only relatively small differences were obtained between source and transferred soil samples in terms of colour, stable carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios and elemental chemistry. Slight but significant differences were found in grain size, indicating that the primary transfer process is to some extent grain size selective.