Evaluation of a COVID-19 fundamental nursing care guideline versus usual care: The COVID-NURSE cluster randomized controlled trial

AIM

To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses.

RESULTS

We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570-572 (98.1%-98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the 'other' ethnicity subgroup.

CONCLUSION

We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required.

IMPACT

Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care.

REPORTING METHOD

CONSORT and CONSERVE.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings.

In vitro efficacy of antibiotic loaded calcium sulfate beads (Stimulan Rapid Cure) against polymicrobial communities and individual bacterial strains derived from diabetic foot infections

Introduction. Diabetic foot infection (DFI) is the main reason for diabetes-related hospitalisation and is a major cause of diabetes-related amputation. DFIs are often complicated by ischaemia in the affected limb, the presence of polymicrobial biofilms and increasingly the occurrence of antibiotic resistant bacteria.Hypothesis/Gap statement. Antibiotic loaded beads could inhibit the growth of polymicrobial DFI communities with differing compositions in vitro.Aim. This study investigates the in vitro efficacy of antibiotic loaded calcium sulfate beads (Stimulan Rapid Cure, Biocomposites Ltd., UK) against polymicrobial DFI communities and individual bacterial strains derived from DFIs.Methodology. Debrided tissue obtained from the base of infected diabetic foot ulcers was homogenised and spread over the surface of Columbia blood agar (CBA) and fastidious anaerobe agar (FAA) plates. Calcium sulfate beads containing a combination of vancomycin and gentamicin were then placed on the surface of the agar and following incubation, zones of inhibition (ZOI) were measured. For individual bacterial strains isolated from the infected tissue, calcium sulfate beads containing vancomycin, gentamicin, flucloxacillin or rifampicin and beads containing a combination of vancomycin and gentamicin or flucloxacillin and rifampicin were tested for their ability to inhibit growth.Results. Calcium sulfate beads loaded with a combination of vancomycin and gentamicin were able to inhibit bacterial growth from all polymicrobial tissue homogenates tested, with ZOI diameters ranging from 15 to 40 mm. In the case of individual bacterial strains, beads containing combinations of vancomycin and gentamicin or flucloxacillin and rifampicin were able to produce ZOI with Gram-positive facultatitive anaerobic strains such as Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecalis, Gram-negative facultative anaerobic strains such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and obligate anaerobic strains such as Finegoldia magna even where acquired resistance to one of the antibiotics in the combination was evidenced.Conclusion. The local use of calcium sulfate beads containing a combination of two antibiotics demonstrated high efficacy against polymicrobial DFI communities and individual DFI bacterial strains in in vitro zone of inhibition tests. These results show promise for clinical application, but further research and clinical studies are required.

COVID-NURSE: evaluation of a fundamental nursing care protocol compared with care as usual on experience of care for noninvasively ventilated patients in hospital with the SARS-CoV-2 virus-protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Patient experience of nursing care is correlated with safety, clinical effectiveness, care quality, treatment outcomes and service use. Effective nursing care includes actions to develop nurse-patient relationships and deliver physical and psychosocial care to patients. The high risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus compromises nursing care. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, leading to potential variations in patient experience, outcomes, quality and costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: we aim to recruit 840 in-patient participants treated for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus from 14 UK hospitals, to a cluster randomised controlled trial, with embedded process and economic evaluations, of care as usual and a fundamental nursing care protocol addressing specific areas of physical, relational and psychosocial nursing care where potential variation may occur, compared with care as usual. Our coprimary outcomes are patient-reported experience (Quality from the Patients' Perspective; Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire); secondary outcomes include care quality (pressure injuries, falls, medication errors); functional ability (Barthell Index); treatment outcomes (WHO Clinical Progression Scale); depression Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), anxiety General Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2), health utility (EQ5D) and nurse-reported outcomes (Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals). For our primary analysis, we will use a standard generalised linear mixed-effect model adjusting for ethnicity of the patient sample and research intensity at cluster level. We will also undertake a planned subgroup analysis to compare the impact of patient-level ethnicity on our primary and secondary outcomes and will undertake process and economic evaluations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Research governance and ethical approvals are from the UK National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Service. Dissemination will be open access through peer-reviewed scientific journals, study website, press and online media, including free online training materials on the Open University's FutureLearn web platform.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13177364; Pre-results.

Urinary nitrate concentration as a marker for kidney transplant rejection

BACKGROUND

Early identification and treatment of kidney transplant rejection episodes is vital to limit loss of function and prolong the life of the transplanted kidney and recipient. Current practice depends on detecting a creatinine rise. A biomarker to diagnose transplant rejection at an earlier time point than current practice, or to inform earlier decision making to biopsy, could be transformative. It has previously been shown that urinary nitrate concentration is elevated in renal transplant rejection. Nitrate is a nitric oxide (NO) oxidation product. Transplant rejection upregulates NO synthesis via inducible nitric oxide synthase leading to elevations in urinary nitrate concentration. We have recently validated a urinary nitrate concentration assay which could provide results in a clinically relevant timeframe. Our aim was to determine whether urinary nitrate concentration is a useful tool to predict renal transplant rejection in the context of contemporary clinical practice.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational study, recruiting renal transplant participants over an 18-month period. We made no alterations to the patients' clinical care including medications, immunosuppression, diet and frequency of visits. We collected urine samples from every clinical attendance. We assessed the urinary nitrate to creatinine ratio (uNCR) between patient groups: routine attendances, biopsy proven rejection, biopsy proven no rejection and other call backs. uNCR was examined over time for those with biopsy proven transplant rejection. These four groups were compared using an ANOVA test.

RESULTS

A total of 2656 samples were collected. uNCR during biopsy proven rejection, n = 15 (median 49 μmol/mmol, IQR 23-61) was not significantly different from that of routine samples, n = 164 (median 55 μmol/mmol, IQR 37-82) (p = 0.55), or biopsy proven no rejection, n = 12 (median 39 μmol/mmol, IQR 21-89) (P = 0.77). Overall uNCR was highly variable with no diagnostic threshold for kidney transplant rejection. Furthermore, within-patient uNCR was highly variable over time, and thus it was not possible to produce individualised patient thresholds to identify rejection. The total taking Tacrolimus was 204 patients, with no statistical difference between the uNCR of all those on Tacrolimus, against those not, p = 0.18.

CONCLUSION

The urinary nitrate to creatinine ratio is not a useful biomarker for renal transplant rejection.

P1612CAN THE URINARY NITRATE TO CREATININE RATIO BE USED AS A MARKER FOR KIDNEY TRANSPLANT REJECTION?

Background and Aims

Early identification and treatment of kidney transplant rejection episodes is vital to limit loss of function and prolong the life of the transplanted kidney and recipient. Current practice depends on detecting a creatinine rise. A biomarker to diagnose transplant rejection, either at an earlier time point, or to inform earlier decision making to biopsy, could be transformative. Urinary nitrate concentration is elevated in renal transplant rejection. Nitrate is a nitric oxide (NO) oxidation product. Transplant rejection upregulates NO synthesis via inducible nitric oxide synthase leading to elevations in urinary nitrate concentration. Historically, assays for measurement of inorganic nitrate in biological fluids have been too time consuming to be useful in a clinical setting. We have recently validated a urinary nitrate concentration assay which could provide results in a clinically relevant timeframe. Our aim was to determine whether urinary nitrate concentration is a useful tool to predict renal transplant rejection in the context of contemporary clinical practice.

Method

We conducted a prospective observational study, recruiting renal transplant participants over an 18 month period. We made no alterations to the patients’ clinical care including medications, immunosuppression, diet and frequency of visits. We collected urine samples from every clinical attendance including routine attendances, unscheduled attendances for acute clinical indications, and on the day of attendance for biopsy, for those who underwent biopsy. We measured the urinary nitrate to creatinine ratio (uNCR) between patient groups including routine attendances, biopsy proven rejection and biopsy proven “no rejection”. uNCR was examined over time for those with transplant rejection. Groups were compared using a 2 tail t-test of unequal variance, for statistical significance.

Results

A total of 2656 samples were collected. uNCR during biopsy proven rejection, median 49 µmol/mmol, IQR 23-61, was not significantly different from that of routine samples, median 55 µmol/mmol, IQR 37-82 (p=0.56), or biopsy proven “no rejection”, median 39 µmol/mmol, IQR 21-89, (P=0.77). Overall uNCR was highly variable; median 52 µmol/mmol, IQR 31-81, with no diagnostic threshold for kidney transplant rejection. Furthermore, within-patient uNCR was highly variable over time, and thus it was not possible to produce individualised patient thresholds to identify rejection.

Conclusion

The urinary nitrate to creatinine ratio is not a useful biomarker for renal transplant rejection.