Green Templeton College

About: Green Templeton College is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 229 authors who have published 514 publications receiving 14352 citations.

What are the core elements of patient‐centred care? A narrative review and synthesis of the literature from health policy, medicine and nursing

Abstract: Aim. To identify the common, core elements of patient-centred care in the health policy, medical and nursing literature. Background. Healthcare reform is being driven by the rhetoric around patient-centred care yet no common definition exists and few integrated reviews undertaken. Design. Narrative review and synthesis. Data sources. Key seminal texts and papers from patient organizations, policy documents, and medical and nursing studies which looked at patient-centred care in the acute care setting. Search sources included Medline, CINHAL, SCOPUS, and primary policy documents and texts covering the period from 1990–March 2010. Review methods. A narrative review and synthesis was undertaken including empirical, descriptive, and discursive papers. Initially, generic search terms were used to capture relevant literature; the selection process was narrowed to seminal texts (Stage 1 of the review) and papers from three key areas (in Stage 2). Results. In total, 60 papers were included in the review and synthesis. Seven were from health policy, 22 from medicine, and 31 from nursing literature. Few common definitions were found across the literature. Three core themes, however, were identified: patient participation and involvement, the relationship between the patient and the healthcare professional, and the context where care is delivered. Conclusion. Three core themes describing patient-centred care have emerged from the health policy, medical, and nursing literature. This may indicate a common conceptual source. Different professional groups tend to focus on or emphasize different elements within the themes. This may affect the success of implementing patient-centred care in practice.

Maternal and Neonatal Morbidity and Mortality Among Pregnant Women With and Without COVID-19 Infection: The INTERCOVID Multinational Cohort Study.

Abstract: Importance Detailed information about the association of COVID-19 with outcomes in pregnant individuals compared with not-infected pregnant individuals is much needed. Objective To evaluate the risks associated with COVID-19 in pregnancy on maternal and neonatal outcomes compared with not-infected, concomitant pregnant individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cohort study that took place from March to October 2020, involving 43 institutions in 18 countries, 2 unmatched, consecutive, not-infected women were concomitantly enrolled immediately after each infected woman was identified, at any stage of pregnancy or delivery, and at the same level of care to minimize bias. Women and neonates were followed up until hospital discharge. Exposures COVID-19 in pregnancy determined by laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 and/or radiological pulmonary findings or 2 or more predefined COVID-19 symptoms. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measures were indices of (maternal and severe neonatal/perinatal) morbidity and mortality; the individual components of these indices were secondary outcomes. Models for these outcomes were adjusted for country, month entering study, maternal age, and history of morbidity. Results A total of 706 pregnant women with COVID-19 diagnosis and 1424 pregnant women without COVID-19 diagnosis were enrolled, all with broadly similar demographic characteristics (mean [SD] age, 30.2 [6.1] years). Overweight early in pregnancy occurred in 323 women (48.6%) with COVID-19 diagnosis and 554 women (40.2%) without. Women with COVID-19 diagnosis were at higher risk for preeclampsia/eclampsia (relative risk [RR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.27-2.43), severe infections (RR, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.63-7.01), intensive care unit admission (RR, 5.04; 95% CI, 3.13-8.10), maternal mortality (RR, 22.3; 95% CI, 2.88-172), preterm birth (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.30-1.94), medically indicated preterm birth (RR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.56-2.51), severe neonatal morbidity index (RR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.69-4.18), and severe perinatal morbidity and mortality index (RR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.66-2.75). Fever and shortness of breath for any duration was associated with increased risk of severe maternal complications (RR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.92-3.40) and neonatal complications (RR, 4.97; 95% CI, 2.11-11.69). Asymptomatic women with COVID-19 diagnosis remained at higher risk only for maternal morbidity (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00-1.54) and preeclampsia (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.01-2.63). Among women who tested positive (98.1% by real-time polymerase chain reaction), 54 (13%) of their neonates tested positive. Cesarean delivery (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.18-3.91) but not breastfeeding (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.66-1.85) was associated with increased risk for neonatal test positivity. Conclusions and Relevance In this multinational cohort study, COVID-19 in pregnancy was associated with consistent and substantial increases in severe maternal morbidity and mortality and neonatal complications when pregnant women with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were compared. The findings should alert pregnant individuals and clinicians to implement strictly all the recommended COVID-19 preventive measures.

PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice

Abstract: The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services, or PARIHS framework, was first published in 1998. Since this time, work has been ongoing to further develop, refine and test it. Widely used as an organising or conceptual framework to help both explain and predict why the implementation of evidence into practice is or is not successful, PARIHS was one of the first frameworks to make explicit the multi-dimensional and complex nature of implementation as well as highlighting the central importance of context. Several critiques of the framework have also pointed out its limitations and suggested areas for improvement. Building on the published critiques and a number of empirical studies, this paper introduces a revised version of the framework, called the integrated or i-PARIHS framework. The theoretical antecedents of the framework are described as well as outlining the revised and new elements, notably, the revision of how evidence is described; how the individual and teams are incorporated; and how context is further delineated. We describe how the framework can be operationalised and draw on case study data to demonstrate the preliminary testing of the face and content validity of the revised framework. This paper is presented for deliberation and discussion within the implementation science community. Responding to a series of critiques and helpful feedback on the utility of the original PARIHS framework, we seek feedback on the proposed improvements to the framework. We believe that the i-PARIHS framework creates a more integrated approach to understand the theoretical complexity from which implementation science draws its propositions and working hypotheses; that the new framework is more coherent and comprehensive and at the same time maintains it intuitive appeal; and that the models of facilitation described enable its more effective operationalisation.