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

Author:

Richards David A.12ORCID,Bollen Jess1,Jones Ben1,Melendez‐Torres G. J.1,Hulme Claire1,Cockcroft Emma1,Cook Heather1,Cooper Joanne3,Creanor Siobhan1,Cruickshank Susanne4,Dawe Phoebe1,Doris Faye1,Iles‐Smith Heather5,Kent Merryn1,Logan Pip6,O'Connell Abby1,Onysk Jakub1,Owens Rosie1,Quinn Lynne1,Rafferty Anne Marie7,Romanczuk Lidia8,Russell Anne Marie1ORCID,Shepherd Maggie1,Singh Sally J.910,Sugg Holly V. R.1,Coon Jo Thompson111,Tooze Susannah1,Warren Fiona C.1,Whale Bethany1,Wootton Stephen12

Affiliation:

1. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences University of Exeter Exeter UK

2. Department of Health and Caring Sciences Western Norway University of Applied Sciences Bergen Norway

3. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust Nottingham UK

4. Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust London UK

5. School of Health and Society University of Salford Salford UK

6. Community Health Sciences University of Nottingham Nottingham UK

7. Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery Kings College University London London UK

8. Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation Trust Exeter UK

9. Department of Respiratory Science University of Leicester Leicester UK

10. University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Biomedical Research Centre – Respiratory, Glenfield Hospital Leicester UK

11. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South West Peninsula (PenARC) Exeter UK

12. Institute of Human Nutrition University of Southampton Southampton UK

Abstract

AbstractAimTo 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.DesignParallel two‐arm, cluster‐level randomized controlled trial.MethodsBetween 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionWe 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 CareWe cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required.ImpactFundamental 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 MethodCONSORT and CONSERVE.Patient or Public ContributionPatients with experience of hospitalization with COVID‐19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings.

Funder

Medical Research Council

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

General Nursing

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3