This is a repository copy of Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH) : a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH) : a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. The Lancet. ISSN 0140-6736 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32521-2 eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ ReuseThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can't change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Implications of all the available evidenceDespite the success of some smaller projects, there was no survival benefit from a national quality improvement programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. To succeed, large national quality improvement programmes need to allow for differences between hospitals and ensure teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention implementing best practice guidelines recommending clinicians screen and counsel young people across multiple psychosocial risk factors, on clinicians’ detection of health risks and patients’ risk taking behaviour, compared to a didactic seminar on young people’s health.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised trial where volunteer general practices were stratified by postcode advantage or disadvantage score and billing type (private, free national health, community health centre), then randomised into either intervention or comparison arms using a computer generated random sequence. Three months post-intervention, patients were recruited from all practices post-consultation for a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview and followed up three and 12 months later. Researchers recruiting, consenting and interviewing patients and patients themselves were masked to allocation status; clinicians were not.SettingGeneral practices in metropolitan and rural Victoria, AustraliaParticipantsGeneral practices with at least one interested clinician (general practitioner or nurse) and their 14–24 year old patients.InterventionThis complex intervention was designed using evidence based practice in learning and change in clinician behaviour and general practice systems, and included best practice approaches to motivating change in adolescent risk taking behaviours. The intervention involved training clinicians (nine hours) in health risk screening, use of a screening tool and motivational interviewing; training all practice staff (receptionists and clinicians) in engaging youth; provision of feedback to clinicians of patients’ risk data; and two practice visits to support new screening and referral resources. Comparison clinicians received one didactic educational seminar (three hours) on engaging youth and health risk screening.Outcome MeasuresPrimary outcomes were patient report of (1) clinician detection of at least one of six health risk behaviours (tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use, risks for sexually transmitted infection, STI, unplanned pregnancy, and road risks); and (2) change in one or more of the six health risk behaviours, at three months or at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were likelihood of future visits, trust in the clinician after exit interview, clinician detection of emotional distress and fear and abuse in relationships, and emotional distress at three and 12 months. Patient acceptability of the screening tool was also described for the intervention arm. Analyses were adjusted for practice location and billing type, patients’ sex, age, and recruitment method, and past health risks, where appropriate. An intention to treat analysis approach was used, which included multilevel multiple imputation for missing outcome data.Results42 practices were randomly allocated to intervention or comparison arms. Two intervention practices withdrew post allocation, prior to training, leaving 19 intervention (53 clinicians, 377 patients) and 21 comparison (79 clinici...

Clinical characteristics are better predictors of HRQOL in ESRD patients than socio-demographics in Singapore. Dialysis modality has no impact on the health utility of those patients.

IntroductionThe European population is rapidly ageing. In order to handle substantial future challenges in the healthcare system, we need to shift focus from treatment towards health promotion. The PreventIT project has adapted the Lifestyle-integrated Exercise (LiFE) programme and developed an intervention for healthy young older adults at risk of accelerated functional decline. The intervention targets balance, muscle strength and physical activity, and is delivered either via a smartphone application (enhanced LiFE, eLiFE) or by use of paper manuals (adapted LiFE, aLiFE).Methods and analysisThe PreventIT study is a multicentre, three-armed feasibility randomised controlled trial, comparing eLiFE and aLiFE against a control group that receives international guidelines of physical activity. It is performed in three European cities in Norway, Germany, and The Netherlands. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and usability of the interventions, and to assess changes in daily life function as measured by the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument scale and a physical behaviour complexity metric. Participants are assessed at baseline, after the 6 months intervention period and at 1 year after randomisation. Men and women between 61 and 70 years of age are randomly drawn from regional registries and respondents screened for risk of functional decline to recruit and randomise 180 participants (60 participants per study arm).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was received at all three trial sites. Baseline results are intended to be published by late 2018, with final study findings expected in early 2019. Subgroup and further in-depth analyses will subsequently be published.Trial registration numberNCT03065088; Pre-results.