Purpose of Review This article highlights foundational evidence, translation studies, and current research behind type 2 diabetes prevention efforts worldwide, with focus on high-risk populations, and whole-population approaches as catalysts to global prevention. Recent Findings Continued focus on the goals of foundational lifestyle change program trials and their global translations, and the targeting of those at highest risk through both in-person and virtual modes of program delivery, is critical. Whole-population approaches (e.g., socioeconomic policies, healthy food promotion, environmental/systems changes) and awareness raising are essential complements to efforts aimed at high-risk populations. Summary Successful type 2 diabetes prevention strategies are being realized in the USA through the National Diabetes Prevention Program and elsewhere in the world. A multi-tiered approach involving appropriate risk targeting and whole-population efforts is essential to curb the global diabetes epidemic. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11892-019-1200-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Early warning systems (EWSs) are used to assist clinical judgment in the detection of acute deterioration to avoid or reduce adverse events including unanticipated cardiopulmonary arrest, admission to the intensive care unit and death. Sometimes healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not trigger the alarm and escalate for help according to the EWS protocol and it is unclear why this is the case. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to answer the question ‘why do HCPs fail to escalate care according to EWS protocols?’ The findings will inform the update of the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee (NCEC) National Clinical Guideline No. 1 Irish National Early Warning System (INEWS). Methods A systematic search of the published and grey literature was conducted (until February 2018). Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently using standardised data extraction forms and quality appraisal tools. A thematic synthesis was conducted by two reviewers of the qualitative studies included and categorised into the barriers and facilitators of escalation. GRADE CERQual was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Results Eighteen studies incorporating a variety of HCPs across seven countries were included. The barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care according to EWS protocols were developed into five overarching themes: Governance, Rapid Response Team (RRT) Response, Professional Boundaries, Clinical Experience, and EWS parameters. Barriers to escalation included: Lack of Standardisation, Resources, Lack of accountability, RRT behaviours, Fear, Hierarchy, Increased Conflict, Over confidence, Lack of confidence, and Patient variability. Facilitators included: Accountability, Standardisation, Resources, RRT behaviours, Expertise, Additional support, License to escalate, Bridge across boundaries, Clinical confidence, empowerment, Clinical judgment, and a tool for detecting deterioration. These are all individual yet inter-related barriers and facilitators to escalation. Conclusions The findings of this qualitative evidence synthesis provide insight into the real world experience of HCPs when using EWSs. This in turn has the potential to inform policy-makers and HCPs as well as hospital management about emergency response system-related issues in practice and the changes needed to address barriers and facilitators and improve patient safety and quality of care.

Background: Early warning systems (EWSs) are used to assist clinical judgment in the detection of acute deterioration to avoid or reduce adverse events including unanticipated cardiopulmonary arrest, admission to the intensive care unit and death. Sometimes healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not trigger the alarm and escalate for help according to the EWS protocol and it is unclear why this is the case. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to answer the question ‘why do HCPs fail to escalate care according to EWS protocols?’ The findings will inform the update of the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee (NCEC) National Clinical Guideline No. 1 Irish National Early Warning System (INEWS). Methods: A systematic search of the published and grey literature was conducted (until February 2018). Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently using standardised data extraction forms and quality appraisal tools. A thematic synthesis was conducted by two reviewers of the qualitative studies included and categorized into the barriers and facilitators of escalation. GRADE CERQual was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.Results: Eighteen studies incorporating a variety of HCPs across seven countries were included. The barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care according to EWS protocols were developed into five overarching themes: Governance, Rapid Response Team (RRT) Response, Professional Boundaries, Clinical Experience, and EWS parameters. Barriers to escalation included: Lack of Standardisation, Resources, Lack of accountability, RRT behaviours, Fear, Hierarchy, Increased Conflict, Over confidence, Lack of confidence, and Patient variability. Facilitators included: Accountability, Standardisation, Resources, RRT behaviours, Expertise, Additional support, License to escalate, Bridge across boundaries, Clinical confidence, Empowerement, Clinical judgment, and a tool for detecting deterioration. These are all individual yet inter-related barriers and facilitators to escalation. Conclusions: The findings of this qualitative evidence synthesis provide insight into the real world experience of HCPs when using EWSs. This in turn has the potential to inform policy-makers and HCPs as well as hospital management about emergency response system-related issues in practice and the changes needed to address barriers and facilitators and improve patient safety and quality of care.

Background Despite representing the largest occupational group within the healthcare workforce, evidence suggests that due to the complexity of nursing practice, nurses’ contribution remains ‘invisible’. Quality Care Metrics aligned to standards can offer valuable numerical information that quantify input, output and dimensions of nursing care processes in complex clinical and interprofessional milieus. Aims and objectives Progress an evidence-based metric system to measure the quality and clinical safety of nursing care within acute care in Ireland. The objectives were to: classify quality care process nursing metrics and corresponding indicators pertinent to acute care; reach agreement on a selected set of robust metrics and corresponding indicators; and implement the findings of the study. Design A modified four-round Delphi study. Methods The modified Delphi study integrated a four-round survey of 422 nurses, face-to-face meetings with a patient representative and key stakeholders within acute services with a final consensus meeting inclusive of a panel of 26 expert nurse clinicians. Results There was consensus on 11 quality care process nursing metrics and 53 corresponding indicators for the acute care setting. Despite the rating of ‘critical’ in the Delphi rounds, a concern was reported by participants on the subjective nature of three of the developed metrics: ‘patient experience’, ‘patient engagement’ and ‘professional and ethical approach to care’ based on the absence of objective measurement tools that include patient input. Conversely, this led to the conundrum for the panel of experts at the final consensus meeting who were divided in their views on objectively observing, recording and subsequent auditing of those three developed metrics in real-time clinical practice. Conclusion This paper describes the operationalisation of a modified Delphi technique that progressed a set of 11 quality care process metrics and 53 corresponding indicators. The challenge now is the implementation of these quality care process metrics so that nurses’ contribution to patient-centred care is tangible in acute care.

Context: Acute medicine nursing is an emerging discipline within unscheduled care. To September 2016 73,175 patients registered in Ireland's acute medicine units, of which 26,830 (36.7%) were admitted to acute medical short stay or specialist wards, or discharged on the same day (n=46,345 / 63.3%). Nursing staff in these units (560) An education needs assessment to determine baseline knowledge, skills and competencies of nurses in these units a national survey was undertaken.All 32 hospitals were surveyed. A similar assessment was conducted amongst ED nursesThe survey instrument was designed based on a Developmental Framework for Nursing Skills and Competencies in AMAUs, MAUs and MSSUs which was co-designed with the Acute Medicine Nurse Interest Group (AMNIG) and which identified the skills and competencies required of acute medicine nurses at core, specialist, enhanced/advanced levels. Outcome/Results: A 100% response rate was achieved. Hospitals were asked to provide information on numbers of nurses trained in a skill; those currently using the skill; and nurses requiring training in the skill. Demographics were captured in Section 1. Responses to, clinical skills and competencies needs (Section 2), were analysed using six broad categories. Results will be presented.