This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
CUTTING EDGE


Una Adderley Senior Lecturer in Research Methods Teeside University


TALKING POINT


The latest evidence


WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NURSE STAFFING AND QUALITY OF CARE


IN NURSING HOMES? The nursing home population is likely to continue to increase as more frail and ill elderly people require higher levels of care. As with any health care provider, there is concern to ensure that the quality of care in nursing homes is of a sufficiently high standard. This systematic review sought research studies which examined


the quality of care in nursing homes. The review found 83 studies with a variety of methodologies but despite the very large number of slides included in the review, no relationship between staffing levels and quality was detected. A commentary notes that although it was surprising that no association was identified, this might be due to the challenges of conducting research in this field. Nursing homes care for very diverse populations which can make meaningful


DOES REAL TIME MONITORING OF BLOOD GLUCOSE LEVELS IMPROVE GLYCAEMIC


CONTROL FOR PATIENTS WITH TYPE 1 DIABETES? Patients with type 1 diabetes who maintain tight control over their glycaemic levels have a much lower risk of developing long term complications. Achieving this usually requires intensive insulin therapy accompanied by frequent self monitoring of blood glucose (SM-BG). Real-time continuous blood glucose monitoring


‘The review found that those patients who had used RT- CMG had an overall reduction in HbA1c of 0.03%’


(RT-CGM) is an approach that uses sensors to continuously measure the glucose concentration in the interstitial fluids for between 3 to 7 days. An alarm can alert the wearer to take appropriate action to maintain their glucose levels within normal limits and thus possible achieve better glycaemic control that achieved using SM-BG. This systematic review sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which had compared the effects of using RT-CGM as


for practice Some choice picks from the research journals, with some choice comment...


comparisons difficult. The recording of staffing levels is difficult, particularly in relation to skill mix, and quality may be associated with how hard or how efficiently staff work rather than how many are on duty. Training and experience may also be a factor. Overall, it is important to remember that the absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of optimal care.


REFERENCE Spilsbury K, et al. The relationship between nurse staffing and quality of care in nursing homes: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2011;48:732–50.


COMMENTARY Castle NG. Reviewing the evidence base for nurse staffing and quality of care in nursing homes. Evidence-Based Nursing 2012;15(1)23-24.


opposed to self monitoring in patients with type 1 diabetes. Six RCTs were included in the review which had a total sample of 892 patients. The review found that those patients who had used RT-CMG had an overall reduction in HbA1c of 0.03%. The patients with the highest baseline HbA1c had the largest effect. A commentary notes that although RT-CGM has been


available for some years, until this review there has been an absence of evidence for its effectiveness. It is particularly noteworthy that the patients who benefitted most were those with poor glycaemic control. RT-CGM would appear to offer such patients considerable benefits.


REFERENCE Pickup JC, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ. Glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes during real time continuous glucose monitoring compared with self monitoring of blood glucose: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials using individual patient data. BMJ 2011;343:d3805.


COMMENTARY Fritschi C. Use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus traditional self-monitoring of blood glucose levels improves glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes. Evidence-Based Nursing 2012;15(1)7-8.


14 Nursing in Practice March/April 2012


www.nursinginpractice.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84