BackgroundPatients with advanced chronic kidney disease requiring initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) are frequently asked to enact complex management plans. Treatment burden has been defined as the effect of healthcare workload and the capacity a person has to manage this workload has on wellbeing. The aim of this review is to examine the experience of healthcare workload and the factors that affect capacity to meet that workload for people transitioning onto KRT for the first time, using a framework synthesis of published literature informed by normalisation process theory (NPT) and theory of patient capacity (TPC).MethodsMedline, Scopus and CINAHL were systematically searched with manual citation and reference searching. Studies were included if meeting the criteria of adults aged 18 or over transitioning for the first time onto any modality of KRT (haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or kidney transplantation), using qualitative methodologies to describe any aspect of experiences of healthcare workload or any factors that affect capacity to manage workload were included. Abstracts and full papers were independently screened by two reviewers and data extraction and quality appraisal were also independently conducted by two reviewers. Qualitative data were analysed using framework synthesis informed by NPT and TPC.ResultsA total of 24,380 studies were screened, 406 full texts were reviewed and 18 studies were included. There were four broad categories of workload described: making sense of KRT, working out what to do and how to do it, meeting the challenges of KRT, and reflecting on work done. Patient capacity influenced the experience of all types of workload and the treatment burden generated by the work.ConclusionsTransitioning onto KRT is a period of very high healthcare workload and potentially high treatment burden. The relationship between healthcare workload and capacity to handle workload is complex, multifactorial and changes over time. By better understanding workload, capacity and burden during transition, we can develop better ways of measuring these important aspects of care and develop interventions to reduce treatment burden in those transitioning onto KRT.

Abstract Background Care homes are increasingly important settings for intervention research to enhance evidence-informed care. For such research to demonstrate effectiveness, it is essential that measures are appropriate for the population, setting and practice contexts. Objective To identify care home intervention studies and describe the resident outcome measures used. Design Scoping review. Methods We reviewed international care home research published from 2015 to August 2022. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ASSIA. We included any intervention study conducted in a care home, reporting resident outcomes. We extracted resident outcome measures, organised these using the domains of an adapted framework and described their use. Results From 7,330 records screened, we included 396 datasets reported in 436 publications. These included 12,167 care homes and 836,842 residents, with an average of 80 residents per study. The studies evaluated 859 unique resident outcomes 2,030 times using 732 outcome measures. Outcomes were evaluated between 1 and 112 times, with 75.1% of outcomes evaluated only once. Outcome measures were used 1–120 times, with 68.4% of measures used only once. Only 14 measures were used ≥20 times. Functional status, mood & behaviour and medications were the commonest outcome domains assessed. More than half of outcomes were assessed using scales, with a fifth using existing records or administrative data. Conclusions There is significant heterogeneity in the choice and assessment of outcomes for intervention research in care homes. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on useful and sensitive tools for care homes, working with residents, families and friends and staff.

BACKGROUND:This updated systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the putative role of the appendix in ulcerative colitis as a therapeutic target.METHODS:Ovid Medline, Embase, PubMed and CENTRAL were searched with MeSH terms ("appendectomy" OR "appendicitis" OR "appendix") AND ("colitis, ulcerative") through October 2020, producing 1469 references. Thirty studies, including 118 733 patients, were included for qualitative synthesis and 11 for quantitative synthesis. Subgroup analysis was performed on timing of appendicectomy. Results are expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).RESULTS:Appendicectomy before UC diagnosis reduces the risk of future colectomy (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.89; I2 = 5%; P = .0009). Corresponding increased risk of colorectal cancer and high-grade dysplasia are identified (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.11-4.66; P = .02). Significance is lost when appendicectomy is performed after disease onset. Appendicectomy does not affect hospital admission rates (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68-1.12; I2 = 93%; P = .27), steroid use (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.78-1.49; I2 = 36%; P = .64), immunomodulator use (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.76-1.42; I2 = 19%; P = .79), or biological therapy use (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.30; I2 = 0%; P = .32). Disease extent and risk of proximal progression are unaffected by appendicectomy. The majority (71% to 100%) of patients with refractory UC avoid colectomy following therapeutic appendicectomy at 3-year follow-up.CONCLUSIONS:Prior appendicectomy reduces risk of future colectomy. A reciprocal increased risk of CRC/HGD may be due to prolonged exposure to subclinical colonic inflammation. The results warrant further research, as consideration may be put toward incorporating a history of appendicectomy into IBD surveillance guidelines. A potential role for therapeutic appendicectomy in refractory left-sided UC is also identified.