Description: Introduction The transfer of patient care between the intensive care unit (ICU) and the hospital ward is associated with increased risk of medical error and adverse events. This study will describe patient transfer from ICU to hospital ward by documenting (1) patient, family and provider experiences related to ICU transfer, (2) communication between stakeholders involved in ICU transfer, (3) adverse events that follow ICU transfer and (4) opportunities to improve ICU to hospital ward transfer. Methods This is a mixed methods prospective observational study of ICU to hospital ward transfer practices in 10 ICUs across Canada. We will recruit 50 patients at each site (n=500) who are transferred from ICU to hospital ward, and distribute surveys to enrolled patients, family members, and healthcare providers (ICU and ward physicians and nurses) after patient transfer. A random sample of 6 consenting study participants (patients, family members, healthcare providers) from each study site (n=60) will be offered an opportunity to participate in interviews to further describe stakeholders’ experience with ICU to hospital ward transfer. We will abstract information from patient health records to identify clinical data and use of transfer tools, and identify adverse events that are related to the transfer. Ethics and Dissemination Research ethics board approval has been obtained at the coordinating study centre (UofC REB13-0021) and 5 study sites (UofA Pro00050646; UBC-PHC H14-01667; Sunnybrook 336-2014; QCH 14-07; Sherbrooke 14-172). Dissemination of the findings will provide a comprehensive description of transfer from ICU to hospital ward in Canada including the uptake of validated or local transfer tools, a conceptual framework of the experiences and needs of stakeholders in the ICU transfer process, a summary of adverse events experienced by patients after transfer from ICU to hospital ward, and opportunities to guide quality improvement efforts.

Description: Objective To evaluate the process of implementation of the modified London Stroke Carers Training Course (LSCTC) in the Training Caregivers After Stroke (TRACS) cluster randomised trial and contribute to the interpretation of the TRACS trial results. The LSCTC was a structured competency-based training programme designed to help develop the knowledge and skills (eg, patient handling or transfer skills) essential for the day-to-day management of disabled survivors of stroke. The LSCTC comprised 14 components, 6 were mandatory (and delivered to all) and 8 non-mandatory, to be delivered based on individual assessment of caregiver need. Design Process evaluation using non-participant observation, documentary analysis and semistructured interviews. Participants Patients with stroke (n=38), caregivers (n=38), stroke unit staff (n=53). Settings 10 of the 36 stroke units participating in the TRACS trial in four English regions (Yorkshire, North West, South East and South West, Peninsula). Results Preparatory cascade training on delivery of the LSCTC did not reach all staff and did not lead to multidisciplinary team (MDT) wide understanding of, engagement with or commitment to the LSCTC. Although senior therapists in most intervention units observed developed ownership of the LSCTC, MDT working led to separation rather than integration of delivery of LSCTC elements. Organisational features of stroke units and professionals’ patient-focused practices limited the involvement of caregivers. Caregivers were often invited to observe therapy or care being provided by professionals but had few opportunities to make sense of, or to develop knowledge and stroke-specific skills provided by the LSCTC. Where provided, caregiver training came very late in the inpatient stay. Assessment and development of caregiver competence was not commonly observed. Conclusions Contextual factors including service improvement pressures and staff perceptions of the necessity for and work required in caregiver training impacted negatively on implementation of the caregiver training intervention. Structured caregiver training programmes such as the LSCTC are unlikely to be practical in settings with short inpatient stays. Stroke units where early supported discharge is in place potentially offer a more effective vehicle for introducing competency based caregiver training. LINKED TRACS Cluster randomised controlled trial number ISRCTN49208824.

Description: Introduction The NHS Cervical Screening Programme is now using human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as the primary test in six sentinel sites in England, with the intention of rolling this out across the whole of England. Previous research evaluating HPV testing in the cervical screening context suggests that an HPV-positive result may increase anxiety beyond that associated with abnormal cytology, but this has not been explored in the context of primary HPV testing. The main aim of this study is to explore the impact of the HPV primary screening programme on anxiety and distress. Methods and analysis A cross-sectional between-groups design (total N ~ 673) will be employed to assess the psychological impact of different HPV and cytology results at three time points: shortly after receiving the results, and 6 and 12 months later. Women will fall into one of six groups based on their screening results. The primary outcomes will be anxiety and general distress. Secondary outcomes will include understanding of screening results, perceived risk of cervical cancer, psychosexual functioning, intention to attend future screening and knowledge of HPV. General linear modelling will be used to test for differences between groups and changes over the three time points. Ethics and dissemination Health Research Authority approval was received on 26 September 2016. Ethical approval was received from London- Surrey Borders NHS Research Ethics Committee on 30 August 2016. Section 251 approval was received from the Confidentiality Advisory Group on 24 August 2016. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and presentation at national and international conferences.