AimsTo systematically review the evidence of socioeconomic inequalities for adults with type 1 diabetes in relation to mortality, morbidity and diabetes management.MethodsWe carried out a systematic search across six relevant databases and included all studies reporting associations between socioeconomic indicators and mortality, morbidity, or diabetes management for adults with type 1 diabetes. Data extraction and quality assessment was undertaken for all included studies. A narrative synthesis was conducted.ResultsA total of 33 studies were identified. Twelve cohort, 19 cross sectional and 2 case control studies met the inclusion criteria. Regardless of healthcare system, low socioeconomic status was associated with poorer outcomes. Following adjustments for other risk factors, socioeconomic status was a statistically significant independent predictor of mortality in 9/10 studies and morbidity in 8/10 studies for adults with type 1 diabetes. There appeared to be an association between low socioeconomic status and some aspects of diabetes management. Although only 3 of 16 studies made adjustments for confounders and other risk factors, poor diabetes management was associated with lower socioeconomic status in 3/3 of these studies.ConclusionsLow socioeconomic status is associated with higher levels of mortality and morbidity for adults with type 1 diabetes even amongst those with access to a universal healthcare system. The association between low socioeconomic status and diabetes management requires further research given the paucity of evidence and the potential for diabetes management to mitigate the adverse effects of low socioeconomic status.

Immigrants are selected for good health. This has offset the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage on the mortality of minority ethnic groups. As the immigrant population ages and the UK-born minority ethnic population grows, ethnic differentials in all-cause mortality are likely to change.

No abstract

There is no agreed minimum standard with regard to what is considered safe, competent nursing care. Limited resources and organizational constraints make it challenging to develop a minimum standard. As part of their everyday practice, nurses have to ration nursing care and prioritize what care to postpone, leave out, and/or omit. In developed countries where public healthcare is tax-funded, a minimum level of healthcare is a patient right; however, what this entails in a given patient’s actual situation is unclear. Thus, both patients and nurses would benefit from the development of a minimum standard of nursing care. Clarity on this matter is also of ethical and legal concern. In this article, we explore the case for developing a minimum standard to ensure safe and competent nursing care services. Any such standard must encompass knowledge of basic principles of clinical nursing and preservation of moral values, as well as managerial issues, such as manpower planning, skill-mix, and time to care. In order for such standards to aid in providing safe and competent nursing care, they should be in compliance with accepted evidence-based nursing knowledge, based on patients’ needs and legal rights to healthcare and on nurses’ codes of ethics. That is, a minimum standard must uphold a satisfactory level of quality in terms of both professionalism and ethics. Rather than being fixed, the minimum standard should be adjusted according to patients’ needs in different settings and may thus be different in different contexts and countries.

Aims To identify the costs associated with nurse sensitive adverse events and the impact of these events on patients’ length of stay. Design Retrospective cohort study using administrative hospital data. Methods Data were sourced from patient discharge information (N = 5544) from six acute wards within three hospitals (July 2016–October 2017). A retrospective patient record review was undertaken by extracting data from the hospitals’ administrative systems on inpatient discharges, length of stay and diagnoses; eleven adverse events sensitive to nurse staffing were identified within the administrative system. A negative binomial regression is employed to assess the impact of nurse sensitive adverse events on length of stay. Results Sixteen per cent of the sample (n = 897) had at least one nurse sensitive adverse event during their episode of care. The model revealed when age, gender, admission type and complexity are controlled for, each additional nurse sensitive adverse event experienced by a patient was associated with an increase in the length of stay beyond the national average by 0.48 days (p = .001). Applying this to the daily average cost of inpatient stay per patient (€1456), we estimate the average cost associated with each nurse sensitive adverse event to be €694. Extrapolating this nationally, the economic cost of nurse sensitive adverse events to the health service in Ireland is estimated to be €91.3 million annually. Conclusion These potentially avoidable events are associated with a significant economic burden to health systems. The estimates provided here can be used to inform and prepare the way for future economic evaluations of nurse staffing initiatives that aim to improve care and safety. Impact As many of these nurse sensitive adverse events are avoidable, in addition to patient benefits, there is a potential substantial financial return on investment from strategies such as improved nurse staffing that can reduce their occurrence.

The Adverse Reaction Reporting Project (ARRP) was set up to measure the extent and severity of adverse reactions to dental materials in the UK. Further analysis into the use of protective gloves has been carried out to establish the degree to which gloves are having a deleterious effect on the dental profession. In addition the survey aimed to establish the techniques used to manage adverse reactions and their effectiveness. In a 23-month period, 369 reports were received concerning adverse reactions to protective gloves used in dental practices. Reporters were contacted for further information, and a 92% response rate was achieved. The 330 reports analysed showed dentists to be the largest group to report adverse reactions, whilst dental technicians reported the fewest. The referral rate for staff and patients was similar with a third of adverse reactions being referred (n=110) to a specialist for diagnosis. A confirmed diagnosis was received in 65% of referred cases (n=72), but the symptoms reported suggested a larger degree of Type I reactions occurring than diagnosed. The use of non-powdered gloves appeared to be favoured over powdered gloves in 42% of glove changes, and nitrile gloves were used as an alternative to latex in 39% of changes. In conclusion, the results from this survey showed that wearing gloves in dental practices in the UK caused a range of adverse reactions. In 79% (n=330) of cases reported and analysed, these reactions were readily resolved or improved by selfmedication, prescribed medication and / or changing to a different type of protective glove.

Background Type 1 diabetes is a complex chronic condition which requires lifelong treatment with insulin. Health outcomes are dependent on ability to self-manage the condition. Socioeconomic inequalities have been demonstrated in access to treatment and health outcomes for adults with type 1 diabetes; however, there is a paucity of research exploring how these disparities occur. This study explores the influence of socioeconomic factors in gaining access to intensive insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods We undertook a qualitative descriptive study informed by a phenomenological perspective. In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted with 28 patients and 6 healthcare professionals involved in their care. The interviews were analysed using a thematic approach. The Candidacy theory for access to healthcare for vulnerable groups framed the analysis. Results Access to intensive insulin regimens was through hospital-based specialist services in this sample. Patients from lower socioeconomic groups had difficulty accessing hospital-based services if they were in low paid work and because they lacked the ability to navigate the healthcare system. Once these patients were in the specialist system, access to intensive insulin regimens was limited by non-alignment with healthcare professional goals, poor health literacy, psychosocial problems and poor quality communication. These factors could also affect access to structured diabetes education which itself improved access to intensive insulin regimens. Contact with diabetes specialist nurses and attendance at structured diabetes education courses could ameliorate these barriers. Conclusions Access to intensive insulin regimens was hindered for people in lower socioeconomic groups by a complex mix of factors relating to the permeability of specialist services, ability to navigate the healthcare system and patient interactions with healthcare providers. Improving access to diabetes specialist nurses and structured diabetes education for vulnerable patients could lessen socioeconomic disparities in both access to services and health outcomes.

Aims To investigate how nursing experts and experts from other health professions understand the concept of rationing/missed/unfinished nursing care and how this is compared at a cross‐cultural level. Design The mixed methods descriptive study. Methods The semi‐structured questionnaires were sent to the sample of 45 scholars and practitioners from 26 countries. Data were collected from November 2017–February 2018. Results Assigning average cultural values to participants from each country revealed three cultural groups: high individualism‐high masculinity, high individualism‐low masculinity and low individualism‐medium masculinity. Content analysis of the findings revealed three main themes, which were identified across cultural clusters: (a) projecting blame for the phenomenon: Blaming the nurse versus blaming the system; (b) intentionality versus unintentionality; and (c) focus on nurses in comparison to focus on patients. Conclusion Consistent differences in the understanding of missed nursing care can be understood in line with the nation's standing on two main cultural values: individualism and masculinity. Impact The findings call for scholars' caution in interpreting missed nursing care from different cultures, or in comparing levels and types of missed nursing tasks across nations. The findings further indicated that mimicking interventions to limit missed nursing care from one cultural context to the other might be ineffective. Interventions to mitigate the phenomenon should be implemented thoughtfully, considering the cultural aspects.