Objective To determine the clinical effectiveness of wound edge protection devices in reducing surgical site infection after abdominal surgery.Design Multicentre observer blinded randomised controlled trial.Participants Patients undergoing laparotomy at 21 UK hospitals.Interventions Standard care or the use of a wound edge protection device during surgery.Main outcome measures Surgical site infection within 30 days of surgery, assessed by blinded clinicians at seven and 30 days and by patient’s self report for the intervening period. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, duration of stay in hospital, and the effect of characteristics of the patient and operation on the efficacy of the device.Results 760 patients were enrolled with 382 patients assigned to the device group and 378 to the control group. Six patients in the device group and five in the control group did not undergo laparotomy. Fourteen patients, seven in each group, were lost to follow-up. A total of 184 patients experienced surgical site infection within 30 days of surgery, 91/369 (24.7%) in the device group and 93/366 (25.4%) in the control group (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.36; P=0.85). This lack of benefit was consistent across wound assessments performed by clinicians and those reported by patients and across all secondary outcomes. In the secondary analyses no subgroup could be identified in which there was evidence of clinical benefit associated with use of the device.Conclusions Wound edge protection devices do not reduce the rate of surgical site infection in patients undergoing laparotomy, and therefore their routine use for this role cannot be recommended.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 40402832

A recent randomized controlled trial evaluated the effects of specialist nurses providing information, advice and support to caregivers and patients at home during the first year after a stroke. Reported here are the results of a complementary study which used qualitative methods to examine the experience of patients and caregivers during the year of recovery after a stroke. We used semi-structured interviews with a purposively selected sample of 30 patients and 15 caregivers at the end of a randomized controlled trial (13-16 months post-stroke). Patients and caregivers provided vivid descriptions of the recovery process. Recovery was perceived in terms of the degree of congruence patients identified between their lives before, and after, stroke. Patients therefore had individual and personal yardsticks for measuring their recovery. In conclusion, further research and interventions must consider the diverse, complex, dynamic and highly personal character of stroke recovery. Traditional outcome measures are too simplistic to capture patients' and caregivers' experiences. There do not appear to be single or simple solutions to the problems of facilitating psycho-social adjustment.

The Netherlands and England are near neighbours whose health care systems have much in common and whose health policy communities have also usually been well aware of what is going on in the other country. Nevertheless, for the two decades from 1982, England adopted and repeatedly redeveloped performance indicator (PI) systems in the health care field while the Netherlands virtually shunned them. A broad institutional explanation for this divergence is provided by England's majoritarian and adversarial political system that leaves governments with fewer constraints and compromises than in the more consociational Dutch system. More recently, however, a Dutch national system of health care PIs has appeared, suggesting that this explanation needs to be supplemented. This paper draws on an empirical study of PI systems in the two countries over the period from 1982 to 2007 to suggest that two further factors are at work. Established institutional patterns may be disrupted by 'punctuations', while technical and political factors endogenous to PI systems may exert a logic of their own.