General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms PROGRAMME GRANTS FOR APPLIED RESEARCH VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12 AUGUST 2016 ISSN 2050 DOI 10.3310/pgfar04120Improving patients' experience and outcome of total joint replacement: the RESTORE programme Ashley W Blom, Neil Artz, Andrew D Beswick, Amanda Burston, Paul Dieppe, Karen T Elvers, Rachael Gooberman-Hill, Jeremy Horwood, Paul Jepson, Emma Johnson, Erik Lenguerrand, Elsa Marques, Sian Noble, Mark Pyke, Catherine Sackley, Gina Sands, Adrian Sayers, Victoria Wells and Vikki Wylde Improving patients' experience and outcome of total joint replacement: the RESTORE programme ISSN 2050-4330 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full PGfAR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/pgfar. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Programme Grants for Applied Research journalReports are published in Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the PGfAR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. Programme Grants for Applied Research programmeThe Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 2006 to produce independent research findings that will have practical application for the benefit of patients and the NHS in the relatively near future. The Programme is managed by the NIHR Central Commissioning Facility (CCF) with strategic input from the Programme Director.The programme is a national response mode funding scheme that aims to provide evidence to improve health outcomes in England through promotion of health, prevention of ill health, and optimal disease management (including safety and quality), with particular emphasis on conditions causing significant disease burden.For more information about the PGfAR programme please visit the website: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding/programme-grants-forapplied-research.htm This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by PGfAR as project number RP-PG-0407-10070. The contractual start date was in December 2008. The final report began editorial review in September 2014 and was accepted for publication in August 2015. As the funder, the PGfAR programme agreed the research questions and study designs in advance with the investigators. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The PGfAR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accurac...

BackgroundSpeech-related problems are common in Parkinson’s disease (PD), but there is little evidence for the effectiveness of standard speech and language therapy (SLT) or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®).MethodsThe PD COMM pilot was a three-arm, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of LSVT LOUD®, SLT and no intervention (1:1:1 ratio) to assess the feasibility and to inform the design of a full-scale RCT. Non-demented patients with idiopathic PD and speech problems and no SLT for speech problems in the past 2 years were eligible. LSVT LOUD® is a standardised regime (16 sessions over 4 weeks). SLT comprised individualised content per local practice (typically weekly sessions for 6–8 weeks). Outcomes included recruitment and retention, treatment adherence, and data completeness. Outcome data collected at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months included patient-reported voice and quality of life measures, resource use, and assessor-rated speech recordings.ResultsEighty-nine patients were randomised with 90% in the therapy groups and 100% in the control group completing the trial. The response rate for Voice Handicap Index (VHI) in each arm was ≥ 90% at all time-points. VHI was highly correlated with the other speech-related outcome measures. There was a trend to improvement in VHI with LSVT LOUD® (difference at 3 months compared with control: − 12.5 points; 95% CI − 26.2, 1.2) and SLT (difference at 3 months compared with control: − 9.8 points; 95% CI − 23.2, 3.7) which needs to be confirmed in an adequately powered trial.ConclusionRandomisation to a three-arm trial of speech therapy including a no intervention control is feasible and acceptable. Compliance with both interventions was good. VHI and other patient-reported outcomes were relevant measures and provided data to inform the sample size for a substantive trial.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN75223808. registered 22 March 2012.

Very low quality evidence is available from single trials, thus we are uncertain if hip precautions with or without the addition of equipment and functional restrictions are effective in preventing dislocation and improving outcomes after THA. There is also insufficient evidence to support or refute the adoption of a postoperative community rehabilitation programme consisting of functional reintegration and education compared to conventional rehabilitation strategies based on functional outcomes.Further high-quality trials are warranted to assess the outcomes of different occupational therapy interventions both in the short and longer-term for those who undergo THA. An assessment of the impact of such interventions on pain and restriction on personal ADL, EADL and instrumental ADL is needed, and also of functional integration-type interventions rather than just hip precautions, equipment and restrictions.

this analysis explored incident reports at a level of detail not previously achieved. It identifies significant contributory factors for fall locations and activities associated with physical and cognitive characteristics.

Background: undertaking comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) combined with long-term health and social care management can improve the quality of life of older people [ 1]. The EASY-Care tool is a CGA instrument designed for assessing the physical, mental and social functioning and unmet health and social needs of older people in community settings or primary care. It has also been used as a frailty assessment tool and for gathering population-level data.Objective: to review the evidence of reliability, validity and acceptability of EASY-Care and its appropriateness for assessing the needs of community-dwelling older people.Methods: systematic search of literature databases using pre-defined search terms (January 1994—May 2014) for English language articles reporting on the reliability, validity, acceptability and implementation of EASY-Care in primary care and community settings. Eligible articles were critically reviewed. Discussion papers mapping professionals' use of the tool were also included as these could be considered an aspect of validity.Results: twenty-nine papers met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. A narrative synthesis was performed, because there was a variety of quantitative and qualitative outcomes and characteristics. Reliability evidence for EASY-Care is minimal. Evidence for validity is good, and it has received numerous positive endorsements of acceptability in international settings from older people and practitioners.Conclusion: evidence supports the use of EASY-Care for individual needs assessment; further research is needed for other uses. Of the papers that made statements about who should administer EASY-Care, the majority indicated that nurses were preferable to self-completion.