No abstract

No abstract

The objectives of this study were to evaluate efficacy of a 2-dose regimen of ceftiofur crystalline free acid sterile suspension (CCFA-SS) for treatment of acute metritis in lactating dairy cows under field conditions and to provide additional safety and injection site tolerance data for injections at the base of the ear. Cows at 15 dairies with rectal temperature ≥ 39.5°C and fetid uterine discharge ≤ 10 d postcalving were randomly assigned by blocks of 2, based on order of entry and without regard to parity, to treatment with saline (1.5 mL/45.5 kg of body weight, n=509) or CCFA-SS (6.6 mg of ceftiofur equivalents/kg of body weight, n=514). Treatments were administered by subcutaneous injection in the posterior aspect of the ear where it attaches to the head; the first dose was administered on study d 0 and the second dose was administered in the contra lateral ear on study d 3. Rectal temperatures were recorded on study d 1 to 4 and 5 or 6 and cows were clinically evaluated daily from study d 1 to 13. Cows that exhibited increased adverse clinical signs of poor health or complications associated with metritis were categorized as a treatment failure and administered escape therapy. Each cow received a veterinary physical examination on study d 5 or 6 to determine if she should be removed from the study and on study d 14 to determine clinical cure or failure to cure. Clinical cure was defined as rectal temperature <39.5°C and non-fetid and purulent or mucopurulent discharge on study d 14 and no escape therapy administered. The injection procedure was scored after each injection (study d 0 and 3) and injection sites and ear carriage were scored on study d 5 or 6, 14, and 57±3. Of the 1,023 cows enrolled, 7 were completely censored due to protocol deviations and 34 were removed for protocol deviations or medical conditions not related to metritis. Clinical cure rate was higher for CCFA-SS than for saline (74.3 vs. 55.3%) and rectal temperatures for each of study d 1 to 5 or 6 were lower for CCFA-SS than saline. Injection procedure indices showed that CCFA-SS could be practically and safely administered using commercial dairy facilities. Although injection site scores were higher for CCFA-SS than saline at study d 5 or 6 and 14, ≥98.6% of ears were normal on d 57±3. Thus, a 2-dose treatment with CCFA-SS given 72h apart increased metritis clinical cure rate and was well tolerated in dairy cows.

BackgroundHealth services face the challenges created by complex problems, and so need complex intervention solutions. However they also experience ongoing difficulties in translating findings from research in this area in to quality improvement changes on the ground. BounceBack was a service development innovation project which sought to examine this issue through the implementation and evaluation in a primary care setting of a novel complex intervention.MethodsThe project was a collaboration between a local mental health charity, an academic unit, and GP practices. The aim was to translate the charity’s model of care into practice-based evidence describing delivery and impact. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to support the implementation of the new model of primary mental health care into six GP practices. An integrated process evaluation evaluated the process and impact of care.ResultsImplementation quickly stalled as we identified problems with the described model of care when applied in a changing and variable primary care context. The team therefore switched to using the NPT framework to support the systematic identification and modification of the components of the complex intervention: including the core components that made it distinct (the consultation approach) and the variable components (organisational issues) that made it work in practice. The extra work significantly reduced the time available for outcome evaluation. However findings demonstrated moderately successful implementation of the model and a suggestion of hypothesised changes in outcomes.ConclusionsThe BounceBack project demonstrates the development of a complex intervention from practice. It highlights the use of Normalisation Process Theory to support development, and not just implementation, of a complex intervention; and describes the use of the research process in the generation of practice-based evidence. Implications for future translational complex intervention research supporting practice change through scholarship are discussed.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1726-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.