There is limited evidence and a lack of standard operating procedures to address the impact of serious adverse events (SAE) on healthcare workers. We aimed to share two years’ experience of a second victim support intervention integrated into the SAE management program conducted in a 500-bed University Hospital in Granada, Spain. The intervention strategy, based on the “forYOU” model, was structured into three levels of support according to the degree of affliction and the emotional needs of the professionals. A semi-structured survey of all workers involved in an SAE was used to identify potential second victims. Between 2020 and 2021, the SAE operating procedure was activated 23 times. All healthcare workers involved in an SAE (n = 135) received second-level support. The majority were physicians (51.2%), followed by nurses (26.7%). Only 58 (43.0%) received first-level emotional support and 47 (34.8%) met “second victim” criteria. Seven workers (14.9%) required third-level support. A progressive increase in the notification rates was observed. Acceptance of the procedure by professionals and managers was high. This novel approach improved the number of workers reached by the trained staff; promoted the visibility of actions taken during SAE management and helped foster patient safety culture in our setting.

Suppressive antibiotic therapy (SAT) is a strategy to alleviate symptoms and/or to reduce the progression of an infection when other treatment options cannot be used. Dalbavancin, due to its prolonged half-life, enables (bi) weekly dosing. Here, we report our multicenter real-life clinical experience with dalbavancin used as SAT in patients with prosthetic joint or vascular infections. Medical records of all adult patients with documented vascular or orthopedic chronic prosthetic infections, who received dalbavancin as SAT between 2016 and 2018 from four Spanish hospitals were reviewed for inclusion. Descriptive analysis of demographic characteristics, Charlson Comorbidity index, Barthel index, isolated pathogens and indication, concomitant antibiotic use, adverse events, and clinical outcome of SAT were performed. Eight patients were eligible for inclusion, where six patients had prosthetic vascular infections (aortic valve) and two patients had knee prosthetic joint infections. The most common pathogens were methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecium. All patients had a history of prior antibiotic treatment for the prosthetic infection [median duration of antibiotic days 125 days (IQR, 28–203 days)]. The median number of dalbavancin doses was 29 (IQR, 9–61) and concomitant antibiotic use (n = 5, 62.5%). Clinical success was reported in 75% (n = 6) of patients. Adverse events were reported in two patients (mild renal and hepatic impairment). The median estimated cost savings due to the avoided hospital days was €60185 (IQR, 19,916–94984) per patient. Despite the limitations of our study, this preliminary data provides valuable insight to support further evaluation of dalbavancin for SAT in patients with prosthetic infections in the outpatient setting when alternative treatments are not feasible.

Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are experiencing a crisis of confidence in their trustworthiness. Although a comprehensive literature search yielded several reviews on RCT integrity, an overarching overview is lacking.Objectives: The authors undertook a scoping umbrella review of the research integrity literature concerning RCTs.Search strategy and selection criteria: Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/3ursn), two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, without language or time restrictions, until November 2021. The authors included systematic reviews covering any aspect of research integrity throughout the RCT lifecycle.Data collection and analysis: The authors assessed methodological quality using a modified AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) tool and collated the main findings.Main results: A total of 55 relevant reviews, summarizing 6001 studies (median per review, 63; range, 8–1106) from 1964 to 2021, had an overall critically low quality of 96% (53 reviews). Topics covered included general aspects (15%), design and approval (22%), conduct and monitoring (11%), reporting (38%), postpublication concerns (2%), and future research (13%). The most common integrity issues covered were ethics (18%) and transparency (18%).Conclusions: Low‐quality reviews identified various integrity issues across the RCT lifecycle, emphasizing the importance of high ethical standards and professionalism while highlighting gaps in the integrity landscape. Multistakeholder consensus is needed to develop specific RCT integrity standards.

Evidence syntheses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) offer the highest level of scientific evidence for informing clinical practice and policy. The value of evidence synthesis itself depends on the trustworthiness of the included RCTs. The rising number of retractions and expressions of concern about the authenticity of RCTs has raised awareness about the existence of problematic studies, sometimes called “zombie” trials. Research integrity, i.e., adherence to ethical and professional standards, is a multi-dimensional concept that is incompletely evaluated for the RCTs included in current evidence syntheses. Systematic reviewers tend to rely on the editorial and peer-review system established by journals as custodians of integrity of the RCTs they synthesize. It is now well established that falsified and fabricated RCTs are slipping through. Thus, RCT integrity assessment becomes a necessary step in systematic reviews going forward, in particular because RCTs with data-related integrity concerns remain available for use in evidence syntheses. There is a need for validated tools for systematic reviewers to proactively deploy in the assessment of integrity deviations without having to wait for RCTs to be retracted by journals or expressions of concern issued. This article analyzes the issues and challenges in conducting evidence syntheses where the literature contains RCTs with possible integrity deficits. The way forward in the form of formal RCT integrity assessments in systematic reviews is proposed, and implications of this new initiative are discussed. Future directions include emphasizing ethical and professional standards, providing tailored integrity-specific training, and creating systems to promote research integrity, as improvements in RCT integrity will benefit evidence syntheses.

Purpose of review: High-quality research underpins the best healthcare practice. This article focuses on analyzing the current literature to promote research integrity across clinical trials. Recent findings: Recent admissions of questionable practices by researchers have undermined practitioner and public confidence. There is limited evidence specifically for ethical and professional standards in clinical trials to guide researchers and institutions to embed integrity into research practice. Summary: Unintentional errors and spin in research are not uncommon as training in design and conduct of clinical trials is not part of health education for medical and allied health professions. There is unfamiliarity with procedures, such as prospective registration, a priori documentation of statistical analysis plans, openness in data sharing, and so forth. This, combined with the academic culture of secrecy, has led to an environment where scientific suspicion, instead of trust, is the norm. Existing science integrity documents are devoid of specific recommendations about how to translate any guidance into clinical trial practice. There is a need for constructive, supportive and multidisciplinary approaches based on open dialogue and continuous training, targeting the research environment. Research integrity now needs to take centre stage to re-instill confidence in randomized trial evidence to inform clinical practice.