Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. Methods: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. Findings: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96–1·28). Interpretation: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. METHODS: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. FINDINGS: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28). INTERPRETATION: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Identification of Fatigue and Sleepiness in Immune and Neurodegenerative Disorders from Measures of Real-World Gait Variability

Current assessments of fatigue and sleepiness rely on patient reported outcomes (PROs), which are subjective and prone to recall bias. The current study investigated the use of gait variability in the "real world"to identify patient fatigue and daytime sleepiness. Inertial measurement units were worn on the lower backs of 159 participants (117 with six different immune and neurodegenerative disorders and 42 healthy controls) for up to 20 days, whom completed regular PROs. To address walking bouts that were short and sparse, four feature groups were considered: sequence-independent variability (SIV), sequence-dependant variability (SDV), padded SDV (PSDV), and typical gait variability (TGV) measures. These gait variability measures were extracted from step, stride, stance, and swing time, step length, and step velocity. These different approaches were compared using correlations and four machine learning classifiers to separate low/high fatigue and sleepiness.Most balanced accuracies were above 50%, the highest was 57.04% from TGV measures. The strongest correlation was 0.262 from an SDV feature against sleepiness. Overall, TGV measures had lower correlations and classification accuracies.Identifying fatigue or sleepiness from gait variability is extremely complex and requires more investigation with a larger data set, but these measures have shown performances that could contribute to a larger feature set.Clinical relevance - Gait variability has been repeatedly used to assess fatigue in the lab. The current study, however, explores gait variability for fatigue and daytime sleepiness in real-world scenarios with multiple gait-impacted disorders.</p

Identification of Fatigue and Sleepiness in Immune and Neurodegenerative Disorders from Measures of Real-World Gait Variability

Current assessments of fatigue and sleepiness rely on patient reported outcomes (PROs), which are subjective and prone to recall bias. The current study investigated the use of gait variability in the "real world"to identify patient fatigue and daytime sleepiness. Inertial measurement units were worn on the lower backs of 159 participants (117 with six different immune and neurodegenerative disorders and 42 healthy controls) for up to 20 days, whom completed regular PROs. To address walking bouts that were short and sparse, four feature groups were considered: sequence-independent variability (SIV), sequence-dependant variability (SDV), padded SDV (PSDV), and typical gait variability (TGV) measures. These gait variability measures were extracted from step, stride, stance, and swing time, step length, and step velocity. These different approaches were compared using correlations and four machine learning classifiers to separate low/high fatigue and sleepiness.Most balanced accuracies were above 50%, the highest was 57.04% from TGV measures. The strongest correlation was 0.262 from an SDV feature against sleepiness. Overall, TGV measures had lower correlations and classification accuracies.Identifying fatigue or sleepiness from gait variability is extremely complex and requires more investigation with a larger data set, but these measures have shown performances that could contribute to a larger feature set.Clinical relevance - Gait variability has been repeatedly used to assess fatigue in the lab. The current study, however, explores gait variability for fatigue and daytime sleepiness in real-world scenarios with multiple gait-impacted disorders.</p

Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075