The effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life-threatening emergencies in hospital

Background Preparing healthcare providers to manage relatively rare life‐threatening emergency situations effectively is a challenge. Training sessions enable staff to rehearse for these events and are recommended by several reports and guidelines. In this review we have focused on interactive training, this includes any element where the training is not solely didactic but provides opportunity for discussions, rehearsals, or interaction with faculty or technology. It is important to understand the effective methods and essential elements for successful emergency training so that resources can be appropriately targeted to improve outcomes. Objectives To assess the effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life‐threatening emergencies in hospital on patient outcomes, clinical care practices, or organisational practices, and to identify essential components of effective interactive emergency training programmes. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and ERIC and two trials registers up to 11 March 2019. We searched references of included studies, conference proceedings, and contacted study authors. Selection criteria We included randomised trials and cluster‐randomised trials comparing interactive training for emergency situations with standard/no training. We defined emergency situations as those in which immediate lifesaving action is required, for example cardiac arrests and major haemorrhage. We included all studies where healthcare workers involved in providing direct clinical care were participants. We excluded studies outside of a hospital setting or where the intervention was not targeted at practicing healthcare workers. We included trials irrespective of publication status, date, and language. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included trial. Due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity in outcome measures, we were unable to perform the planned meta‐analysis. We provide a structured synthesis for the following outcomes: survival to hospital discharge, morbidity rate, protocol or guideline adherence, patient outcomes, clinical practice outcomes, and organisation‐of‐care outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations for each outcome. Main results We included 11 studies that reported on 2000 healthcare providers and over 300,000 patients; one study did not report the number of participants. Seven were cluster randomised trials and four were single centre studies. Four studies focused on obstetric training, three on obstetric and neonatal care, two on neonatal training, one on trauma and one on general resuscitations. The studies were spread across high‐, middle‐ and low‐income settings. Interactive training may make little or no difference in survival to hospital discharge for patients requiring resuscitation (1 study; 30 participants; 98 events; low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain if emergency training changes morbidity rate, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 1778 participants; 57,193 patients, when reported). We are uncertain if training alters healthcare providers' adherence to clinical protocols or guidelines, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 156 participants; 558 patients). We are uncertain if there were improvements in patient outcomes following interactive training for emergency situations, as we assessed the evidence as very low‐certainty (5 studies, 951 participants; 314,055 patients). We are uncertain if training for emergency situations improves clinical practice outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (4 studies; 1417 participants; 28,676 patients, when reported). Two studies reported organisation‐of‐care outcomes, we are uncertain if interactive emergency training has any effect on this outcome as the certainty of the evidence is very low (634 participants; 179,400 patient population). We examined prespecified subgroups and found no clear commonalities in effect of multidisciplinary training, location of training, duration of the course, or duration of follow‐up. We also examined areas arising from the studies including focus of training, proportion of staff trained, leadership of intervention, and incentive/trigger to participate, and again identified no clear mediating factors. The sources of funding for the studies were governmental, local organisations, or philanthropic donors. Authors' conclusions We are uncertain if there are any benefits of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life‐threatening emergencies in hospital as the certainty of the evidence is very low. We were unable to identify any factors that may have allowed us to identify an essential element of these interactive training courses. We found a lack of consistent reporting, which contributed to the inability to meta‐analyse across specialities. More trials are required to build the evidence base for the optimum way to prepare healthcare providers for rare life‐threatening emergency events. These trials need to be conducted with attention to outcomes important to patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers. It is vitally important to develop high‐quality studies adequately powered and with attention to minimising the risk of bias

Placental growth factor testing to assess women with suspected pre-eclampsia:a multicentre, pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial

BackgroundPrevious prospective cohort studies have shown that angiogenic factors have a high diagnostic accuracy in women with suspected pre-eclampsia, but we remain uncertain of the effectiveness of these tests in a real-world setting. We therefore aimed to determine whether knowledge of the circulating concentration of placental growth factor (PlGF), an angiogenic factor, integrated with a clinical management algorithm, decreased the time for clinicians to make a diagnosis in women with suspected pre-eclampsia, and whether this approach reduced subsequent maternal or perinatal adverse outcomes.MethodsWe did a multicentre, pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial in 11 maternity units in the UK, which were each responsible for 3000–9000 deliveries per year. Women aged 18 years and older who presented with suspected pre-eclampsia between 20 weeks and 0 days of gestation and 36 weeks and 6 days of gestation, with a live, singleton fetus were invited to participate by the clinical research team. Suspected pre-eclampsia was defined as new-onset or worsening of existing hypertension, dipstick proteinuria, epigastric or right upper-quadrant pain, headache with visual disturbances, fetal growth restriction, or abnormal maternal blood tests that were suggestive of disease (such as thrombocytopenia or hepatic or renal dysfunction). Women were approached individually, they consented for study inclusion, and they were asked to give blood samples. We randomly allocated the maternity units, representing the clusters, to blocks. Blocks represented an intervention initiation time, which occurred at equally spaced 6-week intervals throughout the trial. At the start of the trial, all units had usual care (in which PlGF measurements were also taken but were concealed from clinicians and women). At the initiation time of each successive block, a site began to use the intervention (in which the circulating PlGF measurement was revealed and a clinical management algorithm was used). Enrolment of women continued for the duration of the blocks either to concealed PlGF testing, or after implementation, to revealed PlGF testing. The primary outcome was the time from presentation with suspected pre-eclampsia to documented pre-eclampsia in women enrolled in the trial who received a diagnosis of pre-eclampsia by their treating clinicians. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 16842031.FindingsBetween June 13, 2016, and Oct 27, 2017, we enrolled and assessed 1035 women with suspected pre-eclampsia. 12 (1%) women were found to be ineligible. Of the 1023 eligible women, 576 (56%) women were assigned to the intervention (revealed testing) group, and 447 (44%) women were assigned to receive usual care with additional concealed testing (concealed testing group). Three (1%) women in the revealed testing group were lost to follow-up, so 573 (99%) women in this group were included in the analyses. One (&lt;1%) woman in the concealed testing group withdrew consent to follow-up data collection, so 446 (&gt;99%) women in this group were included in the analyses. The median time to pre-eclampsia diagnosis was 4·1 days with concealed testing versus 1·9 days with revealed testing (time ratio 0·36, 95% CI 0·15–0·87; p=0·027). Maternal severe adverse outcomes were reported in 24 (5%) of 447 women in the concealed testing group versus 22 (4%) of 573 women in the revealed testing group (adjusted odds ratio 0·32, 95% CI 0·11–0·96; p=0·043), but there was no evidence of a difference in perinatal adverse outcomes (15% vs 14%, 1·45, 0·73–2·90) or gestation at delivery (36·6 weeks vs 36·8 weeks; mean difference −0·52, 95% CI −0·63 to 0·73).InterpretationWe found that the availability of PlGF test results substantially reduced the time to clinical confirmation of pre-eclampsia. Where PlGF was implemented, we found a lower incidence of maternal adverse outcomes, consistent with adoption of targeted, enhanced surveillance, as recommended in the clinical management algorithm for clinicians. Adoption of PlGF testing in women with suspected pre-eclampsia is supported by the results of this study.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.</p

Repeat placental growth factor-based testing in women with suspected preterm pre-eclampsia (PARROT-2): a multicentre, parallel-group, superiority, randomised controlled trial

Background: Placental growth factor (PlGF)-based testing has high diagnostic accuracy for predicting pre-eclampsia needing delivery, significantly reducing time to diagnosis and severe maternal adverse outcomes. The clinical benefit of repeat PlGF-based testing is unclear. We aimed to determine whether repeat PlGF-based testing (using a clinical management algorithm and nationally recommended thresholds) reduces adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnant individuals with suspected preterm pre-eclampsia. // Methods: In this multicentre, parallel-group, superiority, randomised controlled trial, done in 22 maternity units across England, Scotland, and Wales, we recruited women aged 18 years or older with suspected pre-eclampsia between 22 weeks and 0 days of gestation and 35 weeks and 6 days of gestation. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to revealed repeat PlGF-based testing or concealed repeat testing with usual care. The intervention was not masked to women or partners, or clinicians or data collectors, due to the nature of the trial. The trial statistician was masked to intervention allocation. The primary outcome was a perinatal composite of stillbirth, early neonatal death, or neonatal unit admission. The primary analysis was by the intention-to-treat principle, with a per-protocol analysis restricted to women managed according to their allocation group. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN 85912420. // Findings: Between Dec 17, 2019, and Sept 30, 2022, 1253 pregnant women were recruited and randomly assigned treatment; one patient was excluded due to randomisation error. 625 women were allocated to revealed repeat PlGF-based testing and 627 women were allocated to usual care with concealed repeat PlGF-based testing (mean age 32·3 [SD 5·7] years; 879 [70%] white). One woman in the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group was lost to follow-up. There was no significant difference in the primary perinatal composite outcome between the revealed repeat PlGF-based testing group (195 [31·2%]) of 625 women) compared with the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group (174 [27·8%] of 626 women; relative risk 1·21 [95% CI 0·95–1·33]; p=0·18). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There were four serious adverse events in the revealed repeat PlGF-based testing group and six in the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group; all serious adverse events were deemed unrelated to the intervention by the site principal investigators and chief investigator. // Interpretation: Repeat PlGF-based testing in pregnant women with suspected pre-eclampsia was not associated with improved perinatal outcomes. In a high-income setting with a low prevalence of adverse outcomes, universal, routine repeat PlGF-based testing of all individuals with suspected pre-eclampsia is not recommended. // Funding: Tommy's Charity, Jon Moulton Charitable Trust, and National Institute for Health and Care Research Guy's and St Thomas' Biomedical Research Centre

Repeat Placental Growth Factor-Based Testing in Women With Suspected Preterm Preeclampsia: A Stratified Analysis of the PARROT-2 Trial

BACKGROUND: PlGF (placental growth factor)-based testing reduces severe maternal adverse outcomes. Repeat PlGF-based testing is not associated with improved perinatal or maternal outcomes. This planned secondary analysis aimed to determine whether there is a subgroup of women who benefit from repeat testing. METHODS: Pregnant individuals with suspected preterm preeclampsia were randomized to repeat revealed PlGF-based testing, compared with usual care where testing was concealed. Perinatal and maternal outcomes were stratified by trial group, by initial PlGF-based test result, and by PlGF-based test type (PlGF or sFlt-1 [soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1]/PlGF ratio). RESULTS: A total of 1252 pregnant individuals were included. Abnormal initial PlGF-based test identified a more severe phenotype of preeclampsia, at increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Repeat testing was not significantly associated with clinical benefit in women with abnormal initial results. Of women with a normal initial result, 20% developed preeclampsia, with the majority at least 3 to 4 weeks after initial presentation. Repeat test results were more likely to change from normal to abnormal in symptomatic women (112/415; 27%) compared with asymptomatic women (163/890; 18%). A higher proportion of symptomatic women who changed from normal to abnormal were diagnosed with preeclampsia, compared with asymptomatic women. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not demonstrate evidence of the clinical benefit of repeating PlGF-based testing if the initial result is abnormal. Judicious use of repeat PlGF-based testing to stratify risk may be considered at least 2 weeks after a normal initial test result, particularly in women who have symptoms or signs of preeclampsia. REGISTRATION: URL: XXX; Unique identifier: ISRCTN85912420

Planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): a randomised controlled trial

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license Background: In women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, the optimal time to initiate delivery is unclear because limitation of maternal disease progression needs to be balanced against infant complications. The aim of this trial was to determine whether planned earlier initiation of delivery reduces maternal adverse outcomes without substantial worsening of neonatal or infant outcomes, compared with expectant management (usual care) in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia. Methods: In this parallel-group, non-masked, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done in 46 maternity units across England and Wales, we compared planned delivery versus expectant management (usual care) with individual randomisation in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia from 34 to less than 37 weeks' gestation and a singleton or dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy. The co-primary maternal outcome was a composite of maternal morbidity or recorded systolic blood pressure of at least 160 mm Hg with a superiority hypothesis. The co-primary perinatal outcome was a composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admission up to infant hospital discharge with a non-inferiority hypothesis (non-inferiority margin of 10% difference in incidence). Analyses were by intention to treat, together with a per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN01879376. The trial is closed to recruitment but follow-up is ongoing. Findings: Between Sept 29, 2014, and Dec 10, 2018, 901 women were recruited. 450 women (448 women and 471 infants analysed) were allocated to planned delivery and 451 women (451 women and 475 infants analysed) to expectant management. The incidence of the co-primary maternal outcome was significantly lower in the planned delivery group (289 [65%] women) compared with the expectant management group (338 [75%] women; adjusted relative risk 0·86, 95% CI 0·79–0·94; p=0·0005). The incidence of the co-primary perinatal outcome by intention to treat was significantly higher in the planned delivery group (196 [42%] infants) compared with the expectant management group (159 [34%] infants; 1·26, 1·08–1·47; p=0·0034). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There were nine serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 12 in the expectant management group. Interpretation: There is strong evidence to suggest that planned delivery reduces maternal morbidity and severe hypertension compared with expectant management, with more neonatal unit admissions related to prematurity but no indicators of greater neonatal morbidity. This trade-off should be discussed with women with late preterm pre-eclampsia to allow shared decision making on timing of delivery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme