Involving service users in trials: developing a standard operating procedure

<p>BACKGROUND: Many funding bodies require researchers to actively involve service users in research to improve relevance, accountability and quality. Current guidance to researchers mainly discusses general principles. Formal guidance about how to involve service users operationally in the conduct of trials is lacking. We aimed to develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) to support researchers to involve service users in trials and rigorous studies.</p> <p>METHODS: Researchers with experience of involving service users and service users who were contributing to trials collaborated with the West Wales Organisation for Rigorous Trials in Health, a registered clinical trials unit, to develop the SOP. Drafts were prepared in a Task and Finish Group, reviewed by all co-authors and amendments made.</p> <p>RESULTS: We articulated core principles, which defined equality of service users with all other research team members and collaborative processes underpinning the SOP, plus guidance on how to achieve these. We developed a framework for involving service users in research that defined minimum levels of collaboration plus additional consultation and decision-making opportunities. We recommended service users be involved throughout the life of a trial, including planning and development, data collection, analysis and dissemination, and listed tasks for collaboration. We listed people responsible for involving service users in studies and promoting an inclusive culture. We advocate actively involving service users as early as possible in the research process, with a minimum of two on all formal trial groups and committees. We propose that researchers protect at least 1% of their total research budget as a minimum resource to involve service users and allow enough time to facilitate active involvement.</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: This SOP provides guidance to researchers to involve service users successfully in developing and conducting clinical trials and creating a culture of actively involving service users in research at all stages. The UK Clinical Research Collaboration should encourage clinical trials units actively to involve service users and research funders should provide sufficient funds and time for this in research grants.</p&gt

Referral pathways for TIA patients avoiding hospital admission : a scoping review

Objective: To identify the features and effects of a pathway for emergency assessment and referral of patients with suspected transient ischaemic attack (TIA) in order to avoid admission to hospital.Design: Scoping review.Data sources: PubMed, CINAHL Web of Science, Scopus.Study selection: Reports of primary research on referral of patients with suspected TIA directly to specialist outpatient services.Data extraction: We screened studies for eligibility and extracted data from relevant studies. Data were analysed to describe setting, assessment and referral processes, treatment, implementation and outcomes.Results: 8 international studies were identified, mostly cohort designs. 4 pathways were used by family doctors and 3 pathways by emergency department physicians. No pathways used by paramedics were found. Referrals were made to specialist clinic either directly or via a 24-hour helpline. Practitioners identified TIA symptoms and risk of further events using a checklist including the ABCD2 tool or clinical assessment. Antiplatelet medication was often given, usually aspirin unless contraindicated. Some patients underwent tests before referral and discharge. 5 studies reported reduced incident of stroke at 90 days, from 6–10% predicted rate to 1.3–2.1% actual rate. Between 44% and 83% of suspected TIA cases in these studies were referred through the pathways.Conclusions: Research literature has focused on assessment and referral by family doctors and ED physicians to reduce hospitalisation of patients with TIA. No pathways for paramedical use were reported. We will use results of this scoping review to inform development of a paramedical referral pathway to be tested in a feasibility trial

An evaluation of the appropriateness of advice and healthcare contacts made following calls to NHS Direct Wales

Background: An evaluation of NHS Direct Wales (NHSDW), a national telephone-based healthcare advice and information service, was undertaken. A key objective was to describe the actions of callers and assess the appropriateness of advice and healthcare contacts made following calls, results of which are reported here. Methods: Postal questionnaires were sent to consecutive callers to NHSDW in May 2002 and February 2004 to determine 1) callers' actions following calls and 2) their views about the appropriateness of: advice given; and when to seek further care. An independent clinical panel agreed and applied a set of rules about healthcare sites where examinations, investigations, treatments and referrals could be obtained. The rules were then applied to the subsequent contacts to healthcare services reported by respondents and actions were classified in terms of whether they had been necessary and sufficient for the care received. Results: Response rates were similar in each survey: 1033/1897 (54.5%); 606/1204 (50.3%), with 75% reporting contacting NHSDW. In both surveys, nearly half of all callers reported making no further healthcare contact after their call to NHSDW. The most frequent subsequent contacts made were with GPs. More than four fifths of callers rated the advice given - concerning any further care needed and when to seek it - as appropriate (further care needed: survey 1: 673/729, 82.3%; survey 2: 389/421, 92.4%; when to seek further care - survey 1: 462/555, 83.2%; survey 2: n = 295/346, 85.3%). A similar proportion of cases was also rated through the rule set and backed up by the clinical panel as having taken necessary and sufficient actions following their calls to NHSDW (survey 1: 624/729, 80.6%; survey 2: 362/421, 84.4%), with more unnecessary than insufficient actions identified at each survey (survey 1: unnecessary 132/729, 17.1% versus insufficient 11/729, 1.4%; survey 2: unnecessary 47/421, 11.0% versus insufficient 14/421, 3.3%). Conclusion: Based on NHSDW caller surveys responses and applying a transparent rule set to caller actions a large majority of subsequent actions were assessed as appropriate, with insufficient contacts particularly infrequent. The challenge for NHSDW is to reduce the number of unnecessary contacts made following calls to the service, whilst maintaining safety.</p

Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER 1): Cluster Randomised Trial of Computerised Clinical Decision Support for Paramedics

Objective: To evaluate effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of Computerised Clinical Decision Support (CCDS) for paramedics attending older people who fall. Design: Cluster trial randomised by paramedic; modelling. Setting: 13 ambulance stations in two UK emergency ambulance services. Participants: 42 of 409 eligible paramedics, who attended 779 older patients for a reported fall. Interventions: Intervention paramedics received CCDS on Tablet computers to guide patient care. Control paramedics provided care as usual. One service had already installed electronic data capture. Main Outcome Measures: Effectiveness: patients referred to falls service, patient reported quality of life and satisfaction, processes of care. Safety: Further emergency contacts or death within one month. Cost-Effectiveness Costs and quality of life. We used findings from published Community Falls Prevention Trial to model cost-effectiveness. Results: 17 intervention paramedics used CCDS for 54 (12.4%) of 436 participants. They referred 42 (9.6%) to falls services, compared with 17 (5.0%) of 343 participants seen by 19 control paramedics [Odds ratio (OR) 2.04, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.72]. No adverse events were related to the intervention. Non-significant differences between groups included: subsequent emergency contacts (34.6% versus 29.1%; OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.72); quality of life (mean SF12 differences: MCS −0.74, 95% CI −2.83 to +1.28; PCS −0.13, 95% CI −1.65 to +1.39) and non-conveyance (42.0% versus 36.7%; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). However ambulance job cycle time was 8.9 minutes longer for intervention patients (95% CI 2.3 to 15.3). Average net cost of implementing CCDS was £208 per patient with existing electronic data capture, and £308 without. Modelling estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year at £15,000 with existing electronic data capture; and £22,200 without. Conclusions: Intervention paramedics referred twice as many participants to falls services with no difference in safety. CCDS is potentially cost-effective, especially with existing electronic data capture

Paramedics' experiences of administering fascia iliaca compartment block to patients in South Wales with suspected hip fracture at the scene of injury: results of focus groups

Objectives To explore paramedics’ experience of delivering fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) to patients with suspected hip fracture at the scene of injury. Design Focus groups within a randomised controlled trial. Setting Paramedics based at ambulance stations in the catchment area of one Emergency Department in South Wales, recruited and trained in a feasibility study about an alternative to routine prehospital pain management for patients with suspected hip fracture. Participants 11 paramedics. Intervention Paramedic-administered FICB to patients with suspected hip fracture. We randomly allocated eligible patients to FICB, a local anaesthetic injection directly into the hip region—or usual care, most commonly morphine - using audited scratch cards. Outcomes Paramedics’ experiences of administering FICB gathered through thematic analysis of interview transcripts by two researchers, one paramedic and one lay member. Results Respondents believed that FICB was a suitable intervention for paramedics to deliver. It aligned with routine practice and was within people’s capabilities. They said it took up to 10 minutes longer than usual care to prepare and deliver, in part due to nervousness and unfamiliarity with a new procedure. They praised the training provided but said they were anxious about causing harm by injecting into the wrong location. Confidence increased after one paramedic team successfully treated a patient for local anaesthetic toxicity. Reported challenges related to the emergency context: patients often waited many hours for ambulance arrival; moving patients exacerbated their pain; family and neighbours were present as paramedics administered treatment. Conclusions Paramedics are willing and able to administer FICB to patients with suspected hip fracture before ambulance transport to hospital. Feasibility study findings will inform further research

Is fascia iliaca compartment block administered by paramedics for suspected hip fracture acceptable to patients?

Objective To explore patients’ experience of receiving pain relief injection for suspected hip fracture from paramedics at the location of the injury. Design Qualitative interviews within a feasibility trial about an alternative to routine prehospital pain management for patients with suspected hip fracture. Setting Patients treated by paramedics in the catchment area of one emergency department in South Wales. Participants Six patients and one carer of a patient who received fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB). Intervention FICB administered to patients with suspected hip fracture by trained paramedics. We randomly allocated eligible patients to FICB—a local anaesthetic injection directly into the hip region—or usual care—most commonly morphine—using audited scratch cards. Outcomes Acceptability and experience of receiving FICB, assessed through interview data. We audio-recorded, with participants’ consent, and conducted thematic analysis of interview transcripts. The analysis team comprised two researchers, one paramedic and one lay member. Results Patients had little or no memory of being offered, consenting to or receiving FICB. They recalled the reassuring manner and high quality of care received. They accepted FICB without question. Partial or confused memory characterised experience of subsequent hospital care until surgery. They said their priorities when calling for emergency help were to receive effective care. After hospital treatment, they wanted to regain their health and mobility and resume the quality of life they experienced before their injury. Conclusions This study did not raise any concerns about the acceptability of FICB administered at the scene of injury by paramedics to people with suspected hip fracture. It adds to existing evidence about patient and carer experience of on-scene care for people with suspected hip fracture. Further research is needed to assess safety, effectiveness and cost effectiveness of this health technology in a new setting

Rapid Analgesia for Prehospital hip Disruption (RAPID): findings from a randomised feasibility study

Background In managing hip fracture, effective pain relief before admission to hospital is difficult without risking side effects. Although emergency departments routinely use fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB), there has been little evaluation of its use by paramedics before hospital admission. We aimed to assess whether a multi-centre randomised trial to evaluate FICB was feasible. Methods Volunteer paramedics used scratchcards to allocate patients with hip fracture at random between FICB and pain relief as usual. Primary outcomes were mortality and quality of life. We also measured adverse events, costs, final diagnosis, length of stay in hospital, pain scores and quality of care and collected qualitative data about acceptability to patients in interviews, and paramedics in focus groups. We pre-specified criteria for deciding whether to progress to a fully powered trial based on the recruitment of paramedics and patients, delivery of FICB, retrieval of outcome data, safety, acceptability, and diagnostic accuracy of hip fracture. Results We effectively met all progression criteria: we recruited 19 paramedics who randomly allocated 71 patients between trial arms between 28 June 2016 and 31 July 2017; 57 (31 experimental arm, 26 usual care arm, 80% overall) retrospectively consented to follow-up. Just over half (17/31) of experimental participants received FICB; all others had contraindications, including nine taking anticoagulants. Four of the 31 participants assigned FICB and six of the 26 assigned usual care died within 6 months of hospital admission. Serious adverse events were also similar: 3/35 experimental versus 4/36 in usual care. Paramedics’ recognition of hip fracture had sensitivity of 49/64 (77%) with a positive predictive value of 46/57 (81%). We received quality of life questionnaires for 30 of 49 patients (61%) at 1 month and 12 of 17 (71%) at 6 months. Patient satisfaction was similar: experimental mean 3.4 (n = 20) versus 3.5 (n = 13) for usual care. Conclusions RAPID met all progression criteria within reasonable limits. As equipoise remains, we plan to undertake a fully powered multi-centre trial to test clinical and cost effectiveness of paramedic-administered FICB at the scene of hip fracture