Investigation of ward fidelity to a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention during a multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised, controlled feasibility trial

Background delirium is a frequent complication of hospital admission for older people and can be reduced by multicomponent interventions, but implementation and delivery of such interventions is challenging. Objective to investigate fidelity to the prevention of delirium system of care within a multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised, controlled feasibility trial. Setting five care of older people and three orthopaedic trauma wards in eight hospitals in England and Wales. Data collection research nurse observations of ward practice; case note reviews and examination of documentation. Assessment 10 health care professionals with experience in older people’s care assessed the fidelity to 21 essential implementation components within four domains: intervention installation (five items; maximum score = 5); intervention delivery (12 items; maximum score = 48); intervention coverage (three items; maximum score = 16); and duration of delivery (one item; maximum score = 1). Results the mean score (range) for each domain was: installation 4.5 (3.5–5); delivery 32.6 (range 27.3–38.3); coverage 7.9 (range 4.2–10.1); and duration 0.38 (0–1). Of the 10 delirium risk factors, infection, nutrition, hypoxia and pain were the most and cognitive impairment, sensory impairment and multiple medications the least consistently addressed. Overall fidelity to the intervention was assessed as high (≥80%) in two wards, medium (51–79%) in five wards and low (≤50%) in one ward. Conclusion the trial was designed as a pragmatic evaluation, and the findings of medium intervention fidelity are likely to be generalisable to delirium prevention in routine care and provide an important context to interpret the trial outcomes

Designing and analysing feasibility studies of complex interventions: challenges related to assessing stop/go criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are time-consuming and costly so funders often require evidence of feasibility before they will fund large scale trials1. Feasibility studies can provide invaluable evidence relating to the practicalities of conducting large RCTs and can improve their likelihood of success. However, conducting feasibility studies of complex interventions and deciding whether or not to proceed to a full RCT, is not always straightforward. We will present the challenges encountered during the design and analysis of two feasibility studies: OBI (Optimised Behavioural Intervention for avoidant chronic low back pain patients) and MIDSHIPS (Multicentre Intervention Designed for Self-Harm using Interpersonal Problem Solving) and discuss the steps taken to overcome them. Recruiting and treating participants in a limited number of centres, with few therapists, is a complex challenge for both of these feasibility studies and crucial to determining their success; we will present the lessons learnt from our experience. We will also discuss the impact of missing data on our ability to assess stop/go criteria with respect to proof-of-concept. Estimating follow-up questionnaire response rates is an important objective in both studies, hence we will discuss the methods employed to maximise data collection and present our approach for providing robust estimates of response rates for the phase III trials

Explaining variable effects of an adaptable implementation package to promote evidence-based practice in primary care : a longitudinal process evaluation

This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [Programme Grants for Applied Research (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-1209-10040)] (https://www.nihr.ac.uk/).Background Implementing evidence-based recommendations is challenging in UK primary care, especially given system pressures and multiple guideline recommendations competing for attention. Implementation packages that can be adapted and hence applied to target multiple guideline recommendations could offer efficiencies for recommendations with common barriers to achievement. We developed and evaluated a package of evidence-based interventions (audit and feedback, educational outreach and reminders) incorporating behaviour change techniques to target common barriers, in two pragmatic trials for four “high impact” indicators: risky prescribing; diabetes control; blood pressure control; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. We observed a significant, cost-effective reduction in risky prescribing but there was insufficient evidence of effect on the other outcomes. We explored the impact of the implementation package on both social processes (Normalisation Process Theory; NPT) and hypothesised determinants of behaviour (Theoretical Domains Framework; TDF). Methods We conducted a prospective multi-method process evaluation. Observational, administrative and interview data collection and analyses in eight primary care practices were guided by NPT and TDF. Survey data from trial and process evaluation practices explored fidelity. Results We observed three main patterns of variation in how practices responded to the implementation package. First, in integration and achievement, the package “worked” when it was considered distinctive and feasible. Timely feedback directed at specific behaviours enabled continuous goal setting, action and review, which reinforced motivation and collective action. Second, impacts on team-based determinants were limited, particularly when the complexity of clinical actions impeded progress. Third, there were delivery delays and unintended consequences. Delays in scheduling outreach further reduced ownership and time for improvement. Repeated stagnant or declining feedback that did not reflect effort undermined engagement. Conclusions Variable integration within practice routines and organisation of care, variable impacts on behavioural determinants, and delays in delivery and unintended consequences help explain the partial success of an adaptable package in primary care.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: a pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation

Background In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators. Methods and findings We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used ‘opt-out’ recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67–0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89–1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96–1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75–1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39–0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve. Conclusions In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement. Trial registration The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345)

Contamination within trials of community based public health interventions : lessons from the HENRY feasibility study

Introduction Contamination occurs when participants allocated to trial control arms receive elements of the active intervention. Randomisation at cluster level, rather than individual level, may reduce or eliminate contamination, avoiding the dilution of intervention effectiveness that it may cause. However, cluster randomisation can result in selection bias and may not be feasible to deliver. We explored the extent of contamination in a qualitative study nested within a feasibility study of HENRY (Health, Exercise and Nutrition for the Really Young); a UK community-based child obesity prevention programme. We aimed to determine the nature and impact of contamination to inform a larger planned trial and other trials in community based public health settings. Method We invited participants to take part in the nested qualitative study who were already involved in the HENRY feasibility study. Semi-structured interviews/focus groups were conducted with children’s centre managers (n=7), children’s centre staff (n=15), and parents (n=29). Data were transcribed and analysed using an integrative approach. First, deductively organised using a framework guided by the topic guide and then organised using inductive thematic analysis. Results Potential for contamination between treatment arms was recognised by all stakeholder groups. Staff within the intervention centres presented the greatest risk of contamination, predominantly because they were often asked to work in other children centre’s (including control group centres). ‘Sharing of best practice’ by staff was reported to be a common and desirable phenomenon within community based settings. Parental sharing of HENRY messages was reported inconsistently; though some parents indicated a high degree of knowledge transfer within their immediate circles. Conclusions The extent of contamination identified has influenced the design of a future effectiveness trial of HENRY which will be clustered at the centre level (with geographically distinct clusters). The common practice of knowledge sharing amongst community teams means that this clustering approach is also likely to be most suitable for other trials based within these settings. We provide recommendations (e.g. cluster randomisation, training intervention facilitators on implications of contamination) to help reduce the impact of contamination in public health intervention trials with or without clustering, whilst enabling transfer of knowledge where appropriate. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03333733 registered 6th November 201

The DANTE trial protocol: a randomised phase III trial to evaluate the Duration of ANti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody Treatment in patients with metastatic mElanoma.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy is revolutionising the treatment of patients diagnosed with melanoma and other cancers. The first immune checkpoint inhibitor, ipilimumab (targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4)), showed a survival advantage over standard chemotherapy. Subsequently the anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies, nivolumab and pembrolizumab were shown to be more effective than ipilimumab. Ipilimumab combined with nivolumab gives an incremental gain in overall survival compared with nivolumab alone but increases the risk of severe, potentially life-threatening toxicities. In contrast to ipilimumab monotherapy, anti-PD-1 antibodies are licensed to be continued until disease progression. Follow-up of patients recruited to the first trials evaluating 2 years of pembrolizumab showed that three-quarters of responding patients continue responding after stopping treatment. Suggestive of early response, we hypothesised that continuing anti-PD-1 treatment beyond 1 year in progression-free patients may be unnecessary and so designed the DANTE trial. METHODS: DANTE is a multicentre, randomised, phase III, non-inferiority trial to evaluate the duration of anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with metastatic (unresectable stage III and stage IV) melanoma. It uses a two-stage recruitment strategy, registering patients before they complete 1 year of first-line anti-PD-1 +/- CTLA-4 therapy and randomising eligible patients who have received 12 months of treatment and are progression-free at 1 year. At randomisation, 1208 patients are assigned (1:1) to either 1) continue anti-PD-1 treatment until disease progression/ unacceptable toxicity/ for at least 2 years in the absence of disease progression/ unacceptable toxicity or 2) to stop treatment. Randomisation stratifies for baseline prognostic factors. The primary outcome is progression-free survival at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months and then, 6-monthly for up to 4-years. Secondary outcomes collected at all timepoints include overall survival, response-rate and duration and safety, with quality of life and cost-effectiveness outcomes collected 3-monthly for up to 18-months. Sub-studies include a qualitative analysis of patient acceptance of randomisation and sample collection to inform future translational studies into response/ toxicity biomarkers. DISCUSSION: DANTE is a unique prospective trial investigating the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 therapy in metastatic melanoma patients. Outcomes will inform future use of these high burden drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15837212 , 31 July 2018

An open-label, phase IV randomised controlled trial of two schedules of a four-component meningococcal B vaccine in UK preterm infants

Objective: To compare immunological responses of preterm infants to a four-component meningococcal B vaccine (4CMenB; Bexsero) following a 2+1 vs a 3+1 schedule, and to describe reactogenicity of routine vaccines. Design: An open-label, phase IV randomised study conducted across six UK sites. Setting: Neonatal units, postnatal wards, community recruitment following discharge. Participants: 129 preterm infants born at a gestation of 38.0°C than those in the 2+1 group who did not (group 2+1: 2% (n=1); 3+1: 14% (n=9); p=0.02). Conclusions: Both schedules were immunogenic in preterm infants, although a lower response against strain NZ98/254 was seen in the 2+1 schedule; ongoing disease surveillance is important in understanding the clinical significance of this difference. Trial registration number: NCT03125616

Testing the credibility, feasibility and acceptability of an optimised behavioural intervention (OBI) for avoidant chronic low back pain patients: protocol for a randomised feasibility study

Background: Chronic back pain continues to be a costly and prevalent condition. The latest NICE guidelines issued in 2009 state that for patients with persistent back pain (of between six weeks and twelve months duration), who are highly distressed and/or disabled and for whom exercise, manual therapy and acupuncture has not been beneficial, the evidence supports a combination of around 100 hours of combined physical and psychological treatment. This is costly, and may prove unacceptable to many patients. A key recommendation of these guidelines was for further randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological treatment and to target treatment to specific sub-groups of patients. Recent trials that have included psychological interventions have shown only moderate improvement at best, and results are not maintained long term. There is therefore a need to test theoretically driven interventions that focus on specific high-risk sub-groups, in which the intervention is delivered at full integrity against a credible control. Methods/design: A feasibility study of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing psychologist-delivered Contextual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CCBT) against Treatment As Usual (TAU) physiotherapy delivered by physiotherapists for the treatment of chronic lower back pain in ‘avoidant’ patients. Ninety-two patients referred for physiotherapy will be recruited and randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive CCBT or TAU. Treatment groups will be balanced by centre and pain interference score. Primary outcomes include assessing the credibility and acceptability of the intervention, and to demonstrate proof of principle through a greater change in pain acceptance in the CCBT arm, measured by the Acceptance and Action –II and the Chronic Pain Acceptance questionnaires. In addition, the feasibility of carrying out a full trial will be explored with reference to recruitment and follow-up rates including the assessment of the burden of outcome measure completion. Secondary patient outcomes include disability, pain, fear of movement, mood, quality of life, and global recovery. Outcomes are measured at three and six months post-randomisation. Discussion: This paper details the rationale, design, therapist training system and recruitment methods to be used in a feasibility study which will inform the design and efficient implementation of a future definitive RCT

Enhanced feedback interventions to promote evidence-based blood transfusion guidance and reduce unnecessary use of blood components:The AFFINITIE research programme including two cluster factorial RCTs

Background: Blood transfusion is a common but costly treatment. Repeated national audits in the UK suggest that up to one-fifth of transfusions are unnecessary when judged against recommendations for good clinical practice. Audit and feedback seeks to improve patient care and outcomes by comparing clinical care against explicit standards. It is widely used internationally in quality improvement. Audit and feedback generally has modest but variable effects on patient care. A considerable scope exists to improve the impact that audit and feedback has, particularly through head-to-head trials comparing different ways of delivering feedback. Objectives: The AFFINITIE (Development & Evaluation of Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence-based Transfusion practIcE) programme aimed to design and evaluate enhanced feedback interventions, within a national blood transfusion audit programme, to promote evidence-based guidance and reduce the unnecessary use of blood components. We developed, piloted and refined two feedback interventions, ‘enhanced content’ and ‘enhanced follow-on’ (workstream 1), evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the two feedback interventions compared with standard feedback practice (workstream 2), examined intervention fidelity and contextual influences (workstream 3) and developed general implementation recommendations and tools for other audit and feedback programmes (workstream 4). Design: Interviews, observations and documentary analysis in four purposively sampled hospitals explored contemporary practice and opportunities for strengthening feedback. We developed two interventions: ‘enhanced content’, to improve the clarity and utility of feedback reports, and ‘enhanced follow-on’, to help hospital staff with action-planning (workstream 1). We conducted two linked 2 × 2 factorial cross-sectional cluster-randomised trials within transfusion audits for major surgery and haematological oncology, respectively (workstream 2). We randomised hospital clusters (the organisational level at which hospital transfusion teams operate) to enhanced or standard content or enhanced or standard follow-on. Outcome assessment was masked to assignment. Decision-analytic modelling evaluated the costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness of the feedback interventions in both trials from the perspective of the NHS. A parallel process evaluation used semistructured interviews, documentary analyses and web analytics to assess the fidelity of delivery, receipt and enactment and to identify contextual influences (workstream 3). We explored ways of improving the impact of national audits with their representatives (workstream 4). Setting and participants: All NHS hospital trusts and health boards participating in the National Comparative Audit of Blood Transfusions were invited to take part. Among 189 hospital trusts and health boards screened, 152 hospital clusters participated in the surgical audit. Among 187 hospital trusts and health boards screened, 141 hospital clusters participated in the haematology audit. Interventions: ‘Enhanced content’ aimed to ensure that the content and format of feedback reports were consistent with behaviour change theory and evidence. ‘Enhanced follow-on’ comprised a web-based toolkit and telephone support to facilitate local dissemination, planning and response to feedback. Main outcome measures: Proportions of acceptable transfusions, based on existing evidence and guidance and algorithmically derived from national audit data. Data sources: Trial primary outcomes were derived from manually collected, patient-level audit data. Secondary outcomes included routinely collected data for blood transfusion. Results: With regard to the transfusions in the major surgery audit, 135 (89%) hospital clusters participated from 152 invited. We randomised 69 and 66 clusters to enhanced and standard content, respectively, and 68 and 67 clusters to enhanced and standard follow-on, respectively. We analysed a total of 2222 patient outcomes at 12 months in 54 and 58 (enhanced and standard content, respectively) and 54 and 58 (enhanced and standard follow-on, respectively) hospital clusters. With regard to the haematology audit, 134 hospital clusters (95%) participated from 141 invited. We randomised 66 and 68 clusters to enhanced and standard content, respectively, and 67 clusters to both enhanced and standard follow-on. We analysed a total of 3859 patient outcomes at 12 months in 61 and 61 (enhanced and standard content, respectively) and 63 and 59 (enhanced and standard follow-on) hospital clusters. We found no effect of either of the enhanced feedback interventions in either trial across all outcomes. Incremental enhanced intervention costs ranged from £18 to £248 per site. The enhanced feedback interventions were dominated by the standard intervention in cost-effectiveness analyses. The interventions were delivered as designed and intended, but subsequent local engagement was low. Although the enhancements were generally acceptable, doubts about the credibility of the blood transfusion audits undermined the case for change. Limitations: Limitations included the number of participating clusters; loss to follow-up of trial clusters, reducing statistical power and validity; incomplete audit and cost data contributing to outcome measures; participant self-selection; reporting; missing data related to additional staff activity generated in response to receiving feedback; and recall biases in the process evaluation interviews. Conclusions: The enhanced feedback interventions were acceptable to recipients but were more costly and no more effective than standard feedback in reducing unnecessary use of blood components, and, therefore, should not be recommended on economic grounds. Future work: We have demonstrated the feasibility of embedding ambitious large-scale rigorous research within national audit programmes. Further head-to-head comparisons of different feedback interventions are needed in these programmes to identify cost-effective ways of increasing the impact of the interventions