Making change last: applying the NHSIII sustainability model to healthcare improvement

The implementation of evidence-based treatments to deliver high-quality care is essential to meet the healthcare demands of aging populations. However, the sustainable application of recommended practice is difficult to achieve and variable outcomes well recognised. The NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement Sustainability Model (SM) was designed to help healthcare teams recognise determinants of sustainability and take action to embed new practice in routine care. This article describes a formative evaluation of the application of the SM by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London (CLAHRC NWL). Data from project teams’ responses to the SM and formal reviews was used to assess acceptability of the SM and the extent to which it prompted teams to take action. Projects were classified as ‘engaged,’ ‘partially engaged’ and ‘non-engaged.’ Quarterly survey feedback data was used to explore reasons for variation in engagement. Score patterns were compared against formal review data and a ‘diversity of opinion’ measure was derived to assess response variance over time. Of the 19 teams, six were categorized as ‘engaged,’ six ‘partially engaged,’ and seven as ‘non-engaged.’ Twelve teams found the model acceptable to some extent. Diversity of opinion reduced over time. A minority of teams used the SM consistently to take action to promote sustainability but for the majority SM use was sporadic. Feedback from some team members indicates difficulty in understanding and applying the model and negative views regarding its usefulness. The SM is an important attempt to enable teams to systematically consider determinants of sustainability, provide timely data to assess progress, and prompt action to create conditions for sustained practice. Tools such as these need to be tested in healthcare settings to assess strengths and weaknesses and findings disseminated to aid development. This study indicates the SM provides a potentially useful approach to measuring teams’ views on the likelihood of sustainability and prompting action. Securing engagement of teams with the SM was challenging and redesign of elements may need to be considered. Capacity building and facilitation appears necessary for teams to effectively deploy the SM

"If we use the strength of diversity among researchers we can only improve the quality and impact of our research": Issues of equality, diversity, inclusion, and transparency in the process of applying for research funding

This paper sets out the recommendations that have emerged from a six-month-long exploration and discussion of the processes that take place before research is submitted for funding: the ‘pre-award’ environment. Our work concentrated on how this environment is experienced by researchers at all career stages and from a variety of backgrounds, demographics, and disciplines, as well as by research managers and research support professionals. In the later stages of our exploration, representatives from research funders were also involved in the discussions. The primary component of this project was an analysis of pre-award activities and processes at UK universities, using information collated from workshops with researchers and research management and support staff. The findings of this analysis were presented as a workflow diagram, which was then used to surface issues relating to equality, diversity, inclusion, and transparency in context. The workflow diagram and the issues highlighted by it were used to structure discussions at a symposium for a range of research stakeholders, held in Bristol, UK, in January 2023. The recommendations set out in this paper are drawn from discussions that took place at that event. This paper is not an exhaustive landscape analysis, nor a review of existing research and practice in the area of pre-award processes or of recent thinking on the topics of equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). Instead, it aims to summarise and encapsulate the suggestions put forward by the stakeholders during the symposium. These recommendations, from experienced professionals working in the field, are based on their encounters with the issues raised in the project. They do not solely relate to those working on pre-award processes, but may also apply to funders, policymakers, university leaders, and professional associations, since many of the challenges flagged in our research are systemic and cultural, and reach far beyond the research office

ACCORD: A Multicentre, Seamless, Phase 2 Adaptive Randomisation Platform Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Multiple Candidate Agents for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Hospitalised Patients: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Funder: UKRIAbstract: Objectives: Stage 1: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of candidate agents as add-on therapies to standard of care (SoC) in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in a screening stage. Stage 2: To confirm the efficacy of candidate agents selected on the basis of evidence from Stage 1 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in an expansion stage. Trial design: ACCORD is a seamless, Phase 2, adaptive, randomised controlled platform study, designed to rapidly test candidate agents in the treatment of COVID-19. Designed as a master protocol with each candidate agent being included via its own sub-protocol, initially randomising equally between each candidate and a single contemporaneous SoC arm (which can adapt into 2:1). Candidate agents currently include bemcentinib, MEDI3506, acalabrutinib, zilucoplan and nebulised heparin. For each candidate a total of 60 patients will be recruited in Stage 1. If Stage 1 provides evidence of efficacy and acceptable safety the candidate will enter Stage 2 where a total of approximately 126 patients will be recruited into each study arm sub-protocol. Enrollees and outcomes will not be shared across the Stages; the endpoint, analysis and sample size for Stage 2 may be adjusted based on evidence from Stage 1. Additional arms may be added as new potential candidate agents are identified via candidate agent specific sub-protocols. Participants: The study will include hospitalised adult patients (≥18 years) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, the virus that causes COVID-19, that clinically meet Grades 3 (hospitalised – mild disease, no oxygen therapy), Grades 4 (hospitalised, oxygen by mask or nasal prongs) and 5 (hospitalised, non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen) of the WHO Working Group on the Clinical Characteristics of COVID-19 9-point category ordinal scale. Participants will be recruited from England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Intervention and comparator: Comparator is current standard of care (SoC) for the treatment of COVID-19. Current candidate experimental arms include bemcentinib, MEDI3506, acalabrutinib, zilucoplan and nebulised heparin with others to be added over time. Bemcentinib could potentially reduce viral infection and blocks SARS-CoV-2 spike protein; MEDI3506 is a clinic-ready anti-IL-33 monoclonal antibody with the potential to treat respiratory failure caused by COVID; acalabrutinib is a BTK inhibitor which is anti-viral and anti-inflammatory; zilucoplan is a complement C5 inhibitor which may block the severe inflammatory response in COVID-19 and; nebulised heparin has been shown to bind with the spike protein. ACCORD is linked with the UK national COVID therapeutics task force to help prioritise candidate agents. Main outcomes: Time to sustained clinical improvement of at least 2 points (from randomisation) on the WHO 9-point category ordinal scale, live discharge from the hospital, or considered fit for discharge (a score of 0, 1, or 2 on the ordinal scale), whichever comes first, by Day 29 (this will also define the “responder” for the response rate analyses). Randomisation: An electronic randomization will be performed by Cenduit using Interactive Response Technology (IRT). Randomisation will be stratified by baseline severity grade. Randomisation will proceed with an equal allocation to each arm and a contemporaneous SoC arm (e.g. 1:1 if control and 1 experimental arm; 1:1:1 if two experimental candidate arms etc) but will be reviewed as the trial progresses and may be changed to 2:1 in favour of the candidate agents. Blinding (masking): The trial is open label and no blinding is currently planned in the study. Numbers to be randomised (sample size): This will be in the order of 60 patients per candidate agent for Stage 1, and 126 patients for Stage 2. However, sample size re-estimation may be considered after Stage 1. It is estimated that up to 1800 patients will participate in the overall study. Trial Status: Master protocol version ACCORD-2-001 - Master Protocol (Amendment 1) 22nd April 2020, the trial has full regulatory approval and recruitment is ongoing in the bemcentinib (first patient recruited 6/5/2020), MEDI3506 (first patient recruited 19/5/2020), acalabrutinib (first patient recruited 20/5/2020) and zilucoplan (first patient recruited 19/5/2020) candidates (and SoC). The recruitment dates of each arm will vary between candidate agents as they are added or dropped from the trial, but will have recruited and reported within a year. Trial registration: EudraCT 2020-001736-95, registered 28th April 2020. Full protocol: The full protocol (Master Protocol with each of the candidate sub-protocols) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol

Improving the quality of cancer registry data for adult haematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms : the impact of engaging clinicians

EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

The incidence and outcome of myeloid malignancies in 2,112 adult patients in southeast England.

There is a paucity of epidemiological data on chronic myeloproliferative disorders and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), while subtypes of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are rarely defined. We identified 2,112 adult myeloid malignancies in the South Thames area between 1999 and 2000. The incidence (European standard population) of AML was 3.00/100,000, that of MDS 3.47/100,000, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) 0.46/100,000, idiopathic myelofibrosis (IMF) 0.37/100,000, polycythemia vera (PV) 1.08/100,000, primary thrombocythemia (PT) 1.65/100,000 and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) 1.09/100,000. The 3-year survival for AML was 15%, MDS 45%, CMML 29%, IMF 48%, PV 80%, PT 81% and CML 50% We believe this study reflects the true incidence and outcome of myeloid malignancies in South East England

Open Access

for innovation and improvement sustainability model to healthcare improvemen

Comparison of a specialist haematological malignancy database against a regional cancer registry: case ascertainment and diagnostic accuracy.

No large-scale study has been performed to assess the problem of registering all subtypes of haematological malignancies. We compared registration of haematological malignancies between 1994 and 1996 by haematologists in 14 National Health Service Trusts in the Eastern part of the South Thames Region with data for the same area recorded by the Thames Cancer Registry (TCR). Case ascertainment and diagnostic accuracy were the two main outcome measures. A combined total of 4714 haematological malignancies were recorded over the 3-year period. Of these, 1329 (28%) were common to both databases, 1975 (42%) were recorded only by the TCR and 1410 (30%) were recorded only by the haematologists. Nearly one-third (31%) of all cases recorded by the TCR were death certificate-only registrations. The TCR records were obtained from 30 clinical specialities. Haematology only accounted for 35% of these cases. Discordant diagnoses were recorded in 20% of the cases that were recorded in both databases. Our data suggests that both registers have deficiencies in collecting and validating data on the incidence of haematological malignancies. To address this, a partnership was established in 1998 between haematologists in the South Thames Region and the Thames Cancer Registry. It is anticipated that engaging clinicians in the collection and validation of data will enhance the completeness of case ascertainment and improve the quality of data on haematological malignancies