Practice Inquiry: Clinical Uncertainty as a Focus for Small-Group Learning and Practice Improvement

PROBLEM: Many primary care physicians in nonacademic settings lack a collegial forum for engaging the clinical uncertainties inherent in their work. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: “Practice Inquiry” is proposed as a set of small-group, practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI) methods designed to help clinicians better manage case-based clinical uncertainty. Clinicians meet regularly at their offices/clinics to present dilemma cases, share clinical experience, review evidence for blending with experience, and draw implications for practice improvement. From 2001 through 2005, Practice Inquiry was introduced to sites in the San Francisco Bay Area as a demonstration effort. Meeting rosters, case logs, a feedback survey, and meeting field notes documented implementation and provided data for a formative, qualitative evaluation. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Of the 30 sites approached, 14 held introductory meetings. As of summer 2006, 98 clinicians in 11 sites continue to hold regularly scheduled group meetings. Of the 118 patient cases presented in the seven oldest groups, clinician–patient relationship and treatment dilemmas were most common. Clinician feedback and meeting transcript data provided insights into how busy practitioners shared cases, developed trust, and learned new knowledge/skills for moving forward with patients. DISCUSSION: Ongoing clinician involvement suggests that Practice Inquiry is a feasible, acceptable, and potentially useful set of PBLI methods. Two of the Practice Inquiry’s group learning tasks received comparatively less focus: integrating research evidence with clinical experience and tracking dilemma case outcomes. Future work should focus on reducing the methodological limitations of a demonstration effort and examining factors affecting clinician participation. Set-aside work time for clinicians, or other equally potent incentives, will be necessary for the further elaboration of these PBLI methods aimed at managing uncertainty

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome