Data enriched research, data enhanced impact: the importance of UK data infrastructure.

Matthew Woollard discusses the importance of UK data infrastructure and how the systematic management and sharing of research data can lead to many benefits for the research community and the public. Here he introduces #DataImpact2015 where a panel of leading data innovators will explore data re-use in policy and research, sharing their experiences of demonstrating data enhanced impact

SARCASTIC v2.0 - High-performance SAR simulation for next-generation ATR systems

Synthetic aperture radar has been a mainstay of the remote sensing field for many years, with a wide range of applications across both civilian and military contexts. However, the lack of openly available datasets of comparable size and quality to those available for optical imagery has severely hampered work on open problems such as automatic target recognition, image understanding and inverse modelling. This paper presents a simulation and analysis framework based on the upgraded SARCASTIC v2.0 engine, along with a selection of case studies demonstrating its application to well-known and novel problems. In particular, we demonstrate that SARCASTIC v2.0 is capable of supporting complex phase-dependent processing such as interferometric height extraction whilst maintaining near-realtime performance on complex scenes

Dispatcher-Assisted CPR for out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest

n/

Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PaRAMeDIC) trial protocol

Background Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is closely linked to the quality of CPR, but in real life, resuscitation during pre-hospital care and ambulance transport is often suboptimal. Mechanical chest compression devices deliver consistent chest compressions, are not prone to fatigue and could potentially overcome some of the limitations of manual chest compression. However, there is no high-quality evidence that they improve clinical outcomes, or that they are cost effective. The Pre-hospital Randomised Assessment of a Mechanical Compression Device In Cardiac Arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial is a pragmatic cluster randomised study of the LUCAS-2 device in adult patients with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods The primary objective of this trial is to evaluate the effect of chest compression using LUCAS-2 on mortality at 30 days post out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, compared with manual chest compression. Secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the effects of LUCAS-2 on survival to 12 months, cognitive and quality of life outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Methods: Ambulance service vehicles will be randomised to either manual compression (control) or LUCAS arms. Adult patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, attended by a trial vehicle will be eligible for inclusion. Patients with traumatic cardiac arrest or who are pregnant will be excluded. The trial will recruit approximately 4000 patients from England, Wales and Scotland. A waiver of initial consent has been approved by the Research Ethics Committees. Consent will be sought from survivors for participation in the follow-up phase. Conclusion The trial will assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of the LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression device. Trial Registration: The trial is registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry (ISRCTN08233942)

The KRDS Benefit Analysis Toolkit:Development and Application

This paper provides an overview of the KRDS Benefit Analysis Toolkit. The Toolkit has been developed to assist curation activities by assessing the benefits associated with the long-term preservation of research data. It builds on the outputs of the Keeping Research Data Safe (KRDS) research projects and consists of two tools: the KRDS Benefits Framework, and the Value-chain and Benefits Impact tool. Each tool consists of a more detailed guide and worksheet(s). Both tools have drawn on partner case studies and previous work on benefits and impact for digital curation and preservation. This experience has provided a series of common examples of generic benefits that are employed in both tools for users to modify or add to as required

An exploration of the views of paramedics regarding airway management

© 2016 Brandling et al. Background: Paramedics are a skilled group of clinicians with expertise in airway management. Our research group has completed a trial comparing supraglottic airway devices with tracheal intubation during out of hospital cardiac arrest. This is a contentious topic amongst paramedics in the United Kingdom (UK). We explored the customs and beliefs of UK paramedics in relation to airway management, and whether tracheal intubation contributes to and sustains paramedic professional identity. Methods: The study took place within South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust. We used a qualitative approach, conducting interviews and focus groups with paramedics. The themes arising from interviews were discussed in focus groups, developing a deeper understanding and providing insight and recommendations for future research and policy. Purposive sampling accounted for differing training and for participation in the main trial. There were 17interviews and five focus groups with a further 17 participants. Data saturation was achieved. Results: Four domains were identified. Pride - The ability to use a life-saving skill in austere conditions. Utility - Different training routes and experience have led to different attitudes towards airway management. Inconsistent expectations - Paramedics felt that there were different perceptions of their abilities amongst hospital staff and the general public. Professionalization - Debate over airway management is not founded on good evidence. Conclusion: We have demonstrated that UK paramedics have a wide range of views regarding airway management, and that these are based on evidence and experience rather than dogma. Airway management contributes to paramedics' professional identity, but is not reliant on this

Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) : a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices have the potential to help maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite their increasing use, little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We aimed to study whether the introduction of LUCAS-2 mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: The pre-hospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial was a pragmatic, cluster-randomised open-label trial including adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from four UK Ambulance Services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales, South Central). 91 urban and semi-urban ambulance stations were selected for participation. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (1:2) to LUCAS-2 or manual CPR. Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest and was analysed by intention to treat. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were masked to treatment allocation. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. The study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN08233942. FINDINGS: We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group) between April 15, 2010 and June 10, 2013. 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression, and 11 (<1%) patients in the control group received LUCAS-2. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30 day survival was similar in the LUCAS-2 group (104 [6%] of 1652 patients) and in the manual CPR group (193 [7%] of 2819 patients; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·64-1·15). No serious adverse events were noted. Seven clinical adverse events were reported in the LUCAS-2 group (three patients with chest bruising, two with chest lacerations, and two with blood in mouth). 15 device incidents occurred during operational use. No adverse or serious adverse events were reported in the manual group. INTERPRETATION: We noted no evidence of improvement in 30 day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. On the basis of ours and other recent randomised trials, widespread adoption of mechanical CPR devices for routine use does not improve survival