Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER 1) trial protocol. Computerised on-scene decision support for emergency ambulance staff to assess and plan care for older people who have fallen: evaluation of costs and benefits using a pragmatic cluster randomised trial

Background: Many emergency ambulance calls are for older people who have fallen. As half of them are left at home, a community-based response may often be more appropriate than hospital attendance. The SAFER 1 trial will assess the costs and benefits of a new healthcare technology - hand-held computers with computerised clinical decision support (CCDS) software - to help paramedics decide who needs hospital attendance, and who can be safely left at home with referral to community falls services. Methods/Design: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial with a qualitative component. We shall allocate 72 paramedics ('clusters') at random between receiving the intervention and a control group delivering care as usual, of whom we expect 60 to complete the trial. Patients are eligible if they are aged 65 or older, live in the study area but not in residential care, and are attended by a study paramedic following an emergency call for a fall. Seven to 10 days after the index fall we shall offer patients the opportunity to opt out of further follow up. Continuing participants will receive questionnaires after one and 6 months, and we shall monitor their routine clinical data for 6 months. We shall interview 20 of these patients in depth. We shall conduct focus groups or semi-structured interviews with paramedics and other stakeholders. The primary outcome is the interval to the first subsequent reported fall (or death). We shall analyse this and other measures of outcome, process and cost by 'intention to treat'. We shall analyse qualitative data thematically. Discussion: Since the SAFER 1 trial received funding in August 2006, implementation has come to terms with ambulance service reorganisation and a new national electronic patient record in England. In response to these hurdles the research team has adapted the research design, including aspects of the intervention, to meet the needs of the ambulance services. In conclusion this complex emergency care trial will provide rigorous evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of CCDS for paramedics in the care of older people who have fallen

A pilot study evaluating the use of ABCD2 score in pre-hospital assessment of patients with suspected transient ischaemic attack: experience and lessons learned

Background: Suspected transient ischaemic attack (TIA) is a common presentation to emergency medical services (EMS) in the United Kingdom (UK). Several EMS systems have adopted the ABCD2 score to aid pre-hospital risk stratification and decision-making on patient disposition, such as direct referral to an Emergency Department or specialist TIA clinic. However, the ABCD2 score, developed for hospital use, has not been validated for use in the pre-hospital context of EMS care. Methods: We conducted a pilot study to assess eligibility criteria, recruitment rates, protocol compliance, consent and follow-up procedures to inform the development of a definitive study to validate the ABCD2 tool in pre-hospital evaluation of patients with suspected TIA. Results: From 1st May–1st September 2013, nine patients with an EMS suspected diagnosis of TIA had the TIA diagnosis later confirmed by a specialist from five participating sites. This recruitment rate is comparable to stroke trials in the EMS setting. Bureaucratic obstacles and duplication of approval processes across participating sites took 13 months to resolve before recruitment commenced. Due to the initial difficulty in recruitment, a substantial amendment was approved to modify inclusion criteria, allowing patients with atrial fibrillation and/or taking anticoagulant therapy to participate in the study. Conclusions: It is possible to identify, recruit and follow up patients with suspected TIA in the EMS setting. Training large numbers of EMS staff is required as exposure to TIA patients is infrequent. Significant insight was gained into the complexity of NHS research governance mechanisms in the UK. This knowledge will facilitate the planning of a future adequately powered study to validate the ABCD2 tool in a pre-hospital setting

Thematic Research network for emergency and UnScheduled Treatment (TRUST): scoping the potential

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To identify the benefits of a network in emergency and unscheduled care research, a six week scoping study was undertaken. Objectives were to: draw together stakeholders; identify and prioritise research topics; identify sites for recruitment to studies; and agree a research strategy for a network.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A workshop was held to discuss and agree a research strategy based on results from four activities: visits to established research centres in emergency and unscheduled care; a literature overview; interviews with stakeholders in a GP out-of-hours service; and an exploration of the potential for routine data to support research in emergency care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Participants attended the workshop from user groups, primary care, the ambulance service, social care, the national telephone based health helpline, the Welsh Assembly Government and the academic sector. Site visits identified opportunities for collaboration. Gaps in knowledge were identified concerning the effectiveness of alternative models of emergency care delivery. Interview data highlighted a lack of evidence related to the quality of out-of-hours provision of primary care. The All Wales Injury Surveillance System (AWISS) was found to offer the potential to use routine data to support quantitative studies in emergency care. Three key issues emerged across all activities: working across boundaries; patient involvement; and triage.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The study included views from patient, provider, policy and academic perspectives and built the case for a research network in emergency care. Now funded, TRUST (Thematic Research network for emergency and UnScheduled Treatment) will allow the development of research proposals, building of research teams and recruitment of sites and patients both in Wales and across the UK. It aims to address the imbalance between investment and research in this area and help support provision of 'the right care to the right people at the right time'.</p

Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER) 2: a cluster randomised trial and systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new protocols for emergency ambulance paramedics to assess older people following a fall with referral to community-based care when appropriate.

BACKGROUND: Emergency calls are frequently made to ambulance services for older people who have fallen, but ambulance crews often leave patients at the scene without any ongoing care. We evaluated a new clinical protocol which allowed paramedics to assess older people who had fallen and, if appropriate, refer them to community-based falls services. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes, processes and costs of care between intervention and control groups; and to understand factors which facilitate or hinder use. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Participating paramedics at three ambulance services in England and Wales were based at stations randomised to intervention or control arms. Participants were aged 65 years and over, attended by a study paramedic for a fall-related emergency service call, and resident in the trial catchment areas. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention paramedics received a clinical protocol with referral pathway, training and support to change practice. Control paramedics continued practice as normal. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome comprised subsequent emergency health-care contacts (emergency admissions, emergency department attendances, emergency service calls) or death at 1 month and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included pathway of care, ambulance service operational indicators, self-reported outcomes and costs of care. Those assessing outcomes remained blinded to group allocation. RESULTS: Across sites, 3073 eligible patients attended by 105 paramedics from 14 ambulance stations were randomly allocated to the intervention group, and 2841 eligible patients attended by 110 paramedics from 11 stations were randomly allocated to the control group. After excluding dissenting and unmatched patients, 2391 intervention group patients and 2264 control group patients were included in primary outcome analyses. We did not find an effect on our overall primary outcome at 1 month or 6 months. However, further emergency service calls were reduced at both 1 month and 6 months; a smaller proportion of patients had made further emergency service calls at 1 month (18.5% vs. 21.8%) and the rate per patient-day at risk at 6 months was lower in the intervention group (0.013 vs. 0.017). Rate of conveyance to emergency department at index incident was similar between groups. Eight per cent of trial eligible patients in the intervention arm were referred to falls services by attending paramedics, compared with 1% in the control arm. The proportion of patients left at scene without further care was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (22.6% vs. 30.3%). We found no differences in duration of episode of care or job cycle. No adverse events were reported. Mean cost of the intervention was £17.30 per patient. There were no significant differences in mean resource utilisation, utilities at 1 month or 6 months or quality-adjusted life-years. In total, 58 patients, 25 paramedics and 31 stakeholders participated in focus groups or interviews. Patients were very satisfied with assessments carried out by paramedics. Paramedics reported that the intervention had increased their confidence to leave patients at home, but barriers to referral included patients' social situations and autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that this new pathway may be introduced by ambulance services at modest cost, without risk of harm and with some reductions in further emergency calls. However, we did not find evidence of improved health outcomes or reductions in overall NHS emergency workload. Further research is necessary to understand issues in implementation, the costs and benefits of e-trials and the performance of the modified Falls Efficacy Scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60481756 and PROSPERO CRD42013006418. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

It could be a ‘Golden Goose’: a qualitative study of views in primary care on an emergency admission risk prediction tool prior to implementation

BACKGROUND: Rising demand for health care has prompted interest in new technologies to support a shift of care from hospital to community and primary care, which may require clinicians to undertake new working practices. A predictive risk stratification tool (Prism) was developed for use in primary care to estimate patients’ risk of an emergency hospital admission. As part of an evaluation of Prism, we aimed to understand what might be needed to bring Prism into effective use by exploring clinicians and practice managers’ attitudes and expectations about using it. We were informed by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) which examines the work needed to bring an innovation into use. METHODS: We conducted 4 focus groups and 10 interviews with a total of 43 primary care doctors and colleagues from 32 general practices. All were recorded and transcribed. Analysis focussed in particular on the construct of ‘coherence’ within NPT, which examines how people understand an innovation and its purpose. RESULTS: Respondents were in agreement that Prism was a technological formalisation of existing practice, and that it would function as a support to clinical judgment, rather than replacing it. There was broad consensus about the role it might have in delivering new models of care based on active management, but there were doubts about the scope for making a difference to some patients and about whether Prism could identify at-risk patients not already known to the clinical team. Respondents did not expect using the tool to be onerous, but were concerned about the work which might follow in delivering care. Any potential value would not be of the tool in isolation, but would depend on the availability of support services. CONCLUSIONS: Policy imperatives and the pressure of rising demand meant respondents were open to trying out Prism, despite underlying uncertainty about what difference it could make. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Clinical Trials no. ISRCTN55538212

Bureaucracy stifles medical research in Britain: a tale of three trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent developments aiming to standardise and streamline processes of gaining the necessary approvals to carry out research in the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK), have resulted in lengthy and costly delays. The national UK governmental Department of Health’s Research Governance Framework (RGF) for Health and Social Care requires that appropriate checks be conducted before research involving human participants, their organs, tissues or data can commence in the NHS. As a result, medical research has been subjected to increased regulation and governance, with the requirement for approvals from numerous regulatory and monitoring bodies. In addition, the processes and outcomes of the attribution of costs in NHS research have caused additional difficulties for researchers. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate, through three trial case studies, the difficulties encountered during the set-up and recruitment phases of these trials, related to gaining the necessary ethical and governance approvals and applying for NHS costs to undertake and deliver the research.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Empirical evidence about delays and difficulties related to regulation and governance of medical research was gathered during the period 2009–2010 from three UK randomised controlled trials with sites in England, Wales and Scotland (1. SAFER 2- an emergency care based trial of a protocol for paramedics to refer patients directly to community based falls services; 2. COnStRUCT- a trial of two drugs for acute ulcerative colitis; and 3. Family Links - a trial of a public health intervention, a 10 week community based parenting programme). Findings and recommendations were reported in response to a call for evidence from The Academy of Medical Sciences regarding difficulties encountered in conducting medical research arising from R&D governance and regulation, to inform national policy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Difficulties and delays in navigating and gaining the appropriate approvals and NHS costs required to undertake the research were encountered in all three trials, at various points in the bureaucratic processes of ethical and research and information governance approvals. Conduct of each of the three trials was delayed by at least 12 months, with costs increasing by 30 – 40%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Whilst the three trials encountered a variety of challenges, there were common issues. The processes for gaining approvals were overly complex and differed between sites and UK countries; guidance about processes was unclear; and information regarding how to define and claim NHS costs for undertaking the research was inconsistent. The competitive advantage of a publicly funded, open access health system for undertaking health services research and clinical trials within the UK has been outweighed in recent years by stifling bureaucratic structures and processes for governance of research. The recommendations of the Academy of Medical Sciences are welcomed, and the effects of their implementation are awaited with interest.</p> <p>Trial Registration numbers</p> <p>SAFER 2: ISRCTN 60481756; COnStRUCT: ISRCTN22663589; Family Links: ISRCTN 13929732</p

‘Not clinically effective but cost-effective’ - paradoxical conclusions in randomised controlled trials with ‘doubly null’ results: a cross-sectional study

Objectives Randomised controlled trials in healthcare increasingly include economic evaluations. Some show small differences which are not statistically significant. Yet these sometimes come to paradoxical conclusions such as: 'the intervention is not clinically effective' but 'is probably cost-effective'. This study aims to quantify the extent of non-significant results and the types of conclusions drawn from them. Design Cross-sectional retrospective analysis of randomised trials published by the UK's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme. We defined as 'doubly null' those trials that found non-statistically significant differences in both primary outcome and cost per patient. Paradoxical was defined as concluding in favour of an intervention, usually compared with placebo or usual care. No human participants were involved. Our sample was 226 randomised trial projects published by the Health Technology Assessment programme 2004 to 2017. All are available free online. Results The 226 projects contained 193 trials with a full economic evaluation. Of these 76 (39%) had at least one 'doubly null' comparison. These 76 trials contained 94 comparisons. In these 30 (32%) drew economic conclusions in favour of an intervention. Overall report conclusions split roughly equally between those favouring the intervention (14), and those favouring either the control (7) or uncertainty (9). Discussion Trials with 'doubly null' results and paradoxical conclusions are not uncommon. The differences observed in cost and quality-adjustedlife year were small and non-statistically significant. Almost all these trials were also published in leading peer-reviewed journals. Although some guidelines for reporting economic results require cost-effectiveness estimates regardless of statistical significance, the interpretability of paradoxical results has nowhere been addressed. Conclusions Reconsideration is required of the interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses in randomised controlled trials with 'doubly null' results, particularly when economics favours a novel intervention.</p

PP39 Emergency service provider perspectives of feasibility and acceptability of emergency services distribution of take home naloxone

IntroductionNaloxone is an effective emergency antidote to opioid overdose. Increasing availability of take-home naloxone (THN) may reduce overdose deaths from heroin and other opiate drugs. We explored stakeholder perspectives of the processes, feasibility and acceptability of THN distributed in emergency settings as part of a feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial (RCT).MethodsWe conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews (12 participants) and a focus group (8 participants) with Emergency Department staff and paramedics. We transcribed interviews verbatim and used Normalisation Process Theory to guide data collection and analysis.ResultsParticipants perceived emergency service provision of THN as a low cost, low risk intervention and demonstrated coherence in understanding the aims of the trial and how it related to their work practices. Paramedics in particular recognised benefits of THN as distinct from naloxone alone and valued the additional provision of training and education, compatible with ‘making every contact count’. Participants reported limited opportunities for THN provision to this cohort due to low engagement from eligible patients, but perceived there to be high potential benefit for a subset of emergency service users who would not otherwise access THN. Provision of THN to patients during the trial was low due to limited numbers of eligible patients, high turnover of trained staff and recruitment pauses due to protocol changes and Covid-19. Determination of effectiveness was perceived to be challenging within a trial due to high levels of community provision of THN. There was overall support from ED and paramedic staff for the roll out of emergency setting provision of THN as standard practice, outside the confines of a trial.ConclusionsDistribution of THN in emergency settings appears to be feasible and acceptable for stakeholders and may widen access to THN for users not engaging with wider community drug services. Further RCTs of THN in emergency settings may be limited by difficulties in recruitment and limited opportunity to recruit new patients, where THN provision from other settings is widespread.</jats:sec