The impact of road safety strategy and policy on admissions to a national rehabilitation hospital; a 5-year retrospective review and reflection on trauma data.

BACKGROUND: Globally, road traffic collisions (RTCs) are a common cause of death and disability. Although many countries, including Ireland, have road safety and trauma strategies, the impact on rehabilitation services is unclear. This study explores how admissions with RTC related injuries to a rehabilitation facility has changed over 5 years and how they contrast to major trauma audit (MTA) serious injury data from the same timeframe. METHODS: A retrospective review of healthcare records with data abstraction in accordance with best practice was performed. Fisher's exact test and binary logistic regression were used to determine associations and statistical process control was used to analyse variation. All patients discharged with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 10 coded diagnosis of Transport accidents from 2014 to 2018 were included. In addition, serious injury data was abstracted from MTA reports. RESULTS: 338 cases were identified. Of these, 173 did not meet the inclusion criteria (readmissions) and were excluded. The total number analyzed was 165. Of these, 121 (73%) were male and 44 (27%) were female and 115 (72%) were under 40 years of age. The majority [128 (78%)] had traumatic brain injuries (TBI), 33 (20%) had traumatic spinal cord injuries and 4 (2.4%) had traumatic amputation The numbers varied over the time period of the study but showed normal variation and not special cause variation which suggests no significant impact of policy in the time frame. There was a large discrepancy between the number of severe TBIs reported in the MTA reports and the numbers admitted with RTC related TBI to the National Rehabilitation University Hospital (NRH). This suggests there may be many people not accessing the specialist rehabilitation services they require. CONCLUSION: Data linkage between administrative and health datasets does not currently exist but offers huge potential for understanding the trauma and rehabilitation ecosystem in detail. This is required to better understand the impact of strategy and policy.

An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff.

BACKGROUND: The process of informed consent for enrolment to a clinical research study can be complex for both participants and research staff. Challenges include respecting the potential participant's autonomy and information needs while simultaneously providing adequate information to enable an informed decision. Qualitative research with small sample sizes has added to our understanding of these challenges. However, there is value in garnering the perspectives of research participants and staff across larger samples to explore the impact of contextual factors (time spent, the timing of the discussion and the setting), on the informed consent process. METHODS: Research staff and research participants from Ireland and the UK were invited to complete an anonymous survey by post or online (research participants) and online (research staff). The surveys aimed to quantify the perceptions of research participants and staff regarding some contextual factors about the process of informed consent. The survey, which contained 14 and 16 multiple choice questions for research participants and staff respectively, was analysed using descriptive statistics. Both surveys included one optional, open-ended question, which were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Research participants (169) and research staff (115) completed the survey. Research participants were predominantly positive about the informed consent process but highlighted the importance of having sufficient time and the value of providing follow-up once the study concludes, e.g. providing results to participants. Most staff (74.4%) staff reported that they felt very confident or confident facilitating informed consent discussions, but 63% felt information leaflets were too long and/or complicated, 56% were concerned about whether participants had understood complex information and 40% felt that time constraints were a barrier. A dominant theme from the open-ended responses to the staff survey was the importance of adequate time and resources. CONCLUSIONS: Research participants in this study were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of the informed consent process. However, research staff expressed concern about how much participants have understood and studies of patient comprehension of research study information would seem to confirm these fears. This study highlights the importance of allocating adequate time to informed consent discussions, and research staff could consider using Teach Back techniques. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

The Unmet Rehabilitation Needs in an Inclusion Health Integrated Care Programme for Homeless Adults in Dublin, Ireland.

BACKGROUND: People who become homeless have higher morbidity and mortality, use a disproportionate amount of healthcare resources, and generate a large volume of potentially preventable healthcare and other costs compared to more privileged individuals. Although access to rehabilitation is a human right under article 26 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the rehabilitation needs of individuals with homelessness have not been explored, and this project's purpose was to establish a baseline of need for this cohort. METHODS: A prospective audit of case discussions at an inclusion health service over a 2-month period in 2018. RESULTS: Four multidisciplinary inclusion health clinics were observed with over 20 cases discussed in each and data were extracted using a bespoke audit data extraction tool. The inclusion health needs were diverse and complex with many unmet rehabilitation needs. Physical and cognitive rehabilitation needs were identified in over 50% of cases discussed. Musculoskeletal problems and acquired brain injuries were the most common cause of activity limitation. Most had concurrent medical conditions and addiction and/or mental health needs. None had access to rehabilitation services. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that the rehabilitative needs of this cohort are significant and are not being met through traditional models of care. We are currently exploring innovative ways to provide appropriate services to these individuals.

Preparing accessible and understandable clinical research participant information leaflets and consent forms: a set of guidelines from an expert consensus conference.

BACKGROUND: In line with Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki, it is the investigator's responsibility to ensure that research participants are sufficiently informed, to enable the provision of informed consent. The Participant Information Leaflet/Informed Consent Form is key to facilitating this communication process. Although studies have indicated that clinical research Participant Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms are not optimal in terms of accessibility, there is little or no specific guidance available. The aim of this research was to propose and agree a set of guidelines for academic researchers and sponsors for preparing accessible and understandable Participant Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms. METHODS: A literature review identified guidance for the preparation of patient-facing documents. Following critical appraisal, key recommendations were extracted and a set of recommendations which can be applied to clinical research Participant Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms were prepared. These recommendations were evaluated and amended by an Expert Consensus Conference consisting of a group of key stakeholders. The stakeholders included members of a Research Ethics Committee (both lay and expert), a patient advocate, experienced clinical researchers, a plain English editor and a Data Protection Officer. Consensus was reached regarding a final set of recommendations. RESULTS: 44 recommendations were agreed upon and grouped into five categories: Layout, Formatting, Content, Language and Confirming Readability. These recommendations aimed to maximize accessibility for lay participants, including readers with dyslexia, literacy or numeracy challenges, thereby improving the quality of the consent process. CONCLUSIONS: More empirical research is needed to further improve the informed consent process for research participants. However, these recommendations are informed by the current literature and have been ratified by expert stakeholders. It is hoped that these recommendations will help investigators and sponsors to consistently and efficiently produce more accessible clinical research Participant Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms.

Researchers must make sure that research participants are given all of the relevant information about a research study or trial. This information helps research people to decide if they wish to take part. The Participant Information Leaflet/Informed Consent Form is an important source of information for potential research participants and their families and friends. However, Participant Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms are often not easy for lay readers to understand. They can be especially difficult for readers with dyslexia or those who have problems with reading, or understanding numbers. There are guidelines available for designing information leaflets for lay readers, for example, leaflets about medicines or different health problems. But it would be helpful for researchers if these guidelines were applied to clinical research Participant Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms.We searched for and gathered guidance for designing and writing information leaflets for adult, lay readers and checked to see if the sources of the guidance were reliable. We then put together some recommendations for designing and writing information leaflets for research studies or trials. We formed an expert group, made up of both laypersons and researchers, who reviewed and discussed these recommendations. The expert group agreed on a final set of recommendations. We hope that these recommendations will help researchers to prepare Participant Information Leaflets/ Informed Consent Forms that are consistently easier to for participants to read and understand.

An investigation into the factors affecting investigator-initiated trial start-up in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: In common with many countries, Ireland has seen an increasing trend in the number of clinical trials conducted over the past few years. Yet, as elsewhere, trialists in Ireland face several problems and barriers in the starting-up of clinical trials. These barriers impede trial activity significantly, with consequent impacts on patient care. It is critical to understand these issues, to develop approaches to facilitate trial start up. This study identifies the challenges in conducting clinical trials in Ireland and specifically the contractual, ethical, logistical, and regulatory barriers that hinder the start-up of investigator-led trials in Ireland. METHODS: Data for this study were collected in two stages. In the first stage, a survey was conducted among trialists in Ireland. A total of 44 trialists responded to the survey, and information was collected about their experience in conducting clinical trials, the scale and nature of their most recently completed trial, and the details of specific barriers they encountered during the starting-up of the trial. In the second stage, nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with the awardees of 2018 Irish Health Research Board's Definitive Intervention Feasibility Award. These interviews facilitated a deeper exploration of issues and problems in conducting clinical trials in Ireland. RESULTS: This study identified several issues and bottlenecks in starting-up clinical trials in Ireland with contracts and ethical approval cited as the major issues. The data shows that site identification and activation was also problematic in some cases. Several respondents reported difficulties in accessing dedicated time for protocol development and believe that support in this area can be greatly beneficial. It was reported that availability of skilled staff members like statisticians and data managers was as an issue, especially for small trials. CONCLUSION: This study found that several factors impact trial initiation and progression in Ireland. Delays associated with obtaining contract and ethics approval are perceived as major barriers. Specialist supports in areas such as ethics and regulatory affairs and availability of specialised staff members in areas such as statistics and data management are key actions to enable enhanced clinical trial activity in Ireland.

Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The first aim of this study was to quantify the difficulty level of clinical research Patient Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms (PILs/ICFs) using validated and widely used readability criteria which provide a broad assessment of written communication. The second aim was to compare these findings with best practice guidelines. DESIGN: Retrospective, quantitative analysis of clinical research PILs/ICFs provided by academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies and investigators. SETTING: PILs/ICFs which had received Research Ethics Committee approval in the last 5 years were collected from Ireland and the UK. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PILs/ICFs were evaluated against seven validated readability criteria (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesh Kincaid Grade Level, Simplified Measure of Gobbledegook, Gunning Fog, Fry, Raygor and New Dale Chall). The documents were also scored according to two health literacy-based criteria: the Clear Communication Index (CCI) and the Suitability Assessment of Materials tool. Finally, the documents were assessed for compliance with six best practice metrics from literacy agencies. RESULTS: A total of 176 PILs were collected, of which 154 were evaluable. None of the PILs/ICFs had the mean reading age of <12 years recommended by the American Medical Association. 7.1% of PILs/ICFs were evaluated as 'Plain English', 40.3%: 'Fairly Difficult', 51.3%: 'Difficult' and 1.3%: 'Very Difficult'. No PILs/ICFs achieved a CCI >90. Only two documents complied with all six best practice literacy metrics. CONCLUSIONS: When assessed against both traditional readability criteria and health literacy-based tools, the PILs/ICFs in this study are inappropriately complex. There is also evidence of poor compliance with guidelines produced by literacy agencies. These data clearly evidence the need for improved documentation to underpin the consent process.

Priority Needs for Conducting Pandemic-relevant Clinical Research With Children in Europe: A Consensus Study With Pediatric Clinician-researchers.

BACKGROUND: Infectious disease (ID) pandemics pose a considerable global threat and can disproportionately affect vulnerable populations including children. Pediatric clinical research in pandemics is essential to improve children's healthcare and minimize risks of harm by interventions that lack an adequate evidence base for this population. The unique features of ID pandemics require consideration of special processes to facilitate clinical research. We aimed to obtain consensus on pediatric clinician-researchers' perceptions of the priorities to feasibly conduct clinical pediatric pandemic research in Europe. METHODS: Mixed method study in 2 stages, recruiting pediatric clinician-researchers with experience of conducting pediatric ID research in clinical settings in Europe. Stage 1 was an expert stakeholder workshop and interviews. Discussions focused on participant's experience of conducting pediatric ID research and processes to facilitate pandemic research. Information informed stage 2, an online consensus survey to identify pediatric inician-researchers priorities to enable ID pandemic research. RESULTS: Twenty-three pediatric clinician-researchers attended the workshop and 39 completed the survey. Priorities were primarily focused on structural and operational requirements of research design and regulation: (1) clarity within the European Clinical Trials Directive for pediatric pandemic research; (2) simplified regulatory processes for research involving clinical samples and data; and (3) improved relationships between regulatory bodies and researchers. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that changes need to be made to the current regulatory environment to facilitate and improve pediatric research in the pandemic context. These findings can provide expert evidence to research policy decision-makers and regulators and to develop a strategy to lobby for change.

Talking to the people that really matter about their participation in pandemic clinical research: A qualitative study in four European countries.

BACKGROUND: Pandemics of new and emerging infectious diseases are unpredictable, recurrent events that rapidly threaten global health and security. We aimed to identify public views regarding provision of information and consent to participate in primary and critical care clinical research during a future influenza-like illness pandemic. METHODS: Descriptive-interpretive qualitative study, using focus groups (n = 10) and semi-structured interviews (n = 16), with 80 members of the public (>18 years) in Belgium, Spain, Poland and the UK. Local qualitative researchers followed a scenario-based topic guide to collect data. Data were transcribed verbatim, translated into English and subject to framework analysis. RESULTS: Public understandings of pandemics were shaped by personal factors (illness during the previous H1N1 pandemic, experience of life-threatening illness) and social factors (historical references, media, public health information). Informants appreciated safeguards provided by ethically robust research procedures, but current enrolment procedures were seen as a barrier. They proposed simplified enrolment processes for higher risk research and consent waiver for certain types of low-risk research. Decision making about research participation was influenced by contextual, research and personal factors. Informants generally either carefully weighed up various approaches to research participation or responded instinctively. They supported the principle of using routinely collected, anonymized clinical biological samples for research without explicit consent, but regarded this as less acceptable if researchers were motivated primarily by commercial gain. CONCLUSIONS: This bottom-up approach to ascertaining public views on pandemic clinical research has identified support for more proportionate research protection procedures for publically funded, low-risk studies.