Electronic surveys: how to maximise success.

AIM: To draw on the researchers' experience of developing and distributing a UK-wide electronic survey. The evolution of electronic surveys in healthcare research will be discussed, as well as simple techniques that can be used to improve response rates for this type of data collection. BACKGROUND: There is an increasing use of electronic survey methods in healthcare research. However, in recent published research, electronic surveys have had lower response rates than traditional survey methods, such as postal and telephone surveys. REVIEW METHODS: This is a methodology paper. DISCUSSION: Electronic surveys have many advantages over traditional surveys, including a reduction in cost and ease of analysis. Drawbacks to this type of data collection include the potential for selection bias and poorer response rates. However, research teams can use a range of simple strategies to boost response rates. These approaches target the different stages of achieving a complete response: initial attraction through personalisation, engagement by having an easily accessible link to the survey, and transparency of survey length and completion though targeting the correct, and thereby interested, population. CONCLUSION: The fast, efficient and often 'free' electronic survey has many advantages over the traditional postal data collection method, including ease of analysis for what can be vast amounts of data. However, to capitalise on these benefits, researchers must carefully consider techniques to maximise response rates and minimise selection bias for their target population. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH/PRACTICE: Researchers can use a range of strategies to improve responses from electronic surveys, including sending up to three reminders, personalising each email, adding the updated response rate to reminder emails, and stating the average time it would take to complete the survey in the title of the email.

Assessment and management of alcohol-related admissions to UK intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: The critical care environment has felt the overwhelming impact of the growing problem of alcohol abuse. However, there is ambiguity concerning the assessment and management of this patient group. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore current practice in the use of assessment and management tools for alcohol-related admissions in UK intensive care units (ICU). METHODS: Two hundred and forty-eight lead consultants across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales were sent an electronic survey using the SurveyMonkey(®) ( www.surveymonkey.com) website. RESULTS: A total of 103 (41·05%) lead consultants responded to the survey. Most units (67%) utilized the volume of alcohol consumed per week to assess patient alcohol use. Furthermore, 12 units (11%) used the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment tool, 5 units (5%) used the Glasgow Modified Alcohol Withdrawal Scale and 79 units (73%) used no tool for the management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome. CONCLUSION: There appears to be a diverse approach to the assessment and management of alcohol-related admissions in UK ICUs. Further research is required in this area to identify the most effective way to assess and manage alcohol-related admissions within intensive care. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Under recognition and poor assessment of alcohol use can have major implications for critically ill patients.

Performance of bedside tools for predicting infection-related mortality and administrative data for sepsis surveillance: An observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Measuring sepsis incidence and associated mortality at scale using administrative data is hampered by variation in diagnostic coding. This study aimed first to compare how well bedside severity scores predict 30-day mortality in hospitalised patients with infection, then to assess the ability of combinations of administrative data items to identify patients with sepsis. METHODS: This retrospective case note review examined 958 adult hospital admissions between October 2015 and March 2016. Admissions with blood culture sampling were matched 1:1 to admissions without a blood culture. Case note review data were linked to discharge coding and mortality. For patients with infection the performance characteristics of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), National Early Warning System (NEWS), quick SOFA (qSOFA), and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) were calculated for predicting 30-day mortality. Next, the performance characteristics of administrative data (blood cultures and discharge codes) for identifying patients with sepsis, defined as SOFA ≥2 because of infection, were calculated. RESULTS: Infection was documented in 630 (65.8%) admissions and 347 (55.1%) patients with infection had sepsis. NEWS (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic, AUROC 0.78 95%CI 0.72-0.83) and SOFA (AUROC 0.77, 95%CI 0.72-0.83), performed similarly well for prediction of 30-day mortality. Having an infection and/or sepsis International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code (AUROC 0.68, 95%CI 0.64-0.71) performed as well in identifying patients with sepsis as having at least one of: an infection code; sepsis code, or; blood culture (AUROC 0.68, 95%CI 0.65-0.71), Sepsis codes (AUROC 0.53, 95%CI 0.49-0.57) and positive blood cultures (AUROC 0.52, 95%CI 0.49-0.56) performed least well. CONCLUSIONS: SOFA and NEWS best predicted 30-day mortality in patients with infection. Sepsis ICD-10 codes lack sensitivity. For health systems without suitable electronic health records, blood culture sampling has potential utility as a clinical component of a proxy marker for sepsis surveillance.

Introducing NICE guidelines for intravenous fluid therapy into a district general hospital.

BACKGROUND: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on intravenous fluid prescribing for adults in hospital, issued in 2013, advised less use of 0.9% sodium chloride than current practice, provided a logical system for prescribing and suggested further study of electrolyte abnormalities. AIMS: To describe the steps taken to establish and monitor guideline introduction and to assess effects on clinical biochemistry results, in a general hospital setting. METHODS: We used established principles of change to modify education, teaching, record keeping and audit throughout the hospital, changed the availability of intravenous fluid preparations in the wards and monitored the use of intravenous fluids. We anonymously linked local clinical chemistry records to nationally available patient records (NHS Scotland SMR01). We chose specified medical emergencies, and major emergency and elective general and orthopaedic surgery, where management would require intravenous fluids, for a two-phase cross-sectional study between 2007 and 2017, spanning the change in prescribing. Primary outcomes were abnormal bicarbonate, sodium, potassium and incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and secondary outcomes were mortality and length of stay. RESULTS: Over the study period, sodium chloride 0.9% use decreased by 75%, and overall intravenous fluid use decreased from 0.65 to 0.40 L/occupied bed day. The incidence of acidosis decreased from 7.4% to 4.8% of all admissions (difference -2.7%, 95% CI -2.1 to -3.0). No important changes in other electrolytes were noted; in particular, plasma sodium values showed no adverse effects. Stage 1 AKI increased from 6.7% to 9.0% (difference 2.3%, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.0), but other causes for this cannot be excluded. Mortality and length of stay showed no adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Effective implementation of the guidelines required substantial time, effort and resource. NICE suggestions of fluid types for maintenance appear appropriate, but prescribed volumes continue to require careful clinical judgement.