Integrating qualitative research within a clinical trials unit: developing strategies and understanding their implementation in contexts.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The value of using qualitative methods within clinical trials is widely recognised. How qualitative research is integrated within trials units to achieve this is less clear. This paper describes the process through which qualitative research has been integrated within Cardiff University's Centre for Trials Research (CTR) in Wales, UK. We highlight facilitators of, and challenges to, integration. METHODS: We held group discussions on the work of the Qualitative Research Group (QRG) within CTR. The content of these discussions, materials for a presentation in CTR, and documents relating to the development of the QRG were interpreted at a workshop attended by group members. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to structure analysis. A writing group prepared a document for input from members of CTR, forming the basis of this paper. RESULTS: Actions to integrate qualitative research comprised: its inclusion in Centre strategies; formation of a QRG with dedicated funding/roles; embedding of qualitative research within operating systems; capacity building/training; monitoring opportunities to include qualitative methods in studies; maximising the quality of qualitative research and developing methodological innovation. Facilitators of these actions included: the influence of the broader methodological landscape within trial/study design and its promotion of the value of qualitative research; and close physical proximity of CTR qualitative staff/students allowing sharing of methodological approaches. Introduction of innovative qualitative methods generated interest among other staff groups. Challenges included: pressure to under-resource qualitative components of research, preference for a statistical stance historically in some research areas and funding structures, and difficulties faced by qualitative researchers carving out individual academic profiles when working across trials/studies. CONCLUSIONS: Given that CTUs are pivotal to the design and conduct of RCTs and related study types across multiple disciplines, integrating qualitative research into trials units is crucial if its contribution is to be fully realised. We have made explicit one trials unit's experience of embedding qualitative research and present this to open dialogue on ways to operationalise and optimise qualitative research in trials. NPT provides a valuable framework with which to theorise these processes, including the importance of sense-making and legitimisation when introducing new practices within organisations.

Rehabilitation experiences following major lower limb amputation due to complications of vascular disease: a UK qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Rehabilitation experiences of lower limb amputees with poorer physical health have not been fully explored. This study aimed to qualitatively explore experiences of rehabilitation amongst patients who had recently undergone amputation due to complications of vascular disease. METHODS: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 14 patients participating in the PLACEMENT randomised controlled feasibility trial (ISRCTN: 85710690; EudraCT: 2016-003544-37), which investigated the effectiveness of using a perineural catheter for postoperative pain relief following major lower limb amputation. Framework analysis was used to identify key themes and compare participant data. FINDINGS: Three main themes and corresponding sub-themes were identified: (i) other patients as inspiration; (ii) other patients as competition; and (iii) imagined futures. Perceptions relating to other patients played a key role in rehabilitation, providing a source of motivation, support, and competition. Participants' imagined futures were uncertain, and this was compounded by a lack of information and delays in equipment and/or adaptations. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the importance of fellow patients in supporting rehabilitation following lower limb amputation. Enabling contact with other patients should thus be a key consideration when planning rehabilitation. There is a clear unmet need for realistic information relating to post-amputation recovery, tailored to the needs of individual patients.

There is a clear unmet need for patient information on rehabilitation following major lower limb amputation.Information about future mobility - particularly prosthesis use - should be realistic and individually tailored.The key role of fellow patients should be fully considered when planning post-amputation rehabilitation.

Exploring critical intervention features and trial processes in the evaluation of sensory integration therapy for autistic children.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of manualised sensory integration therapy (SIT) for autistic children with sensory processing difficulties in a two-arm randomised controlled trial. Trial processes and contextual factors which may have affected intervention outcomes were explored within a nested process evaluation. This paper details the process evaluation methods and results. We also discuss implications for evaluation of individual level, tailored interventions in similar populations. METHODS: The process evaluation was conducted in line with Medical Research Council guidance. Recruitment, demographics, retention, adherence, and adverse effects are reported using descriptive statistics. Fidelity of intervention delivery is reported according to the intervention scoring manual. Qualitative interviews with therapists and carers were undertaken to explore the acceptability of the intervention and trial processes. Qualitative interviews with carers explored potential contamination. RESULTS: Recruitment, reach and retention within the trial met expected thresholds. One hundred thirty-eight children and carers were recruited (92% of those screened and 53.5% of those who expressed an interest) with 77.5% retained at 6 months and 69.9% at 12 months post-randomisation. The intervention was delivered with structural and process fidelity with the majority (78.3%) receiving a 'sufficient dose' of intervention. However, there was considerable individual variability in the receipt of sessions. Carers and therapists reported that trial processes were generally acceptable though logistical challenges such as appointment times, travel and COVID restrictions were frequent barriers to receiving the intervention. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The process evaluation was highly valuable in identifying contextual factors that could impact the effectiveness of this individualised intervention. Rigorous evaluations of interventions for autistic children are important, especially given the limitations such as limited sample sizes and short-term follow-up as faced by previous research. One of the challenges lies in the variability of outcomes considered important by caregivers, as each autistic child faces unique challenges. It is crucial to consider the role of parents or other caregivers in facilitating access to these interventions and how this may impact effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14716440. August 11, 2016.

Long-term risk prediction after major lower limb amputation: 1-year results of the PERCEIVE study.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making when considering major lower limb amputation is complex and requires individualized outcome estimation. It is unknown how accurate healthcare professionals or relevant outcome prediction tools are at predicting outcomes at 1-year after major lower limb amputation. METHODS: An international, multicentre prospective observational study evaluating healthcare professional accuracy in predicting outcomes 1 year after major lower limb amputation and evaluation of relevant outcome prediction tools identified in a systematic search of the literature was undertaken. Observed outcomes at 1 year were compared with: healthcare professionals' preoperative predictions of death (surgeons and anaesthetists), major lower limb amputation revision (surgeons) and ambulation (surgeons, specialist physiotherapists and vascular nurse practitioners); and probabilities calculated from relevant outcome prediction tools. RESULTS: A total of 537 patients and 2244 healthcare professional predictions of outcomes were included. Surgeons and anaesthetists had acceptable discrimination (C-statistic = 0.715), calibration and overall performance (Brier score = 0.200) when predicting 1-year death, but performed worse when predicting major lower limb amputation revision and ambulation (C-statistics = 0.627 and 0.662 respectively). Healthcare professionals overestimated the death and major lower limb amputation revision risks. Consultants outperformed trainees, especially when predicting ambulation. Allied healthcare professionals marginally outperformed surgeons in predicting ambulation. Two outcome prediction tools (C-statistics = 0.755 and 0.717, Brier scores = 0.158 and 0.178) outperformed healthcare professionals' discrimination, calibration and overall performance in predicting death. Two outcome prediction tools for ambulation (C-statistics = 0.688 and 0.667) marginally outperformed healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: There is uncertainty in predicting 1-year outcomes following major lower limb amputation. Different professional groups performed comparably in this study. Two outcome prediction tools for death and two for ambulation outperformed healthcare professionals and may support shared decision-making.

Short-term risk prediction after major lower limb amputation: PERCEIVE study.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy with which healthcare professionals (HCPs) and risk prediction tools predict outcomes after major lower limb amputation (MLLA) is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of predicting short-term (30 days after MLLA) mortality, morbidity, and revisional surgery. METHODS: The PERCEIVE (PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcomE following major lower limb amputation: a collaboratIVE) study was launched on 1 October 2020. It was an international multicentre study, including adults undergoing MLLA for complications of peripheral arterial disease and/or diabetes. Preoperative predictions of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision by surgeons and anaesthetists were recorded. Probabilities from relevant risk prediction tools were calculated. Evaluation of accuracy included measures of discrimination, calibration, and overall performance. RESULTS: Some 537 patients were included. HCPs had acceptable discrimination in predicting mortality (931 predictions; C-statistic 0.758) and MLLA revision (565 predictions; C-statistic 0.756), but were poor at predicting morbidity (980 predictions; C-statistic 0.616). They overpredicted the risk of all outcomes. All except three risk prediction tools had worse discrimination than HCPs for predicting mortality (C-statistics 0.789, 0.774, and 0.773); two of these significantly overestimated the risk compared with HCPs. SORT version 2 (the only tool incorporating HCP predictions) demonstrated better calibration and overall performance (Brier score 0.082) than HCPs. Tools predicting morbidity and MLLA revision had poor discrimination (C-statistics 0.520 and 0.679). CONCLUSION: Clinicians predicted mortality and MLLA revision well, but predicted morbidity poorly. They overestimated the risk of mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision. Most short-term risk prediction tools had poorer discrimination or calibration than HCPs. The best method of predicting mortality was a statistical tool that incorporated HCP estimation.

PROcalcitonin and NEWS2 evaluation for Timely identification of sepsis and Optimal use of antibiotics in the emergency department (PRONTO): protocol for a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is a common, potentially life-threatening complication of infection. The optimal treatment for sepsis includes prompt antibiotics and intravenous fluids, facilitated by its early and accurate recognition. Currently, clinicians identify and assess severity of suspected sepsis using validated clinical scoring systems. In England, the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) has been mandated across all National Health Service (NHS) trusts and ambulance organisations. Like many clinical scoring systems, NEWS2 should not be used without clinical judgement to determine either the level of acuity or a diagnosis. Despite this, there is a tendency to overemphasise the score in isolation in patients with suspected infection, leading to the overprescription of antibiotics and potentially treatment-related complications and rising antimicrobial resistance. The biomarker procalcitonin (PCT) has been shown to be useful in specific circumstances to support appropriate antibiotics prescribing by identifying bacterial infection. PCT is not routinely used in the care of undifferentiated patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs), and the evidence base of its optimal usage is poor. The PROcalcitonin and NEWS2 evaluation for Timely identification of sepsis and Optimal (PRONTO) study is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in adults with suspected sepsis presenting to the ED to compare standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring plus PCT-guided risk assessment with standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring alone and compare if this approach reduces prescriptions of antibiotics without increasing mortality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PRONTO is a parallel two-arm open-label individually RCT set in up to 20 NHS EDs in the UK with a target sample size of 7676 participants. Participants will be randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring or standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring plus PCT-guided risk assessment. We will compare whether the addition of PCT measurement to NEWS2 scoring can lead to a reduction in intravenous antibiotic initiation in ED patients managed as suspected sepsis, with at least no increase in 28-day mortality compared with NEWS2 scoring alone (in conjunction with local standard care pathways). PRONTO has two coprimary endpoints: initiation of intravenous antibiotics at 3 hours (superiority comparison) and 28-day mortality (non-inferiority comparison). The study has an internal pilot phase and group-sequential stopping rules for effectiveness and futility/safety, as well as a qualitative substudy and a health economic evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol was approved by the Health Research Authority (HRA) and NHS Research Ethics Committee (Wales REC 2, reference 20/WA/0058). In England and Wales, the law allows the use of deferred consent in approved research situations (including ED studies) where the time dependent nature of intervention would not allow true informed consent to be obtained. PRONTO has approval for a deferred consent process to be used. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN54006056.

Sensory integration therapy for children with autism and sensory processing difficulties: the SenITA RCT.

BACKGROUND: Carers report unmet need for occupational therapy services addressing sensory difficulties in autism, yet insufficient evidence exists to recommend a therapeutic approach. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sensory integration therapy for children with autism and sensory difficulties across behavioural, functional and quality-of-life outcomes. DESIGN: We carried out a parallel-group randomised controlled trial, incorporating an internal pilot and a process evaluation. Randomisation utilised random permuted blocks. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Children were recruited via services and self-referral in Wales and England. Inclusion criteria were having an autism diagnosis, being in mainstream primary education and having definite/probable sensory processing difficulties. Exclusion criteria were having current/previous sensory integration therapy and current applied behaviour analysis therapy. INTERVENTION: The intervention was manualised sensory integration therapy delivered over 26 weeks and the comparator was usual care. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was problem behaviours (determined using the Aberrant Behavior Checklist), including irritability/agitation, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were adaptive behaviour, functioning and socialisation (using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales); carer stress (measured using the Autism Parenting Stress Index); quality of life (measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions and Carer Quality of Life); functional change (according to the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure); sensory processing (determined using the Sensory Processing Measure™ at screening and at 6 months to examine mediation effects); and cost-effectiveness (assessed using the Client Service Receipt Inventory). Every effort was made to ensure that outcome assessors were blind to allocation. RESULTS: A total of 138 participants were randomised (n = 69 per group). Usual care was significantly different from the intervention, which was delivered with good fidelity and adherence and minimal contamination, and was associated with no adverse effects. Trial procedures and outcome measures were acceptable. Carers and therapists reported improvement in daily functioning. The primary analysis included 106 participants. There were no significant main effects of the intervention at 6 or 12 months. The adjusted mean difference between groups on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist - irritability at 6 months post randomisation was 0.40 (95% confidence interval -2.33 to 3.14; p = 0.77). Subgroup differences in irritability/agitation at 6 months were observed for sex of child (intervention × female = 6.42, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 12.85; p = 0.050) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (intervention × attention deficit hyperactivity disorder = -6.77, 95% confidence interval -13.55 to -0.01; p = 0.050). There was an effect on carer stress at 6 months by region (intervention × South England = 7.01, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 13.56; p = 0.04) and other neurodevelopmental/genetic conditions (intervention × neurodevelopmental/genetic condition = -9.53, 95% confidence interval -18.08 to -0.98; p = 0.030). Carer-rated goal performance and satisfaction increased across sessions (p < 0.001), with a mean change of 2.75 (95% confidence interval 2.14 to 3.37) for performance and a mean change of 3.34 (95% confidence interval 2.63 to 4.40) for satisfaction. Health economic evaluation suggests that sensory integration therapy is not cost-effective compared with usual care alone. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included variability of the intervention setting (i.e. NHS vs. private), delay for some receiving therapy, an error in administration of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales and no measurement of comparator arm goal performance. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention did not demonstrate clinical benefit above standard care. Subgroup effects are hypothesis-generating only. The intervention is likely to be effective for individualised performance goals, although it is unclear whether effects were in addition to standard care or were maintained. FUTURE WORK: Further investigation of subgroup effects is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14716440. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Children with autism often experience problems with processing sensory information (e.g. noise, touch, movement, taste and sight), and this can lead to problems in daily life. This study was designed to see if sensory integration therapy can help children with these difficulties. Sensory integration therapy is a type of face-to-face play-based treatment that is delivered by occupational therapists. We compared sensory integration therapy with the type of treatment normally offered to children with autism (i.e. 'usual care'). We recruited children and their carers from Wales and England. Children could take part in the study if they had an autism diagnosis, had sensory processing difficulties and were in mainstream primary education. The children taking part in the study were randomly split into two groups. Sixty-nine children were given sensory integration therapy and 69 children carried on with their usual care. The sensory integration therapy involved 24 face-to-face sessions in an occupational therapy clinic, followed by two telephone calls with the carer. The sensory integration therapy lasted for 26 weeks. We collected information on the type of care being given to children in the usual-care group. Carers of each child were asked questions about their child's behaviour 6 and 12 months after starting the study. Some carers also completed an interview to talk about what it was like taking part in the study. Therapists delivered the sensory integration therapy well. Carers and therapists said that they saw some improvements. However, sensory integration therapy was not significantly better than the usual care and is a more expensive option. We cannot say that sensory integration therapy is helpful for all children with autism and different sensory processing difficulties; however, it might be helpful for some children to focus on specific problems. Future work could focus on which children and problems it would help the most.

Understanding the support experiences of families of children with autism and sensory processing difficulties: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Support, such as information, advice and therapies, can play a vital role in the lives of families of autistic children. However, little is known about the support experiences of UK parents and carers. AIM: To explore experiences of and access to support for families of children with autism and sensory processing difficulties, from the perspective of parents and carers. METHODS: Semi-structured, timeline-assisted interviews were conducted with parents/carers of 30 children aged 5-11, exploring experiences of support. Framework analysis was used to identify themes in the interview data. RESULTS: Support varied widely and was not accessed equitably. Specialist autism support, together with support from other parents and voluntary organizations, was perceived as more useful than statutory and nonspecialist provision. Unmet support needs included an ongoing point of contact for information and advice for parents, and access to direct therapy and specialist mental health provision for children. CONCLUSIONS: Findings emphasize the need for a clear pathway of support following autism diagnosis, autism-specific training for professional service providers and specialist provision tailored to the needs of autistic children. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: An advisory group of four parents of children with autism provided feedback on study procedures and materials, including participant information sheets and timeline completion instructions.

PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcomE followIng major lower limb amputation: a collaboratiVE study (PERCEIVE)-protocol for the PERCEIVE qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Deciding whether to proceed with a major lower limb amputation is life-changing and complex, and it is crucial that the right decision is made at the right time. However, medical specialists are known to poorly predict risk when assessing patients for major surgery, and there is little guidance and research regarding decisions about amputation. The process of shared decision-making between doctors and patients during surgical consultations is also little understood. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyse in depth the communication, consent, risk prediction and decision-making process in relation to major lower limb amputation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Consultations between patients and surgeons at which major lower limb amputation is discussed will be audio-recorded for 10-15 patients. Semi-structured follow-up interviews with patients (and relatives/carers) will then be conducted at two time points: as soon as possible/appropriate after a decision has been reached regarding surgery, and approximately 6 months later. Semi-structured interviews will also be conducted with 10-15 healthcare professionals working in the UK National Health Service (NHS) involved in amputation decision-making. This will include surgeons, anaesthetists and specialist physiotherapists at 2-4 NHS Health Boards/Trusts in Wales and England. Discourse analysis will be used to analyse the recorded consultations; interviews will be analysed thematically. Finally, workshops will be held with patients and healthcare professionals to help synthesise and interpret findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by Wales REC 7 (20/WA/0351). Study findings will be published in international peer-reviewed journal(s) and presented at national and international scientific meetings. Findings will also be disseminated to a wide NHS and lay audience via presentations at meetings and written summaries for key stakeholder groups.

The PERCEIVE quantitative study: PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcome following major lower-limb amputation: protocol for a collaboratiVE study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of outcomes following surgery with high morbidity and mortality rates is essential for informed shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. It is unknown how accurately healthcare professionals predict outcomes following major lower-limb amputation (MLLA). Several MLLA outcome-prediction tools have been developed. These could be valuable in clinical practice, but most require validation in independent cohorts before routine clinical use can be recommended. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of healthcare professionals' predictions of outcomes in adult patients undergoing MLLA for complications of chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) or diabetes. Secondary aims include the validation of existing outcome-prediction tools. METHOD: This study is an international, multicentre prospective observational study including adult patients undergoing a primary MLLA for CLTI or diabetes. Healthcare professionals' accuracy in predicting outcomes at 30-days (death, morbidity and MLLA revision) and 1-year (death, MLLA revision and ambulation) will be evaluated. Sixteen existing outcome-prediction tools specific to MLLA will be examined for validity. Data collection began on 1 October 2020; the end of follow-up will be 1 May 2022. The C-statistic, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, reclassification tables and Brier score will be used to evaluate the predictive performance of healthcare professionals and prediction tools, respectively. STUDY REGISTRATION AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be registered locally at each centre in accordance with local policies before commencing data collection, overseen by local clinician leads. Results will be disseminated to all centres, and any subsequent presentation(s) and/or publication(s) will follow a collaborative co-authorship model.

Exploring patients' experiences of analgesia after major lower limb amputation: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore patient experiences, understanding and perceptions of analgesia following major lower limb amputation. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study, conducted as part of a randomised controlled feasibility trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from two general hospitals in South Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Interview participants were patients enrolled in PLACEMENT (Perineural Local Anaesthetic Catheter aftEr Major lowEr limb amputatioN Trial): a randomised controlled feasibility trial comparing the use of perineural catheter (PNC) versus standard care for postoperative pain relief following major lower limb amputation. PLACEMENT participants who completed 5-day postoperative follow-up, were able and willing to participate in a face-to-face interview, and had consented to be contacted, were eligible to take part in the qualitative study. A total of 20 interviews were conducted with 14 participants: 10 male and 4 female. METHODS: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with participants over two time points: (1) up to 1 month and (2) at least 6 months following amputation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Interviews revealed unanticipated benefits of PNC usage for postoperative pain relief. Participants valued the localised and continuous nature of this mode of analgesia in comparison to opioids. Concerns about opioid dependence and side effects of pain relief medication were raised by participants in both treatment groups, with some reporting trying to limit their intake of analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest routine placement of a PNC following major lower limb amputation could reduce postoperative pain, particularly for patient groups at risk of postoperative delirium. This method of analgesic delivery also has the potential to reduce preoperative anxiety, alleviate the burden of pain management and minimise opioid use. Future research could further examine the comparison between patient-controlled analgesia and continuous analgesia in relation to patient anxiety and satisfaction with pain management. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 85710690; EudraCT: 2016-003544-37.

Managing lower urinary tract symptoms in primary care: qualitative study of GPs' and patients' experiences.

BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are common in males aged ≥40 years and have a considerable impact on quality of life. Management can be complex, and although most LUTS could be treated effectively in primary care, referrals to urology outpatients are increasing. AIM: To explore GPs' experiences of managing LUTS together with patients' experiences of and preferences for treatment in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Telephone interviews were conducted with GPs and male patients presenting to primary care with bothersome LUTS. METHOD: Eleven GPs and 25 male patients were purposively sampled from 20 GP practices in three UK regions: Newcastle upon Tyne, Bristol, and South Wales. Interviews were conducted between May 2018 and January 2019, and were analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Difficulty establishing causes and differentiating between prostate and bladder symptoms were key challenges to the diagnosis of LUTS in primary care, often making treatment a process of trial and error. Pharmacological treatments were commonly ineffective and often caused side effects. Despite this, patients were generally satisfied with GP consultations and expressed a preference for treatment in primary care. CONCLUSION: Managing LUTS in primary care is a more accessible option for patients. Given the challenges of LUTS diagnosis, an effective diagnostic tool for use by GPs would be beneficial. Ensuring bothersome LUTS are not dismissed as a normal part of ageing is essential in improving patients' quality of life. Greater exploration of the role of non-pharmacological treatments is needed.

Conducting invasive urodynamics in primary care: qualitative interview study examining experiences of patients and healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Invasive urodynamics is used to investigate the causes of lower urinary tract symptoms; a procedure usually conducted in secondary care by specialist practitioners. No study has yet investigated the feasibility of carrying out this procedure in a non-specialist setting. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore, using qualitative methodology, the feasibility and acceptability of conducting invasive urodynamic testing in primary care. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted during the pilot phase of the PriMUS study, in which men experiencing bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms underwent invasive urodynamic testing along with a series of simple index tests in a primary care setting. Interviewees were 25 patients invited to take part in the PriMUS study and 18 healthcare professionals involved in study delivery. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Patients generally found the urodynamic procedure acceptable and valued the primary care setting due to its increased accessibility and familiarity. Despite some logistical issues, facilitating invasive urodynamic testing in primary care was also a positive experience for urodynamic nurses. Initial issues with general practitioners receiving and utilising the results of urodynamic testing may have limited the potential benefit to some patients. Effective approaches to study recruitment included emphasising the benefits of the urodynamic test and maintaining contact with potential participants by telephone. Patients' relationship with their general practitioner was an important influence on study participation. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting invasive urodynamics in primary care is feasible and acceptable and has the potential to benefit patients. Facilitating study procedures in a familiar primary care setting can impact positively on research recruitment. However, it is vital that there is a support network for urodynamic nurses and expertise available to help interpret urodynamic results.

Establishing the safety of waterbirth for mothers and babies: a cohort study with nested qualitative component: the protocol for the POOL study.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 60 000 (9/100) infants are born into water annually in the UK and this is likely to increase. Case reports identified infants with water inhalation or sepsis following birth in water and there is a concern that women giving birth in water may sustain more complex perineal trauma. There have not been studies large enough to show whether waterbirth increases these poor outcomes. The POOL Study (ISRCTN13315580) plans to answer the question about the safety of waterbirths among women who are classified appropriate for midwifery-led intrapartum care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cohort study with a nested qualitative component. Objectives will be answered using retrospective and prospective data captured in electronic National Health Service (NHS) maternity and neonatal systems. The qualitative component aims to explore factors influencing pool use and waterbirth; data will be gathered via discussion groups, interviews and case studies of maternity units. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by NHS Wales Research Ethics Committee (18/WA/0291) the transfer of identifiable data has been approved by Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group (18CAG0153).Study findings and innovative methodology will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and events. Results will be of interest to the general public, clinical and policy stakeholders in the UK and will be disseminated accordingly.

Factors influencing water immersion during labour: qualitative case studies of six maternity units in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Water immersion during labour can provide benefits including reduced need for regional analgesia and a shorter labour. However, in the United Kingdom a minority of women use a pool for labour or birth, with pool use particularly uncommon in obstetric-led settings. Maternity unit culture has been identified as an important influence on pool use, but this and other possible factors have not been explored in-depth. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify factors influencing pool use through qualitative case studies of three obstetric units and three midwifery units in the UK. METHODS: Case study units with a range of waterbirth rates and representing geographically diverse locations were selected. Data collection methods comprised semi-structured interviews, collation of service documentation and public-facing information, and observations of the unit environment. There were 111 interview participants, purposively sampled to include midwives, postnatal women, obstetricians, neonatologists, midwifery support workers and doulas. A framework approach was used to analyse all case study data. RESULTS: Obstetric unit culture was a key factor restricting pool use. We found substantial differences between obstetric and midwifery units in terms of equipment and resources, staff attitudes and confidence, senior staff support and women's awareness of water immersion. Generic factors influencing use of pools across all units included limited access to waterbirth training, sociodemographic differences in desire for pool use and issues using waterproof fetal monitoring equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Case study findings provide new insights into the influence of maternity unit culture on waterbirth rates. Access to pool use could be improved through midwives based in obstetric units having more experience of waterbirth, providing obstetricians and neonatologists with information on the practicalities of pool use and improving accessibility of antenatal information. In terms of resources, recommendations include increasing pool provision, ensuring birth room allocation maximises the use of unit resources, and providing pool room environments that are acceptable to midwives.

PRImary care Management of lower Urinary tract Symptoms in men: protocol for development and validation of a diagnostic and clinical decision support tool (the PriMUS study).

INTRODUCTION: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) is a bothersome condition affecting older men which can lead to poor quality of life. General practitioners (GPs) currently have no easily available assessment tools to help effectively diagnose causes of LUTS and aid discussion of treatment with patients. Men are frequently referred to urology specialists who often recommend treatments that could have been initiated in primary care. GP access to simple, accurate tests and clinician decision tools are needed to facilitate accurate and effective patient management of LUTS in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PRImary care Management of lower Urinary tract Symptoms (PriMUS) is a prospective diagnostic accuracy study based in primary care. The study will determine which of a number of index tests used in combination best predict three urodynamic observations in men who present to their GP with LUTS. These are detrusor overactivity, bladder outlet obstruction and/or detrusor underactivity. Two cohorts of participants, one for development of the prototype diagnostic tool and other for validation, will undergo a series of simple index tests and the invasive reference standard (invasive urodynamics). We will develop and validate three diagnostic prediction models based on each condition and then combine them with management recommendations to form a clinical decision support tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 6. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences, and results will be of interest to professional and patient stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10327305.

Perineural local anaesthetic catheter after major lower limb amputation trial (PLACEMENT): results from a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of undertaking a randomised controlled effectiveness trial evaluating the use of a perineural catheter (PNC) after major lower limb amputation with postoperative pain as the primary outcome. DESIGN: Randomised controlled feasibility trial. SETTING: Two vascular Centres in South Wales, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 50 patients scheduled for major lower limb amputation (below or above knee) for complications of peripheral vascular disease. INTERVENTIONS: The treatment arm received a PNC placed adjacent to the sciatic or tibial nerve at the time of surgery, with continuous infusion of levobupivacaine hydrochloride 0.125% for up to 5 days. The control arm received neither local anaesthetic nor PNC. Both arms received usual perioperative anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the proportion of eligible patients who were randomised and the proportion of recruited patients who provided primary effectiveness outcome data. Secondary outcomes were: the proportion of recruited patients reaching 2 and 6 month follow-up and supplying pain data; identification of key cost drivers; development of an economic analysis framework for a future effectiveness trial; identification of barriers to recruitment and site set-up; and identification of the best way to measure postoperative pain. RESULTS: Seventy-six of 103 screened patients were deemed eligible over a 10 month period. Fifty (64.5%) of these patients were randomised, with one excluded in the perioperative period. Forty-five (91.3%) of 49 recruited patients provided enough pain scores on a 4-point verbal rating scale to allow primary effectiveness outcome evaluation. Attrition rates were high; 18 patients supplied data at 6 month follow-up. Costs were dominated by length of hospital stay. Patients and healthcare professionals reported that trial processes were acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment of patients into a trial comparing PNC use to usual care after major lower limb amputation with postoperative pain measured on a 4-point verbal rating scale is feasible. Evaluation of longer-term symptoms is difficult. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 85 710 690. EudraCT: 2016-003544-37.

Factors influencing the use of birth pools in the United Kingdom: Perspectives of women, midwives and medical staff.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors influencing the use of birth pools. DESIGN: Online discussion groups and semi-structured interviews, analysed thematically. SETTING: United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 85 women and 21 midwives took part in online discussion groups; 14 medical staff participated in interviews. FINDINGS: Factors influencing the use of birth pools were grouped into three overarching categories: resources, unit culture and guidelines, and staff endorsement. Resources encompassed pool availability, efficiency of pool use and availability of waterproof cardiotocograph equipment. Unit culture and guidelines related to eligibility criteria for pool use, medicalisation of birth and differences between midwifery-led and obstetric-led care. Staff endorsement encompassed attitudes towards pool use. KEY CONCLUSIONS: Accessibility of birth pools was often limited by eligibility criteria. While midwifery-led units were generally supportive of pool use, obstetric-led units were described as an over-medicalised environment in which pool use was restricted and relied on maternal request. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Midwives can improve women's access to birth pools by providing information antenatally and proactively offering this as an option in labour. Maternity units should work to implement evidence-based guidelines on pool use, increase pool availability (even where there appears to be low demand), and enhance awareness amongst medical staff of the benefits of water immersion.

Enabling hospital staff to care for people with dementia.

This is the fourth and final article in a short series that presents case study examples of the positive work achieved by trusts who participated in the Royal College of Nursing's development programme to improve dementia care in acute hospitals. Dementia training in hospitals is often inadequate and staff do not always have sufficient knowledge of dementia to provide appropriate care. It can also be difficult for them to identify when patients with dementia are in pain, especially when their communication skills deteriorate. The case studies presented illustrate how two NHS trusts have worked to ensure that their staff are fully equipped to care for people with dementia in hospital. Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in Essex made dementia training a priority by including dementia awareness in staff induction across a range of roles and providing additional training activities tailored to meet staff needs. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust focused on pain assessment, aiming to standardise its approach for patients with dementia. The pain assessment in advanced dementia tool was chosen and piloted, and is being implemented across the trust after a positive response.