Inequalities in birth before arrival at hospital in South West England: a multimethods study of neonatal hypothermia and emergency medical services call-handler advice.

OBJECTIVES: To examine inequalities in birth before arrival (BBA) at hospitals in South West England, understand which groups are most likely to experience BBA and how this relates to hypothermia and outcomes (phase A). To investigate opportunities to improve temperature management advice given by emergency medical services (EMS) call-handlers during emergency calls regarding BBA in the UK (phase B). DESIGN: A two-phase multimethod study. Phase A analysed anonymised data from hospital neonatal records between January 2018 and January 2021. Phase B analysed anonymised EMS call transcripts, followed by focus groups with National Health Service (NHS) staff and patients. SETTING: Six Hospital Trusts in South West England and two EMS providers (ambulance services) in South West and North East England. PARTICIPANTS: 18 multidisciplinary NHS staff and 22 members of the public who had experienced BBA in the UK. RESULTS: 35% (64/184) of babies conveyed to hospital were hypothermic on arrival. When compared with national data on all births in the South West, we found higher percentages of women with documented safeguarding concerns at booking, previous live births and 'late bookers' (booking their pregnancy >13 weeks gestation). These women may, therefore, be more likely to experience BBA. Preterm babies, babies to first-time mothers and babies born to mothers with disability or safeguarding concerns at booking were more likely to be hypothermic following BBA. Five main themes emerged from qualitative data on call-handler advice: (1) importance placed on neonatal temperature; (2) advice on where the baby should be placed following birth; (3) advice on how to keep the baby warm; (4) timing of temperature management advice and (5) clarity and priority of instructions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings identified factors associated with BBA and neonatal hypothermia following BBA. Improvements to EMS call-handler advice could reduce the number of babies arriving at hospital hypothermic.

Which elements of hospital-based clinical decision support tools for the assessment and management of children with head injury can be adapted for use by paramedics in prehospital care? A systematic mapping review and narrative synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital-based clinical decision tools support clinician decision-making when a child presents to the emergency department with a head injury, particularly regarding CT scanning. However, there is no decision tool to support prehospital clinicians in deciding which head-injured children can safely remain at scene. This study aims to identify clinical decision tools, or constituent elements, which may be adapted for use in prehospital care. DESIGN: Systematic mapping review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods or systematic review research that included a clinical decision support tool for assessing and managing children with head injury. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We systematically identified all in-hospital clinical decision support tools and extracted from these the clinical criteria used in decision-making. We complemented this with a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Following de-duplication, 887 articles were identified. After screening titles and abstracts, 710 articles were excluded, leaving 177 full-text articles. Of these, 95 were excluded, yielding 82 studies. A further 14 studies were identified in the literature after cross-checking, totalling 96 analysed studies. 25 relevant in-hospital clinical decision tools were identified, encompassing 67 different clinical criteria, which were grouped into 18 categories. CONCLUSION: Factors that should be considered for use in a clinical decision tool designed to support paramedics in the assessment and management of children with head injury are: signs of skull fracture; a large, boggy or non-frontal scalp haematoma neurological deficit; Glasgow Coma Score less than 15; prolonged or worsening headache; prolonged loss of consciousness; post-traumatic seizure; amnesia in older children; non-accidental injury; drug or alcohol use; and less than 1 year old. Clinical criteria that require further investigation include mechanism of injury, clotting impairment/anticoagulation, vertigo, length of time of unconsciousness and number of vomits.

Cost-effectiveness of advanced life support and prehospital critical care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in England: a decision analysis model.

OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to answer the following questions: What are the costs of prehospital advanced life support (ALS) and prehospital critical care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)? What is the cost-effectiveness of prehospital ALS? What improvement in survival rates from OHCA would prehospital critical care need to achieve in order to be cost-effective? SETTING: A single National Health Service ambulance service and a charity-funded prehospital critical care service in England. PARTICIPANTS: The patient population is adult, non-traumatic OHCA. METHODS: We combined data from previously published research with data provided by a regional ambulance service and air ambulance charity to create a decision tree model, coupled with a Markov model, of costs and outcomes following OHCA. We compared no treatment for OHCA to the current standard of care of prehospital ALS, and prehospital ALS to prehospital critical care. To reflect the uncertainty in the underlying data, we used probabilistic and two-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Costs of prehospital ALS and prehospital critical care were £347 and £1711 per patient, respectively. When costs and outcomes of prehospital, in-hospital and postdischarge phase of OHCA care were combined, prehospital ALS was estimated to be cost-effective at £11 407/quality-adjusted life year. In order to be cost-effective in addition to ALS, prehospital critical care for OHCA would need to achieve a minimally economically important difference (MEID) in survival to hospital discharge of 3%-5%. CONCLUSION: This is the first economic analysis to address the question of cost-effectiveness of prehospital critical care following OHCA. While costs of either prehospital ALS and/or critical care per patient with OHCA are relatively low, significant costs are incurred during hospital treatment and after discharge in patients who survive. Knowledge of the MEID for prehospital critical care can guide future research in this field. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18375201.

General practitioners and emergency departments (GPED)-efficient models of care: a mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure continues to grow on emergency departments in the UK and throughout the world, with declining performance and adverse effects on patient outcome, safety and experience. One proposed solution is to locate general practitioners to work in or alongside the emergency department (GPED). Several GPED models have been introduced, however, evidence of effectiveness is weak. This study aims to evaluate the impact of GPED on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team and the wider urgent care system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be divided into three work packages (WPs). WP-A; Mapping and Taxonomy: mapping, description and classification of current models of GPED in all emergency departments in England and interviews with key informants to examine the hypotheses that underpin GPED. WP-B; Quantitative Analysis of National Data: measurement of the effectiveness, costs and consequences of the GPED models identified in WP-A, compared with a no-GPED model, using retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics Data. WP-C; Case Studies: detailed case studies of different GPED models using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods including: non-participant observation of clinical care, semistructured interviews with staff, patients and carers; workforce surveys with emergency department staff and analysis of available local routinely collected hospital data. Prospective case study sites will be identified by completing telephone interviews with sites awarded capital funding by the UK government to implement GPED initiatives. The study has a strong patient and public involvement group that has contributed to study design and materials, and which will be closely involved in data interpretation and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the National Health Service East Midlands-Leicester South Research Ethics Committee: 17/EM/0312. The results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a planned programme of knowledge mobilisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51780222.

Randomised controlled trial of the Limit of Detection of Troponin and ECG Discharge (LoDED) strategy versus usual care in adult patients with chest pain attending the emergency department: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Observational data suggest a single high-sensitivity troponin blood test taken at emergency department (ED) presentation could be used to rule out major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in 10%-60% of ED patients with chest pain. This is done using an 'undetectable' cut-off (the Limit of Detection: LoD). We combined the LoD cut-off with ECG findings to create the LoDED strategy. We aim to establish whether the LoDED strategy works under real-life conditions, when compared with existing strategies, in a way that is cost-effective and acceptable to patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a parallel-group pragmatic randomised controlled trial across UK EDs. Adults presenting to ED with suspected cardiac chest pain will be randomised 1:1. Existing rule-out strategies in current use across study centres, using serial high-sensitivity troponin testing, will be compared with the LoDED strategy. The primary outcome is successful early discharge (discharge from hospital within 4 hours of arrival) without MACE occurring within 30 days. Secondary outcomes include initial length of hospital stay; comparative costs; patient satisfaction and acceptability to patients. To detect a 9% difference between the early discharge rates (assuming an 8% rate in the standard care group) with 90% power, 594 patients need to be recruited, assuming a 95% follow-up rate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Frenchay Research Ethics Committee (reference 18/SW/0038). Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. Lay summaries will be made available to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN86184521; Pre-results.

A systematic review to identify and assess the effectiveness of alternatives for people over the age of 65 who are at risk of potentially avoidable hospital admission.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: There are some older patients who are 'at the decision margin' of admission. This systematic review sought to explore this issue with the following objective: what admission alternatives are there for older patients and are they safe, effective and cost-effective? A secondary objective was to identify the characteristics of those older patients for whom the decision to admit to hospital may be unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review of controlled studies (April 2005-December 2016) with searches in Medline, Embase, Cinahl and CENTRAL databases. The protocol is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42015020371). Studies were assessed using Cochrane risk of bias criteria, and relevant reviews were assessed with the AMSTAR tool. The results are presented narratively and discussed. SETTING: Primary and secondary healthcare interface. PARTICIPANTS: People aged over 65 years at risk of an unplanned admission. INTERVENTIONS: Any community-based intervention offered as an alternative to admission to an acute hospital. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: Reduction in secondary care use, patient-related outcomes, safety and costs. RESULTS: Nineteen studies and seven systematic reviews were identified. These recruited patients with both specific conditions and mixed chronic and acute conditions. The interventions involved paramedic/emergency care practitioners (n=3), emergency department-based interventions (n=3), community hospitals (n=2) and hospital-at-home services (n=11). Data suggest that alternatives to admission appear safe with potential to reduce secondary care use and length of time receiving care. There is a lack of patient-related outcomes and cost data. The important features of older patients for whom the decision to admit is uncertain are: age over 75 years, comorbidities/multi-morbidities, dementia, home situation, social support and individual coping abilities. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review describes and assesses evidence on alternatives to acute care for older patients and shows that many of the options available are safe and appear to reduce resource use. However, cost analyses and patient preference data are lacking.

A randomised trial comparing the cost effectiveness of different emergency department healthcare professionals in soft tissue injury management.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of soft tissue injury management by emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs) and extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) compared with the routine care provided by doctors in an emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Randomised, pragmatic trial of equivalence. SETTING: A single ED in England. PARTICIPANTS: 372 patients were randomised, 126 to the ESP group, 123 to the ENP group and 123 to the doctor group. Participants were adults (16 years and older) presenting to the ED with a peripheral soft tissue injury eligible for management by any of the three professional groups. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to treatment by an ESP, ENP or routine care provided by doctors (of all grades). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Economic cost-minimisation evaluation from a funder perspective of the National Health Service, England incorporating analysis of the direct, indirect and tangible costs of care in primary and secondary settings. RESULTS: From a funder perspective in primary and secondary care, ESPs and ENPs are at best equivalent and could not cost less than routine care. Uncertainty in cost arises from ESPs and ENPs incurring greater indirect costs, such as those associated with follow-up appointments and subsequent primary care visits. Comparison from a funder perspective in secondary care, that is, considering those costs incurred in secondary care alone, demonstrates that ENPs are equivalent in cost to routine care, while ESPs are either equivalent or possibly cheaper than routine care. CONCLUSIONS: These results question the notion that training the healthcare workforce to undertake extensions of their role is generally cost effective. While the randomised trial indicated that the three professional groups have equivalent clinical outcomes, this economic analysis suggests that substitution of routine care with a predominantly ESP or ENP workforce could prove more expensive. Further research is required to understand the underlying reasons for this. The trial has been registered with ISRCTN-ISRCTN 70891354.