Infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures: IDEA case-crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis is a heart infection with a first-year mortality rate of ≈ 30%. It has long been thought that infective endocarditis is causally associated with bloodstream seeding with oral bacteria in ≈ 40-45% of cases. This theorem led guideline committees to recommend that individuals at increased risk of infective endocarditis should receive antibiotic prophylaxis before undergoing invasive dental procedures. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has never been a clinical trial to prove the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis and there is no good-quality evidence to link invasive dental procedures with infective endocarditis. Many contend that oral bacteria-related infective endocarditis is more likely to result from daily activities (e.g. tooth brushing, flossing and chewing), particularly in those with poor oral hygiene. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if there is a temporal association between invasive dental procedures and subsequent infective endocarditis, particularly in those at high risk of infective endocarditis. DESIGN: This was a self-controlled, case-crossover design study comparing the number of invasive dental procedures in the 3 months immediately before an infective endocarditis-related hospital admission with that in the preceding 12-month control period. SETTING: The study took place in the English NHS. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals admitted to hospital with infective endocarditis between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2016 were eligible to participate. INTERVENTIONS: This was an observational study; therefore, there was no intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The outcome measure was the number of invasive and non-invasive dental procedures in the months before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission. DATA SOURCES: NHS Digital provided infective endocarditis-related hospital admissions data and dental procedure data were obtained from the NHS Business Services Authority. RESULTS: The incidence rate of invasive dental procedures decreased in the 3 months before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission (incidence rate ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.58). Further analysis showed that this was due to loss of dental procedure data in the 2-3 weeks before any infective endocarditis-related hospital admission. LIMITATIONS: We found that urgent hospital admissions were a common cause of incomplete courses of dental treatment and, because there is no requirement to record dental procedure data for incomplete courses, this resulted in a significant loss of dental procedure data in the 2-3 weeks before infective endocarditis-related hospital admissions. The data set was also reduced because of the NHS Business Services Authority's 10-year data destruction policy, reducing the power of the study. The main consequence was a loss of dental procedure data in the critical 3-month case period of the case-crossover analysis (immediately before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission), which did not occur in earlier control periods. Part of the decline in the rate of invasive dental procedures may also be the result of the onset of illness prior to infective endocarditis-related hospital admission, and part may be due to other undefined causes. CONCLUSIONS: The loss of dental procedure data in the critical case period immediately before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission makes interpretation of the data difficult and raises uncertainty over any conclusions that can be drawn from this study. FUTURE WORK: We suggest repeating this study elsewhere using data that are unafflicted by loss of dental procedure data in the critical case period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11684416. 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. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Infective endocarditis is a life-threatening infection of the heart valves. Most people are at low risk of infective endocarditis. However, those with certain cardiac conditions are at moderate risk of infective endocarditis, and those with artificial or repaired heart valves, a history of infective endocarditis and certain congenital heart conditions are at high risk of infective endocarditis. In around 40­45% of cases, oral bacteria are the cause of infective endocarditis. For many years, those people at moderate or high risk of infective endocarditis were given antibiotics (antibiotic prophylaxis) before invasive dental procedures such as extractions to reduce the risk of infective endocarditis. There is no good-quality evidence, however, to support the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis, or the link between invasive dental procedures and infective endocarditis. Many believe that the oral bacteria that cause infective endocarditis are more likely to enter the blood during daily activities (e.g. toothbrushing, flossing or chewing), particularly in those with poor oral hygiene, than on the rare occasions when invasive dental procedures are performed. The aim of this study was to link English NHS data on infective endocarditis-related hospital admissions and dental treatments to determine if infective endocarditis is more likely in the weeks immediately after an invasive dental procedure than at any other time. When we linked the data sets and plotted the occurrence of different dental treatments over the year before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission, we detected a problem in the way that dental data were recorded. Unfortunately, there was a failure to collect dental procedure data when courses of treatment were incomplete. As one of the most common reasons for not completing a course of treatment was emergency admission to hospital, this meant that the number of dental procedures recorded decreased in the weeks before any emergency hospital admission. We have attempted to correct for this, but the data loss has affected the data quality. Although the data suggest an association between invasive dental procedures and infective endocarditis in individuals at high risk of infective endocarditis, the certainty of this association has been weakened.

Benefits and challenges of using the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design for testing an intervention for depression.

BACKGROUND: Trials which test the effectiveness of interventions compared with the status quo frequently encounter challenges. The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design is an innovative approach to the design and conduct of pragmatic trials which seeks to address some of these challenges. MAIN TEXT: In this article, we report our experiences with the first completed randomised controlled trial (RCT) using the cmRCT design. This trial-the Depression in South Yorkshire (DEPSY) trial-involved comparison of treatment as usual (TAU) with TAU plus the offer of an intervention for people with self-reported long-term moderate to severe depression. In the trial, we used an existing large population-based cohort: the Yorkshire Health Study. We discuss our experiences with recruitment, attrition, crossover, data analysis, generalisability of results, and cost. The main challenges in using the cmRCT design were the high crossover to the control group and the lower questionnaire response rate among patients who refused the offer of treatment. However, the design did help facilitate efficient and complete recruitment of the trial population as well as analysable data that were generalisable to the population of interest. Attrition rates were also smaller than those reported in other depression trials. CONCLUSION: This first completed full trial using the cmRCT design testing an intervention for self-reported depression was associated with a number of important benefits. Further research is required to compare the acceptability and cost effectiveness of standard pragmatic RCT design with the cmRCT design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN02484593 . Registered on 7 Jan 2013.

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.

Paramedic Assessment of Older Adults After Falls, Including Community Care Referral Pathway: Cluster Randomized Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aim to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of a paramedic protocol for the care of older people who fall. METHODS: We undertook a cluster randomized trial in 3 UK ambulance services between March 2011 and June 2012. We included patients aged 65 years or older after an emergency call for a fall, attended by paramedics based at trial stations. Intervention paramedics could refer the patient to a community-based falls service instead of transporting the patient to the emergency department. Control paramedics provided care as usual. The primary outcome was subsequent emergency contacts or death. RESULTS: One hundred five paramedics based at 14 intervention stations attended 3,073 eligible patients; 110 paramedics based at 11 control stations attended 2,841 eligible patients. We analyzed primary outcomes for 2,391 intervention and 2,264 control patients. One third of patients made further emergency contacts or died within 1 month, and two thirds within 6 months, with no difference between groups. Subsequent 999 call rates within 6 months were lower in the intervention arm (0.0125 versus 0.0172; adjusted difference -0.0045; 95% confidence interval -0.0073 to -0.0017). Intervention paramedics referred 8% of patients (204/2,420) to falls services and left fewer patients at the scene without any ongoing care. Intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of care. There were no other differences between groups. Mean intervention cost was $23 per patient, with no difference in overall resource use between groups at 1 or 6 months. CONCLUSION: A clinical protocol for paramedics reduced emergency ambulance calls for patients attended for a fall safely and at modest cost.

Telehealth for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease: pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE:  To assess whether non-clinical staff can effectively manage people at high risk of cardiovascular disease using digital health technologies. DESIGN:  Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING:  42 general practices in three areas of England. PARTICIPANTS:  Between 3 December 2012 and 23 July 2013 we recruited 641 adults aged 40 to 74 years with a 10 year cardiovascular disease risk of 20% or more, no previous cardiovascular event, at least one modifiable risk factor (systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg, body mass index ≥30, current smoker), and access to a telephone, the internet, and email. Participants were individually allocated to intervention (n=325) or control (n=316) groups using automated randomisation stratified by site, minimised by practice and baseline risk score. INTERVENTIONS:  Intervention was the Healthlines service (alongside usual care), comprising regular telephone calls from trained lay health advisors following scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors facilitated self management by supporting participants to use online resources to reduce risk factors, and sought to optimise drug use, improve treatment adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyles. The control group comprised usual care alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:  The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to treatment, defined as maintaining or reducing their cardiovascular risk after 12 months. Outcomes were collected six and 12 months after randomisation and analysed masked. Participants were not masked. RESULTS:  50% (148/295) of participants in the intervention group responded to treatment compared with 43% (124/291) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 1.9; number needed to treat=13); a difference possibly due to chance (P=0.08). The intervention was associated with reductions in blood pressure (difference in mean systolic -2.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval -4.7 to -0.6 mm Hg), mean diastolic -2.8 (-4.0 to -1.6 mm Hg); weight -1.0 kg (-1.8 to -0.3 kg), and body mass index -0.4 ( -0.6 to -0.1) but not cholesterol -0.1 (-0.2 to 0.0), smoking status (adjusted odds ratio 0.4, 0.2 to 1.0), or overall cardiovascular risk as a continuous measure (-0.4, -1.2 to 0.3)). The intervention was associated with improvements in diet, physical activity, drug adherence, and satisfaction with access to care, treatment received, and care coordination. One serious related adverse event occurred, when a participant was admitted to hospital with low blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS:  This evidence based telehealth approach was associated with small clinical benefits for a minority of people with high cardiovascular risk, and there was no overall improvement in average risk. The Healthlines service was, however, associated with improvements in some risk behaviours, and in perceptions of support and access to care.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 27508731.

Perceptions of healthcare professionals and managers regarding the effectiveness of GP-led walk-in centres in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify the perceptions of healthcare professionals regarding the effectiveness and the impact of a new general practitioner-led (GP-led) walk-in centre in the UK. SETTING: This qualitative study was conducted in a large city in the North of England. In the past few years, there has been particular concern about an increase in the use of emergency department (ED) services provided by the National Health Service and part of the rationale for introducing the new GP-led walk-in centres has been to stem this increase. The five institutes included in the study were EDs, a minor injuries unit, a primary care trust, a GP-led walk-in centre and GP surgeries. PARTICIPANTS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with healthcare providers at an adult ED, an ED at a children's hospital, a minor injuries unit, a GP-led walk-in centre, GPs from surrounding surgeries and GPs. RESULTS: 11 healthcare professionals and managers were interviewed. Seven key themes were identified within the data: the clinical model of the GP-led walk-in centre; public awareness of the services; appropriate use of the centre; the impact of the centre on other services; demand for healthcare services; choice and confusion and mixed views (positive and negative) of the walk-in services. There were discrepancies between the managers and healthcare professionals regarding the usefulness of the GP-led walk-in centre in the current urgent care system. CONCLUSIONS: Participants did not notice declines in the demand for EDs after the GP-led walk-in centre. Most of the healthcare professionals believed that the GP-led walk-in centre duplicated existing healthcare services. There is a need to have a better communication system between the GP-led walk-in centres and other healthcare providers to have an integrated system of urgent care delivery.

An investigation of the impact of futility analysis in publicly funded trials.

BACKGROUND: Publicly funded trials regularly fail to recruit their target sample size or find a significant positive result. Adaptive clinical trials which may partly mediate against the problems are not often applied. In this paper we investigate the potential of a form of adaption in a clinical trial - a futility analysis - to see if it has potential to improve publicly funded trials. METHODS: Outcome data from trials funded by two UK bodies, the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and the UK Medical Research Council (MRC), were collected. These data were then used to simulate each trial with a single futility analysis using conditional power, undertaken after 50% to 90% of the patients had been recruited. Thirty-three trials recruiting between 2002 and 2008 met the inclusion criteria. Stopping boundaries of conditional powers of 20%, 30% and 40% were considered and outcomes included the number of trials successfully stopped and number of patients saved. RESULTS: Inclusion of a futility analysis after 75% of the patients had been recruited would have potentially resulted in 10 trials, which went on to have negative results, correctly stopping for futility using a stopping boundary of 30%. A total of 807 patients across all the trials would potentially have been saved using these futility parameters. The proportion of studies successfully recruiting would also have increased from 45% to 64%. CONCLUSIONS: A futility assessment has the potential to increase efficiency, save patients and decrease costs in publicly funded trials. While there are logistical issues in undertaking futility assessments we recommend that investigators should aim to include a futility analysis in their trial design wherever possible.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention to support the management of long-term conditions: study protocol for two linked randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: As the population ages, more people are suffering from long-term health conditions (LTCs). Health services around the world are exploring new ways of supporting people with LTCs and there is great interest in the use of telehealth: technologies such as the Internet, telephone and home self-monitoring. METHODS/DESIGN: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention delivered by NHS Direct to support patients with LTCs. Two randomized controlled trials will be conducted in parallel, recruiting patients with two exemplar LTCs: depression or raised cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. A total of 1,200 patients will be recruited from approximately 42 general practices near Bristol, Sheffield and Southampton, UK. Participants will be randomly allocated to either usual care (control group) or usual care plus the NHS Direct Healthlines Service (intervention group). The intervention is based on a conceptual model incorporating promotion of self-management, optimisation of treatment, coordination of care and engagement of patients and general practitioners. Participants will be provided with tailored help, combining telephone advice from health information advisors with support to use a range of online resources. Participants will access the service for 12 months. Outcomes will be collected at baseline, four, eight and 12 months for the depression trial and baseline, six and 12 months for the CVD risk trial. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients responding to treatment, defined in the depression trial as a PHQ-9 score <10 and an absolute reduction in PHQ-9 ≥5 after 4 months, and in the CVD risk trial as maintenance or reduction of 10-year CVD risk after 12 months. The study will also assess whether the intervention is cost-effective from the perspective of the NHS and personal social services. An embedded qualitative interview study will explore healthcare professionals' and patients' views of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates a complex telehealth intervention which combines evidence-based components and is delivered by an established healthcare organisation. The study will also analyse health economic information. In doing so, the study hopes to address some of the limitations of previous research by demonstrating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a real world telehealth intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: Depression trial ISRCTN14172341 and cardiovascular disease risk trial ISRCTN27508731.

A system-wide approach to explaining variation in potentially avoidable emergency admissions: national ecological study.

BACKGROUND: Some emergency admissions can be avoided if acute exacerbations of health problems are managed by the range of health services providing emergency and urgent care. AIM: To identify system-wide factors explaining variation in age sex adjusted admission rates for conditions rich in avoidable admissions. DESIGN: National ecological study. SETTING: 152 emergency and urgent care systems in England. METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics data on emergency admissions were used to calculate an age sex adjusted admission rate for conditions rich in avoidable admissions for each emergency and urgent care system in England for 2008-2011. RESULTS: There were 3 273 395 relevant admissions in 2008-2011, accounting for 22% of all emergency admissions. The mean age sex adjusted admission rate was 2258 per year per 100 000 population, with a 3.4-fold variation between systems (1268 and 4359). Factors beyond the control of health services explained the majority of variation: unemployment rates explained 72%, with urban/rural status explaining further variation (R(2)=75%). Factors related to emergency departments, hospitals, emergency ambulance services and general practice explained further variation (R(2)=85%): the attendance rate at emergency departments, percentage of emergency department attendances converted to admissions, percentage of emergency admissions staying less than a day, percentage of emergency ambulance calls not transported to hospital and perceived access to general practice within 48 h. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to reduce avoidable admissions should be targeted at deprived communities. Better use of emergency departments, ambulance services and primary care could further reduce avoidable emergency admissions.

A reinvestigation of recruitment to randomised, controlled, multicenter trials: a review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard assessment for health technologies. A key aspect of the design of any clinical trial is the target sample size. However, many publicly-funded trials fail to reach their target sample size. This study seeks to assess the current state of recruitment success and grant extensions in trials funded by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program and the UK Medical Research Council (MRC). METHODS: Data were gathered from two sources: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA Journal Archive and the MRC subset of the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) register. A total of 440 trials recruiting between 2002 and 2008 were assessed for eligibility, of which 73 met the inclusion criteria. Where data were unavailable from the reports, members of the trial team were contacted to ensure completeness. RESULTS: Over half (55%) of trials recruited their originally specified target sample size, with over three-quarters (78%) recruiting 80% of their target. There was no evidence of this improving over the time of the assessment. Nearly half (45%) of trials received an extension of some kind. Those that did were no more likely to successfully recruit. Trials with 80% power were less likely to successfully recruit compared to studies with 90% power. CONCLUSIONS: While recruitment appears to have improved since 1994 to 2002, publicly-funded trials in the UK still struggle to recruit to their target sample size, and both time and financial extensions are often requested. Strategies to cope with such problems should be more widely applied. It is recommended that where possible studies are planned with 90% power.

Did hospital mortality in England change from 2005 to 2010? A retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is some evidence that hospital performance in England measured by the Dr Foster Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratio (HSMR) has improved substantially over the last 10 years. This study explores mortality in-hospital and up to 30 days post-discharge over a five year period to determine whether there have been improvements in case-mix adjusted mortality, to examine if any changes are due to changes in case-mix adjustment variables such as age, sex, method of admission and comorbidity, and to compare changes between hospital trusts. METHODS: Using Hospital Episode Statistics linked to mortality data from the Office for National Statistics the Summary Hospital-Level Mortality Index (SHMI) was calculated for all patients who were discharged or died in general acute hospital trusts in England for the period 01/04/2005 to 30/09/2010. RESULTS: During this five year period the number of admissions rose by 8% but deaths fell by 5%. The SHMI fell by 24% from 112 to 85 over the period, partly due to fewer deaths but partly due to increasing numbers predicted by the SHMI model. Excluding comorbidities from the model the SHMI fell by 18% from 108 to 89 over this period. The reduction was similar in emergency and elective admissions and in all other sub-groups examined. The average quarterly change in SHMI varied considerably between trusts (range: -4.4 to -0.2). CONCLUSIONS: As measured by the SHMI there has been a 24% improvement in mortality in acute general trusts in England over a period of five and a half years. Part of this improvement is an artificial effect caused by changes in the depth of coding of comorbidities and other effects due to change in case-mix or non-constant risk.

Patients' experience and satisfaction with GP led walk-in centres in the UK; a cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: GP led walk-in centres were established in the UK in 2009. Around 150 such clinics were initially planned to open. Their purpose is to provide a primary health care service to complement the urgent care services provided by Emergency Departments (ED), to reduce unnecessary patient attendance at ED, and to increase accessibility of health care services. The objectives of this study were to determine patient satisfaction and experiences with GP led walk-in centres in the UK. METHODS: A survey was conducted in two GP led walk-in centres in the North of England over three weeks during September and October 2011. A self reported, validated questionnaire was used to survey patients presenting at these centres. A short post visit questionnaire was also sent to those who agreed. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from an NHS ethical review committee. RESULTS: Based on a sample of 1030 survey participants (Centre A = 501; Centre B = 529), we found that 93% of patients were either highly or fairly satisfied with the service at centre A and 86% at centre B. The difference between centres was due to the longer reported waiting times which were seen in centre B. There was no difference in satisfaction between first time users and repeat users (P value = 0.8). Roughly 50% (n = 507) of patients reported that their reason for using the walk-in centre was having GP access without an appointment, and 9% (n = 87) reported that their GP surgery was closed. A further 20% of patients (n = 205) reported that they were not able to see their own GP because of their working hours.In the post visit survey (n = 258), nearly all patients reported complying with the advice given (around 90% at both study centres), and most of the patients (86%) reported their problem had resolved a few days later. In addition, 56% of patients at centre B and 58% at centre A reported that they had also visited another NHS service for the same problem, mostly their own GP (66%). CONCLUSIONS: The GP led walk-in centres increased access to GP care and most of the patients were satisfied with the service.

Support and assessment for fall emergency referrals (SAFER 2) research protocol: cluster randomised trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of new protocols for emergency ambulance paramedics to assess and refer to appropriate community-based care.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency calls to ambulance services are frequent for older people who have fallen, but ambulance crews often leave patients at the scene without ongoing care. Evidence shows that when left at home with no further support older people often experience subsequent falls which result in injury and emergency-department attendances. SAFER 2 is an evaluation of a new clinical protocol which allows paramedics to assess and refer older people who have fallen, and do not need hospital care, to community-based falls services. In this protocol paper, we report methods and progress during trial implementation. SAFER 2 is recruiting patients through three ambulance services. A successful trial will provide robust evidence about the value of this new model of care, and enable ambulance services to use resources efficiently. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We randomly allocated 25 participating ambulance stations (clusters) in three services to intervention or control group. Intervention paramedics received training and clinical protocols for assessing and referring older people who have fallen to community-based falls services when appropriate, while control paramedics deliver care as usual. Patients are eligible for the trial if they are aged 65 or over; resident in a participating falls service catchment area; and attended by a trial paramedic following an emergency call coded as a fall without priority symptoms. The principal outcome is the rate of further emergency contacts (or death), for any cause and for falls. Secondary outcomes include further falls, health-related quality of life, 'fear of falling', patient satisfaction reported by participants through postal questionnaires at 1 and 6 months, and quality and pathways of care at the index incident. We shall compare National Health Service (NHS) and patient/carer costs between intervention and control groups and estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from the intervention and thus incremental cost per QALY. We shall estimate wider system effects on key-performance indicators. We shall interview 60 intervention patients, and conduct focus groups with contributing NHS staff to explore their experiences of the assessment and referral service. We shall analyse quantitative trial data by 'treatment allocated'; and qualitative data using content analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Research Ethics Committee for Wales gave ethical approval and each participating centre gave NHS Research and Development approval. We shall disseminate study findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 60481756.

Why do patients with minor or moderate conditions that could be managed in other settings attend the emergency department?

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the potential of alternative providers of care for minor health problems to reduce demands on emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: Data were collected in a type 1 urban ED over a 2-month period in two stages: questionnaire to adult attendees presenting to the ED; and a notes review. RESULTS: The usable response rate was 68% (n=261/384). The notes review confirmed that more than two-thirds of the presenting conditions could have been managed in settings other than the ED. The attendees' reasons on the questionnaire indicated a strong belief that the only provider able to deal with their concerns at that time was the ED. For some users, the ED was not the first contact with a healthcare provider for the same health problem. Few believed that they would be seen quicker in the ED or that the ED was more convenient. The most frequent reason for presenting to the ED was 'being advised to attend by someone else'. The 'adviser' was more likely to be a health professional (doctor or nurse or NHS Direct) than to be 'friends or family'. CONCLUSIONS: Although there appears to be considerable potential for minor conditions to be managed in settings other than the ED, our findings indicate that patients will continue to present these conditions to the ED. Patient perceptions of the urgency of their treatment need, and also the availability and capacity of alternative services may be offsetting their potential to substitute for the ED. Advice from other services may be contributing to demands on the ED.

Consensus methods to identify a set of potential performance indicators for systems of emergency and urgent care.

OBJECTIVES: To identify a comprehensive set of indicators to enable Primary Care Trust (PCT) commissioners in England and other NHS decision-makers to monitor the performance of systems of emergency and urgent care for which they are responsible. METHODS: Using a combination of Delphi RAND methods in three successive rounds of consultation and nominal group review, we canvassed expert opinion on 70 potential indicators as good measures of system performance. The two Delphi panels consisted of senior clinicians and researchers, and urgent care leads and commissioners in PCTs and Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs). The indicators were formatted into a questionnaire according to whether they were outcome, process, structure, or equity-based measures. Participants scored each indicator on a Likert scale of 1-9 and had the opportunity to consider their scores informed by the group scores and feedback. The questionnaire was refined after each round. To ensure that the indicators rated most highly by the Delphi panels covered all dimensions of performance, the results of the Delphi were reviewed by a nominal group consisting of two researchers and three clinicians from the local health services research network (LHSR). RESULTS: Overall, the process yielded 16 candidate indicators. It also produced a core set of serious, emergency and urgent care-sensitive conditions (defined as conditions whose exacerbations should be managed by a well-performing system without admission to an inpatient bed), for use with the indicators. CONCLUSIONS: System-wide measures to monitor performance across multiple services should encourage providers to work for patient benefit in an integrated way. They will also assist commissioners to monitor and improve emergency and urgent care for their local populations. The indicators are now being calculated using routinely available data, and tested for their responsiveness to capture change over time.

A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness evaluation of "booster" interventions to sustain increases in physical activity in middle-aged adults in deprived urban neighbourhoods.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have identified a range of brief interventions which increase physical activity in previously sedentary people. There is an absence of evidence about whether follow up beyond three months can maintain long term physical activity. This study assesses whether it is worth providing motivational interviews, three months after giving initial advice, to those who have become more active. METHODS/DESIGN: Study candidates (n = 1500) will initially be given an interactive DVD and receive two telephone follow ups at monthly intervals checking on receipt and use of the DVD. Only those that have increased their physical activity after three months (n = 600) will be randomised into the study. These participants will receive either a "mini booster" (n = 200), "full booster" (n = 200) or no booster (n = 200). The "mini booster" consists of two telephone calls one month apart to discuss physical activity and maintenance strategies. The "full booster" consists of a face-to-face meeting with the facilitator at the same intervals. The purpose of these booster sessions is to help the individual maintain their increase in physical activity. Differences in physical activity, quality of life and costs associated with the booster interventions, will be measured three and nine months from randomisation. The research will be conducted in 20 of the most deprived neighbourhoods in Sheffield, which have large, ethnically diverse populations, high levels of economic deprivation, low levels of physical activity, poorer health and shorter life expectancy. Participants will be recruited through general practices and community groups, as well as by postal invitation, to ensure the participation of minority ethnic groups and those with lower levels of literacy. Sheffield City Council and Primary Care Trust fund a range of facilities and activities to promote physical activity and variations in access to these between neighbourhoods will make it possible to examine whether the effectiveness of the intervention is modified by access to community facilities. A one-year integrated feasibility study will confirm that recruitment targets are achievable based on a 10% sample. DISCUSSION: The choice of study population, study interventions, brief intervention preceding the study, and outcome measure are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN56495859; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00836459.

Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations.

Surgical innovation is an important part of surgical practice. Its assessment is complex because of idiosyncrasies related to surgical practice, but necessary so that introduction and adoption of surgical innovations can derive from evidence-based principles rather than trial and error. A regulatory framework is also desirable to protect patients against the potential harms of any novel procedure. In this first of three Series papers on surgical innovation and evaluation, we propose a five-stage paradigm to describe the development of innovative surgical procedures.

No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations.

Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.

Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation.

Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures-for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential.