Using publicly available UK datasets to identify recruitment sites to maximise inclusion of under-served groups: three case studies.

Background: There is strong evidence that those recruited into studies are not always representative of the population for whom the research is most relevant. Development of the study design and funding decisions are points in the research process where considerations about inclusion of under-served populations may usefully be made. Current practical guidance focuses on designing and modifying participant recruitment and retention approaches but an area that has not been addressed is recruitment site selection. Methods: We present case studies of three NIHR funded trials to demonstrate how publicly available UK population datasets can be used to facilitate the identification of under-served communities for inclusion in trials. The trials have different designs, address different needs and demonstrate recruitment planning across Trauma centres, NHS Trusts and special educational settings.We describe our use of national freely available datasets, such as those provided by NHS Digital and the Office for National Statistics, to identify potential recruitment sites with consideration of health status, socio-economic status and ethnicity as well as clinical and risk factors to support inclusivity.For all three studies, we produced lists of potential recruitment sites in excess of the number anticipated as necessary to meet the recruitment targets. Discussion: We reflect on the challenges to our approach and some potential future developments. The datasets used are all free to use but each has their limitations. Agreeing search parameters, acceptable proxies and identifying the appropriate datasets, then cross referencing between datasets takes considerable time and particular expertise. The case studies are trials, but the methods are generalisable for various other study types. Conclusion: Through these exemplars, we aim to build on the NIHR INCLUDE project, by providing trialists with a much needed practical approach to embedding EDI into trial design at the grant application stage.

Scaling up Quality Improvement for Surgical Teams (QIST)-avoiding surgical site infection and anaemia at the time of surgery: a cluster randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives to introduce change in the NHS.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this trial was to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives to implement large-scale change in the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, specifically for improving outcomes in patients undergoing primary, elective total hip or knee replacement. METHODS: We undertook a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the roll-out of two preoperative pathways: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) decolonisation (infection arm) and anaemia screening and treatment (anaemia arm). NHS Trusts are public sector organisations that provide healthcare within a geographical area. NHS Trusts (n = 41) in England providing primary, elective total hip and knee replacements, but that did not have a preoperative anaemia screening or MSSA decolonisation pathway in place, were randomised to one of the two parallel collaboratives. Collaboratives took place from May 2018 to November 2019. Twenty-seven Trusts completed the trial (11 anaemia, 16 infection). Outcome data were collected for procedures performed between November 2018 and November 2019. Co-primary outcomes were perioperative blood transfusion (within 7 days of surgery) and deep surgical site infection (SSI) caused by MSSA (within 90 days post-surgery) for the anaemia and infection trial arms, respectively. Secondary outcomes were deep and superficial SSIs (any organism), length of hospital stay, critical care admissions and unplanned readmissions. Process measures included the proportion of eligible patients receiving each preoperative initiative. RESULTS: There were 19,254 procedures from 27 NHS Trusts included in the results (6324 from 11 Trusts in the anaemia arm, 12,930 from 16 Trusts in the infection arm). There were no improvements observed for blood transfusion (anaemia arm 183 (2.9%); infection arm 302 (2.3%) transfusions; adjusted odds ratio 1.20, 95% CI 0.52-2.75, p = 0.67) or MSSA deep SSI (anaemia arm 8 (0.13%); infection arm 18 (0.14%); adjusted odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.42-2.46, p = 0.98). There were no significant improvements in any secondary outcome. This is despite process measures showing the preoperative pathways were implemented for 73.7% and 61.1% of eligible procedures in the infection and anaemia arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement collaboratives did not result in improved patient outcomes in this trial; however, there was some evidence they may support successful implementation of new preoperative pathways in the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on 15 February 2018, ISRCTN11085475.

Effectiveness of pre-operative anaemia screening and increased Tranexamic acid dose policies on outcomes following unilateral primary, elective total hip or knee replacement: a statistical analysis plan for an interrupted time series and regression discontinuity study.

Perioperative blood transfusion is associated with poorer postoperative outcomes following hip and knee replacement surgery. Evidence for the effectiveness of some measures aimed at reducing blood transfusions in this setting are limited and often rely on weak pre-post study designs. Quasi-experimental study designs such as interrupted time series (ITS) and regression discontinuity design (RDD) address many of the weaknesses of the pre-post study design. In addition, a priori publication of statistical analysis plans for such studies increases their transparency and likely validity, as readers are able to distinguish between pre-planned and exploratory analyses. As such, this article, written prospective of any analysis, provides the statistical analysis plan for an ITS and RDD study based on a data set of 20,772 primary elective hip and knee replacement patients in a single English NHS Trust. The primary aim is to evaluate the impact of a preoperative anaemia optimisation service on perioperative blood transfusion (within 7 days of surgery) using both ITS and RDD methods. A secondary aim is to evaluate the impact of a policy of increased tranexamic acid dose given at the time of surgery, using ITS methods.

Preoperative iron treatment in anaemic patients undergoing elective total hip or knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Preoperative anaemia is associated with increased risks of postoperative complications, blood transfusion and mortality. This meta-analysis aims to review the best available evidence on the clinical effectiveness of preoperative iron in anaemic patients undergoing elective total hip (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR). DESIGN: Electronic databases and handsearching were used to identify randomised and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI) reporting perioperative blood transfusion rates for anaemic participants receiving iron before elective THR or TKR. Searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and other databases were conducted on 17 April 2019 and updated on 15 July 2020. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for eligibility and evaluated risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale for NRSIs. Data extraction was performed by ABS and checked by AB. Meta-analysis used the Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects models. RESULTS: 807 records were identified: 12 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 10 were eligible for meta-analyses (one RCT and nine NRSIs). Five of the NRSIs were of high-quality while there were some concerns of bias in the RCT. Meta-analysis of 10 studies (n=2178 participants) showed a 39% reduction in risk of receiving a perioperative blood transfusion with iron compared with no iron (risk ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.73, p<0.001, I2=0%). There was a significant reduction in the number of red blood cell units transfused with iron compared with no iron (mean difference -0.37units, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.27, p<0.001, I2=40%); six studies (n=1496). Length of stay was significantly reduced with iron, by an average of 2.08 days (95% CI -2.64 to -1.51, p<0.001, I2=40%); five studies (n=1140). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative iron in anaemic, elective THR or TKR patients, significantly reduces the number of patients and number of units transfused and length of stay. However, high-quality, randomised trials are lacking. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019129035.

Scaling up Quality Improvement for Surgical Teams (QIST) - avoiding surgical site infection and anaemia at the time of surgery: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Measures shown to improve outcomes for patients often fail to be adopted into routine practice in the NHS. The Institute for Health Improvement Breakthrough Series Collaborative (BSC) model is designed to support implementation at scale. This trial aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) based on the BSC method for introducing service improvements at scale in the NHS. METHODS: Forty Trusts will be randomised (1:1) to introduce one of two protocols already shown to improve outcomes in patients undergoing elective total hip and knee replacement surgery. The intervention is improvement collaboratives based on the BSC model, a learning system that brings together a large number of teams to seek improvement focussed on a proven intervention. Collaboratives aim to deliver at scale, maximise local engagement and leadership and are designed to build capacity, enable learning and prepare for sustainability. Collaboratives involve Learning Sessions, Action Periods, and a summative congress. Trusts will be supported to introduce either: decolonisation for Methicillin Sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) to reduce post-operative infection (QIST: Infection), or an anaemia optimisation programme to reduce peri-operative blood transfusions (QIST: Anaemia). Trusts will continue with their usual practice for whichever protocol they are not introducing. Anonymised data related to both infection and anaemia outcomes for patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty at all sites will mean that the two groups act as controls for each other. The primary outcome for the QIST: Infection collaborative is deep MSSA surgical site infection within 90 days of surgery, and for the QIST: Anaemia collaborative is blood transfusion within 7 days of surgery. Patient-level secondary outcomes include length of hospital stay and readmission, which will also inform the economic costings. Qualitative interviews will evaluate the support provided to teams. DISCUSSION: The scale of this trial brings considerable challenges and potential barriers to delivery. Anticipated challenges relate to recruiting and sustaining up to 40 organisations, each with its own culture and context. This complex project with multiple stakeholders across a large geographical area will be managed by experienced senior-level project leaders with a proven track record in advanced project management. The team should ensure effective project governance and communications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN11085475. Prospectively registered on 15 February 2018.

Interventional Radiology service provision and practice for the management of traumatic splenic injury across the Regional Trauma Networks of England.

INTRODUCTION: The management of blunt splenic injuries (BSI) has evolved toward strategies that avoid splenectomy. There is growing adoption of interventional radiology (IR) techniques in non-operative management of BSI, with evidence suggesting a corresponding reduction in emergency laparotomy requirements and increased splenic preservation rates. Currently there are no UK national guidelines for the management of blunt splenic injury. This may lead to variations in management, despite the reorganisation of trauma services in England in 2012. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was distributed through the British Society of Interventional Radiologists to all UK members aiming to identify availability of IR services in England, radiologists' practice, and attitudes toward management of BSI. RESULTS: 116 responses from respondents working in 23 of the 26 Regional Trauma Networks in England were received. 79% provide a single dedicated IR service but over 50% cover more than one hospital within the network. All offer arterial embolisation for BSI. Only 25% follow guidelines. In haemodynamically stable patients, an increasing trend for embolisation was seen as grade of splenic injury increased from 1 to 4 (12.5%-82.14%, p<0.01). In unstable patients or those with radiological evidence of bleeding, significantly more respondents offer embolisation for grade 1-3 injuries (p<0.01), compared to stable patients. Significantly fewer respondents offer embolisation for grade 5 versus 4 injuries in unstable patients or with evidence of bleeding. CONCLUSION: Splenic embolisation is offered for a variety of injury grades, providing the patient remains stable. Variation in interventional radiology services remain despite the introduction of regional trauma networks.

A decision tool for whole-body CT in major trauma that safely reduces unnecessary scanning and associated radiation risks: An initial exploratory analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whole-body CT (WBCT) has become routine practice in the assessment of major trauma patients. Whilst this may be associated with increased survival, several studies report high rates of negative scans. As no national guideline exists, selection criteria for WBCT vary widely. This study aims to (1) produce a scoring system that improves patient selection for WBCT (2) quantify patient radiation doses and their concomitant risk of malignancy. METHODS: Clinical notes were reviewed for all patients undergoing a WBCT for trauma over a 21-month period at a UK major trauma centre. Clinical and radiological findings were categorised according to body region. Univariate analysis was performed using Chi-squared testing, followed by multivariable logistic regression. Secondary regression analysis of patients with significant injuries that the model did not identify was performed. The model was optimised and used to develop a scoring system. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using the same dataset as was used to derive the models. Radiation exposure was determined and the excess lifetime risk of malignancy calculated. RESULTS: 255 patients were included, with a mean age of 45 years. 16% of scans were positive for polytrauma, 42% demonstrated some injury and 42% showed no injury. The regression model identified independent predictors of polytrauma to be (1) clinical signs in more than one body region, (2) reduced Glasgow Coma Score, (3) haemodynamic abnormality, (4) respiratory abnormality, (5) mechanism of injury. The final model had a sensitivity of 95% (95% CI 86-99%) and specificity of 59% (95% CI 52-66%) for significant CT findings. Mean radiation exposure was 31.8 mSv, conferring a median excess malignancy risk of 1 in 474. CONCLUSION: After including neurological deficit, our scoring system had a sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 88-99%) and specificity of 56% (95% CI 49-64%) for significant injury. We propose this is used to stratify the use of trauma radiographs, focused CT and WBCT for major trauma patients. Although not intended to replace clinical judgement, our scoring system adds an objective component to decision-making. We believe this will safely reduce the number of unnecessary CT scans performed on a relatively young cohort of patients.