Is fascia iliaca compartment block administered by paramedics for suspected hip fracture acceptable to patients? A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' experience of receiving pain relief injection for suspected hip fracture from paramedics at the location of the injury. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews within a feasibility trial about an alternative to routine prehospital pain management for patients with suspected hip fracture. SETTING: Patients treated by paramedics in the catchment area of one emergency department in South Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Six patients and one carer of a patient who received fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB). INTERVENTION: FICB administered to patients with suspected hip fracture by trained paramedics. We randomly allocated eligible patients to FICB-a local anaesthetic injection directly into the hip region-or usual care-most commonly morphine-using audited scratch cards. OUTCOMES: Acceptability and experience of receiving FICB, assessed through interview data. We audio-recorded, with participants' consent, and conducted thematic analysis of interview transcripts. The analysis team comprised two researchers, one paramedic and one lay member. RESULTS: Patients had little or no memory of being offered, consenting to or receiving FICB. They recalled the reassuring manner and high quality of care received. They accepted FICB without question. Partial or confused memory characterised experience of subsequent hospital care until surgery. They said their priorities when calling for emergency help were to receive effective care. After hospital treatment, they wanted to regain their health and mobility and resume the quality of life they experienced before their injury. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not raise any concerns about the acceptability of FICB administered at the scene of injury by paramedics to people with suspected hip fracture. It adds to existing evidence about patient and carer experience of on-scene care for people with suspected hip fracture. Further research is needed to assess safety, effectiveness and cost effectiveness of this health technology in a new setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN60065373.

Patient views about the impact of ulcerative colitis and its management with drug treatment and surgery: a nested qualitative study within the CONSTRUCT trial.

BACKGROUND: A nested qualitative interview study within the CONSTRUCT trial was conducted to explore experiences and perceptions of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis following treatment with infliximab or ciclosporin, surgery, or other medication. METHODS: Two hundred seventy patients with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis were randomised to either infliximab or ciclosporin. Interviews were conducted with 20 trial participants. Thirty-five data capture events took place in total, 20 interviews conducted 3 months after treatment and a further 15 interviews with the same cohort as second interviews at 12 months. RESULTS: Disease duration varied but similar stories emerged about how people adjusted to living with ulcerative colitis. Issues raised by patients included; the debilitating effect of the disease on quality of life, living with the unpredictability of symptoms and treatment, dealing with embarrassment and stigma and the desire to share knowledge of the disease with others to combat the private nature of this debilitating illness and bring greater visibility to patient experience of symptoms and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Patients were more positive about treatment with infliximab than ciclosporin, mainly due to the cumbersome intravenous regimen required for ciclosporin. Prompt diagnosis is required and early reporting of changes in symptoms is encouraged to ensure appropriate treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry; number ISRCTN22663589 . The date of registration was 16/05/2008.

Rapid Analgesia for Prehospital hip Disruption (RAPID): findings from a randomised feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: In managing hip fracture, effective pain relief before admission to hospital is difficult without risking side effects. Although emergency departments routinely use fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB), there has been little evaluation of its use by paramedics before hospital admission. We aimed to assess whether a multi-centre randomised trial to evaluate FICB was feasible. METHODS: Volunteer paramedics used scratchcards to allocate patients with hip fracture at random between FICB and pain relief as usual. Primary outcomes were mortality and quality of life. We also measured adverse events, costs, final diagnosis, length of stay in hospital, pain scores and quality of care and collected qualitative data about acceptability to patients in interviews, and paramedics in focus groups. We pre-specified criteria for deciding whether to progress to a fully powered trial based on the recruitment of paramedics and patients, delivery of FICB, retrieval of outcome data, safety, acceptability, and diagnostic accuracy of hip fracture. RESULTS: We effectively met all progression criteria: we recruited 19 paramedics who randomly allocated 71 patients between trial arms between 28 June 2016 and 31 July 2017; 57 (31 experimental arm, 26 usual care arm, 80% overall) retrospectively consented to follow-up. Just over half (17/31) of experimental participants received FICB; all others had contraindications, including nine taking anticoagulants. Four of the 31 participants assigned FICB and six of the 26 assigned usual care died within 6 months of hospital admission. Serious adverse events were also similar: 3/35 experimental versus 4/36 in usual care. Paramedics' recognition of hip fracture had sensitivity of 49/64 (77%) with a positive predictive value of 46/57 (81%). We received quality of life questionnaires for 30 of 49 patients (61%) at 1 month and 12 of 17 (71%) at 6 months. Patient satisfaction was similar: experimental mean 3.4 (n = 20) versus 3.5 (n = 13) for usual care. CONCLUSIONS: RAPID met all progression criteria within reasonable limits. As equipoise remains, we plan to undertake a fully powered multi-centre trial to test clinical and cost effectiveness of paramedic-administered FICB at the scene of hip fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 60065373 sought 5 November 2015.

Paramedics' experiences of administering fascia iliaca compartment block to patients in South Wales with suspected hip fracture at the scene of injury: results of focus groups.

OBJECTIVES: To explore paramedics' experience of delivering fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) to patients with suspected hip fracture at the scene of injury. DESIGN: Focus groups within a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Paramedics based at ambulance stations in the catchment area of one Emergency Department in South Wales, recruited and trained in a feasibility study about an alternative to routine prehospital pain management for patients with suspected hip fracture. PARTICIPANTS: 11 paramedics. INTERVENTION: Paramedic-administered FICB to patients with suspected hip fracture. We randomly allocated eligible patients to FICB, a local anaesthetic injection directly into the hip region-or usual care, most commonly morphine - using audited scratch cards. OUTCOMES: Paramedics' experiences of administering FICB gathered through thematic analysis of interview transcripts by two researchers, one paramedic and one lay member. RESULTS: Respondents believed that FICB was a suitable intervention for paramedics to deliver. It aligned with routine practice and was within people's capabilities. They said it took up to 10 minutes longer than usual care to prepare and deliver, in part due to nervousness and unfamiliarity with a new procedure. They praised the training provided but said they were anxious about causing harm by injecting into the wrong location. Confidence increased after one paramedic team successfully treated a patient for local anaesthetic toxicity. Reported challenges related to the emergency context: patients often waited many hours for ambulance arrival; moving patients exacerbated their pain; family and neighbours were present as paramedics administered treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Paramedics are willing and able to administer FICB to patients with suspected hip fracture before ambulance transport to hospital. Feasibility study findings will inform further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN60065373; Pre results.

Validation of the Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis questionnaire in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: The Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis questionnaire (CUCQ) has previously been validated in patients with mild to moderate Crohn's and ulcerative colitis (UC). The aim of this study was to validate the tool in patients with acute severe UC. METHODS: We undertook a validation of the CUCQ in patients recruited to the COmparison of iNfliximab and ciclosporin in STeroid Resistant Ulcerative Colitis Trial (CONSTRUCT). We carried out psychometric analysis to examine the underlying dimensions of the scale, internal consistency and construct validity. We carried out stepwise regression to examine which items accounted for the greatest variance in the scale. RESULTS: We obtained complete data for 270 patients. The internal consistency of the CUCQ was excellent (Cronbach's alpha > 0.8). The CUCQ scores achieved significant correlations with two generic quality of life scales (SF-12 and EQ-5D), demonstrating good construct validity. Stepwise regression identified 16 items that accounted for greater than 95% of the variance of the CUCQ. Only three of the eight items selected for a short form in mild to moderate patients were selected for patients with acute severe UC. CONCLUSIONS: The CUCQ demonstrated good validity in our sample of acute severe UC patients. Stepwise regression identified potential to shorten the tool, but that different items would be selected compared with less severe patients. If the tool is to be applied across the spectrum of disease it would be more appropriate to use the full 32 items in the scale. Further work to explore test-retest is required in acute patients.

Rapid analgesia for prehospital hip disruption (RAPID): protocol for feasibility study of randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adequate pain relief at the point of injury and during transport to hospital is a major challenge in all acute traumas, especially for those with hip fractures, whose injuries are difficult to immobilise and whose long-term outcomes may be adversely affected by administration of opiate analgesics. Fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) is a procedure routinely undertaken by doctors and nurses in the emergency department for patients with hip fracture but not yet evaluated for use by paramedics at the scene of emergency calls. In this feasibility study, we aim to test whether FICB administered by paramedics at the scene of participants' hip fractures is feasible, safe and acceptable. This will enable us to decide whether to proceed to a fully powered, multi-centre pragmatic randomised trial to evaluate whether the procedure is effective for patients and worthwhile for the NHS. METHODS/DESIGN: In this study, we propose to recruit ten paramedics in an urban area of South Wales. We will train them to carry out FICB when they attend patients with hip fracture. We will randomly allocate eligible patients to FICB or usual care using audited scratch cards. We will follow up participants to assess measurability of key outcomes including quality of life, pain scores, adverse events, length of stay in hospital, acceptability to patients and compliance of paramedics. We will assess whether the findings meet specified feasibility criteria and, if so, plan a full trial. DISCUSSION: This study will enable us to recommend whether to undertake a definitive trial of FICB by paramedics for hip fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN60065373.

Referral pathways for patients with TIA avoiding hospital admission: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the features and effects of a pathway for emergency assessment and referral of patients with suspected transient ischaemic attack (TIA) in order to avoid admission to hospital. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL Web of Science, Scopus. STUDY SELECTION: Reports of primary research on referral of patients with suspected TIA directly to specialist outpatient services. DATA EXTRACTION: We screened studies for eligibility and extracted data from relevant studies. Data were analysed to describe setting, assessment and referral processes, treatment, implementation and outcomes. RESULTS: 8 international studies were identified, mostly cohort designs. 4 pathways were used by family doctors and 3 pathways by emergency department physicians. No pathways used by paramedics were found. Referrals were made to specialist clinic either directly or via a 24-hour helpline. Practitioners identified TIA symptoms and risk of further events using a checklist including the ABCD2 tool or clinical assessment. Antiplatelet medication was often given, usually aspirin unless contraindicated. Some patients underwent tests before referral and discharge. 5 studies reported reduced incident of stroke at 90 days, from 6-10% predicted rate to 1.3-2.1% actual rate. Between 44% and 83% of suspected TIA cases in these studies were referred through the pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Research literature has focused on assessment and referral by family doctors and ED physicians to reduce hospitalisation of patients with TIA. No pathways for paramedical use were reported. We will use results of this scoping review to inform development of a paramedical referral pathway to be tested in a feasibility trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN85516498. Stage: pre-results.

Infliximab versus ciclosporin for steroid-resistant acute severe ulcerative colitis (CONSTRUCT): a mixed methods, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab and ciclosporin are of similar efficacy in treating acute severe ulcerative colitis, but there has been no comparative evaluation of their relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: In this mixed methods, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial, we recruited consenting patients aged 18 years or older at 52 district general and teaching hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales who had been admitted, unscheduled, with severe ulcerative colitis and failed to respond to intravenous hydrocortisone within about 5 days. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either infliximab (5 mg/kg intravenous infusion given over 2 h at baseline, and again at 2 weeks and 6 weeks after the first infusion) or ciclosporin (2 mg/kg per day by continuous infusion for up to 7 days, followed by twice-daily tablets delivering 5·5 mg/kg per day for 12 weeks). Randomisation used a web-based password-protected site, with a dynamic algorithm to generate allocations on request, thus protecting against investigator preference or other subversion, while ensuring that each trial group was balanced by centre, which was the only stratification used. Local investigators and participants were aware of the treatment allocated, but the chief investigator and analysts were masked. Analysis was by treatment allocated. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted survival-ie, the area under the curve (AUC) of scores from the Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis Questionnaire (CUCQ) completed by participants at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, then every 6 months from 1 year to 3 years. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN22663589. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2010, and Feb 26, 2013, 270 patients were recruited. 135 patients were allocated to the infliximab group and 135 to the ciclosporin group. 121 (90%) patients in each group were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. There was no significant difference between groups in quality-adjusted survival (mean AUC 564·0 [SD 241·9] in the infliximab group vs 587·0 [226·2] in the ciclosporin group; mean adjusted difference 7·9 [95% CI -22·0 to 37·8]; p=0·603). Likewise, there were no significant differences between groups in the secondary outcomes of CUCQ scores, EQ-5D, or SF-6D scores; frequency of colectomy (55 [41%] of 135 patients in the infliximab group vs 65 [48%] of 135 patients in the ciclosporin group; p=0·223); or mean time to colectomy (811 [95% CI 707-912] days in the infliximab group vs 744 [638-850] days in the ciclosporin group; p=0·251). There were no differences in serious adverse reactions (16 reactions in 14 participants receiving infliximab vs ten in nine patients receiving ciclosporin); serious adverse events (21 in 16 patients vs 25 in 17 patients); or deaths (three in the infliximab group vs none in the ciclosporin group). INTERPRETATION: There was no significant difference between ciclosporin and infliximab in clinical effectiveness. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

Comparison Of iNfliximab and ciclosporin in STeroid Resistant Ulcerative Colitis: pragmatic randomised Trial and economic evaluation (CONSTRUCT).

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of infliximab and ciclosporin in treating severe ulcerative colitis (UC) is proven, but there has been no comparative evaluation of effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of infliximab and ciclosporin in treating steroid-resistant acute severe UC. METHOD: Between May 2010 and February 2013 we recruited 270 participants from 52 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales to an open-label parallel-group, pragmatic randomised trial. Consented patients admitted with severe colitis completed baseline quality-of-life questionnaires before receiving intravenous hydrocortisone. If they failed to respond within about 5 days, and met other inclusion criteria, we invited them to participate and used a web-based adaptive randomisation algorithm to allocate them in equal proportions between 5 mg/kg of intravenous infliximab at 0, 2 and 6 weeks or 2 mg/kg/day of intravenous ciclosporin for 7 days followed by 5.5 mg/kg/day of oral ciclosporin until 12 weeks from randomisation. Further treatment was at the discretion of physicians responsible for clinical management. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted survival (QAS): the area under the curve (AUC) of scores derived from Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis Questionnaires completed by participants at 3 and 6 months, and then 6-monthly over 1-3 years, more frequently after surgery. Secondary outcomes collected simultaneously included European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores and NHS resource use to estimate cost-effectiveness. Blinding was possible only for data analysts. We interviewed 20 trial participants and 23 participating professionals. Funded data collection finished in March 2014. Most participants consented to complete annual questionnaires and for us to analyse their routinely collected health data over 10 years. RESULTS: The 135 participants in each group were well matched at baseline. In 121 participants analysed in each group, we found no significant difference between infliximab and ciclosporin in QAS [mean difference in AUC/day 0.0297 favouring ciclosporin, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0088 to 0.0682; p = 0.129]; EQ-5D scores (quality-adjusted life-year mean difference 0.021 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI -0.032 to 0.096; p = 0.350); Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions scores (mean difference 0.0051 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI -0.0250 to 0.0353; p = 0.737). There was no statistically significant difference in colectomy rates [odds ratio (OR) 1.350 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.832 to 2.188; p = 0.223]; numbers of serious adverse reactions (event ratio = 0.938 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI 0.590 to 1.493; p = 0.788); participants with serious adverse reactions (OR 0.660 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI 0.282 to 1.546; p = 0.338); numbers of serious adverse events (event ratio 1.075 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.603 to 1.917; p = 0.807); participants with serious adverse events (OR 0.999 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.473 to 2.114; p = 0.998); deaths (all three who died received infliximab; p = 0.247) or concomitant use of immunosuppressants. The lower cost of ciclosporin led to lower total NHS costs (mean difference -£5632, 95% CI -£8305 to -£2773; p < 0.001). Interviews highlighted the debilitating effect of UC; participants were more positive about infliximab than ciclosporin. Professionals reported advantages and disadvantages with both drugs, but nurses disliked the intravenous ciclosporin. CONCLUSIONS: Total cost to the NHS was considerably higher for infliximab than ciclosporin. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between the two drugs in clinical effectiveness, colectomy rates, incidence of SAEs or reactions, or mortality, when measured 1-3 years post treatment. To assess long-term outcome participants will be followed up for 10 years post randomisation, using questionnaires and routinely collected data. Further studies will be needed to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of new anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs and formulations of ciclosporin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22663589. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Successful development and testing of a Method for Aggregating The Reporting of Interventions in Complex Studies (MATRICS).

OBJECTIVES: To develop a tool for the accurate reporting and aggregation of findings from each of the multiple methods used in a complex evaluation in an unbiased way. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed a Method for Aggregating The Reporting of Interventions in Complex Studies (MATRICS) within a gastroenterology study [Evaluating New Innovations in (the delivery and organisation of) Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy services by the NHS Modernisation Agency (ENIGMA)]. We subsequently tested it on a different gastroenterology trial [Multi-Institutional Nurse Endoscopy Trial (MINuET)]. We created three layers to define the effects, methods, and findings from ENIGMA. We assigned numbers to each effect in layer 1 and letters to each method in layer 2. We used an alphanumeric code based on layers 1 and 2 to every finding in layer 3 to link the aims, methods, and findings. We illustrated analogous findings by assigning more than one alphanumeric code to a finding. We also showed that more than one effect or method could report the same finding. We presented contradictory findings by listing them in adjacent rows of the MATRICS. RESULTS: MATRICS was useful for the effective synthesis and presentation of findings of the multiple methods from ENIGMA. We subsequently successfully tested it by applying it to the MINuET trial. CONCLUSION: MATRICS is effective for synthesizing the findings of complex, multiple-method studies.

Randomised controlled trial. Comparison Of iNfliximab and ciclosporin in STeroid Resistant Ulcerative Colitis: Trial design and protocol (CONSTRUCT).

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) present with acute exacerbations needing hospital admission. Treatment includes intravenous steroids but up to 40% of patients do not respond and require emergency colectomy. Mortality following emergency colectomy has fallen, but 10% of patients still die within 3 months of surgery. Infliximab and ciclosporin, both immunosuppressive drugs, offer hope for treating steroid-resistant UC as there is evidence of their short-term effectiveness. As there is little long-term evidence, this pragmatic randomised trial, known as Comparison Of iNfliximab and ciclosporin in STeroid Resistant Ulcerative Colitis: a Trial (CONSTRUCT), aims to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of infliximab and ciclosporin for steroid-resistant UC. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Between May 2010 and February 2013, 52 UK centres recruited 270 patients admitted with acute severe UC who failed to respond to intravenous steroids but did not need surgery. We allocated them at random in equal proportions between infliximab and ciclosporin.The primary clinical outcome measure is quality-adjusted survival, that is survival weighted by Crohn's and Colitis Questionnaire (CCQ) participants' scores, analysed by Cox regression. Secondary outcome measures include: the CCQ-an extension of the validated but community-focused UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) to include patients with acute severe colitis and stoma; two general quality of life measures-EQ-5D and SF-12; mortality; survival weighted by EQ-5D; emergency and planned colectomies; readmissions; incidence of adverse events including malignancies, serious infections and renal disorders; disease activity; National Health Service (NHS) costs and patient-borne costs. Interviews investigate participants' views on therapies for acute severe UC and healthcare professionals' views on the two drugs and their administration. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Research Ethics Committee for Wales has given ethical approval (Ref. 08/MRE09/42); each participating Trust or Health Board has given NHS Reseach & Development approval. We plan to present trial findings at international and national conferences and publish in high-impact peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN: 22663589; EudraCT number: 2008-001968-36.

Barriers and facilitators to change in the organisation and delivery of endoscopy services in England and Wales: a focus group study.

OBJECTIVE: Explore professional views of changes to gastroenterology service organisation and delivery and barriers and facilitators impacting on change. The work was undertaken as part of an evaluation in endoscopy service provision catalysed by the Modernising Endoscopy Services Programme of the Modernisation Agency. DESIGN: Focus groups followed by analysis and group-working activities identifying key themes. SETTING: English and Welsh secondary care gastroenterology units. PARTICIPANTS: 20 professionals working in gastroenterology in England and Wales. Medical, surgical and nursing specialists including endoscopy nurses. Opportunistic sampling to include senior people in leadership and management roles who were directly involved in service modernisation, excluding those involved in the Modernisation Endoscopy Services Programme. RESULTS: Four 1.5 h focus groups took place in 2007. Summative and thematic analyses captured essential aspects of text and achieved consensus on key themes. 4 themes were revealed: 'loss of personal autonomy and erosion of professionalism', 'lack of senior management understanding', 'barriers and facilitators to change' and 'differences between English and Welsh units'. Themes indicated that low staff morale, lack of funding and senior management support were barriers to effective change. Limitations to the study include the disproportionately low number of focus group attendees from English units and the time delay in reporting these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ambitions to implement change, ineffective management support continued to hamper modernisation of service organisation and delivery. While the National Health Service Modernisation Agency Modernising Endoscopy Services Programme acted as a catalyst for change, affecting the way staff work, communicate and think, it was not effective in heralding change itself. However, gastroenterologists were keen to consider the potential for change and future service modernisation. The methodological framework of innovative qualitative enquiry offers comprehensive and rigorous enhancement of quantitative studies, including randomised trials, when a mixed methods approach is needed.