Dataset Information

Exploring obstacles to critical care trials in the UK: A qualitative investigation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical trials in critical care are often resource-intense, with many unique challenges. Barriers to effective recruitment and implementation of study intervention have not been explored in a UK context.

Aim

To identify facilitating factors and barriers to enrolling patients into critical care clinical trials within the UK from clinician's perspectives.

Methods

A qualitative interview study was undertaken on behalf of the National Institute of Health Research critical care specialty group, in which research active clinicians across different Clinical Research Networks were interviewed. A loosely structured interview schedule was used, based on themes generated from the literature associated with accessing critical care trials. Research teams (critical care doctors, research nurses, and trial coordinators) from hospitals from each Clinical Research Network were contacted to try to achieve representation across the UK.

Results

Interviews were carried out across nine UK Clinical Research Networks with a range of doctors and research nurses. All hospitals were teaching hospitals with varying research nurse numbers and allocated consultant research sessions. There were a range of six to nine ongoing clinical trials in critical care for each centre representative interviewed. Data were analysed using framework analysis, and six final themes were identified related to factors associated with: centre, unit, resources, study, clinician, and patient/family. The most commonly cited barrier to conducting clinical trials was related to resources, namely insufficient human and financial resources, leading to staff and study recruitment difficulties. Clinical uncertainty and equipoise regarding comparative merits of trials were challenging in terms of engaging critical care teams. A number of patient and family factors added complexities in terms of recruitment; however, refusal rates were generally reported as low.

Conclusion

Flexibility in funding and employment by research teams enables continuity of studies and staff. Innovative measures to incentivise research nurses and clinical teams can help recruit more patients into trials. Research teams are highly committed to providing cover to recruit critical care trials, and a significant effort to anticipate barriers is undertaken; these endeavours are summarised to provide guidance for other teams wishing to address any potential difficulties.

SUBMITTER: Pattison N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5606357 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring obstacles to critical care trials in the UK: A qualitative investigation.

Pattison Natalie N Arulkumaran Nishkantha N Humphreys Sally S Walsh Tim T

Journal of the Intensive Care Society 20160822 1

<h4>Background</h4>Clinical trials in critical care are often resource-intense, with many unique challenges. Barriers to effective recruitment and implementation of study intervention have not been explored in a UK context.<h4>Aim</h4>To identify facilitating factors and barriers to enrolling patients into critical care clinical trials within the UK from clinician's perspectives.<h4>Methods</h4>A qualitative interview study was undertaken on behalf of the National Institute of Health Research cr ...[more]

PMID: 28979535

Similar Datasets

Project description:In Pakistan, women outnumber men in medical colleges with 80 percent enrollment, yet many fail to practice medicine following graduation. Pakistan Medical Council (PMC) states 50 percent of graduated women doctors either did not practice or left employment in a short period. Thus, the non-servicing women doctors are assumed as the one of the major causes for the overall doctors' shortage in the country. Addressing this enduring matter, this study aims to explore and understand the factors that discourage women doctors from practicing medicine in Pakistani hospitals. The study employed qualitative exploratory inquiry with an interpretive paradigm to attain a deeper understanding of the problem. 59-semi structured interviews were conducted by non-working women doctors across the entirety of Pakistan. The narratives were then analyzed by thematic analysis using ATLAS.ti 22. The findings have resulted in the three major themes, i.e., workplace challenges, socio-cultural obstructions, and familial restrictions that possibly obstruct women from practicing medicine in hospitals. The findings suggested that accepting traditional cultural values, including entrenched gender roles in society, deters women from practicing medicine. The prevailing patriarchal societal system includes stereotypes against working women; early marriages hinder women from practicing medicine. The prevailing societal system upholds the influence of in-laws and a husband for women doctor professional employment. As a result, severe work-life conflict was reported where most women doctors ended up in their profession in the middle of struggling between socially rooted gender roles as homemakers and their professional careers-furthermore, the study found various workplace issues that posit an additional burden on already struggling women doctors. Issues include poor recruitment and selection process, transfer constraints, excessive workload with inadequate salary, harassment, gender discrimination, unsafe work environment, and little support from the administration highly contribute to the shortage of women doctors in Pakistan.

Project description:BackgroundDespite substantial investment in women's health over the past two decades, and enthusiastic government support for MDG 5 and SDG 3, health indicators for women in Mozambique remain among the lowest in the world. Maternal mortality stayed constant from 2003 to 2011, with an MMR of 408; the estimated HIV prevalence for women of 15-24 years is over twice that for men; and only 12.1% of women are estimated to be using modern contraception. This study explores the perspectives of policy makers in the Mozambican health system and affiliates on the challenges that are preventing Mozambique from achieving greater gains in women's health.MethodsWe conducted in-depth interviews with 39 senior- and mid-level policy makers in the Ministry of Health and affiliated institutions (32 women, 7 men). Participants were sampled using a combination of systematic random sampling and snowball sampling. Participants were asked about their experiences formulating and implementing health policies and programs, what is needed to improve women's health in Mozambique, and the barriers and opportunities to achieving such improvement.ResultsParticipants unanimously argued that women's health is already sufficiently prioritized in national health policies and strategies in Mozambique; the problem, rather, is the implementation and execution of existing women's health policies and programs. Participants raised challenges related to the policy making process itself, including an ever-changing, fragmented decision-making process, lack of long-term perspective, weak evaluation, and misalignment of programs across sectors. The disproportionate influence of donors was also mentioned, with lack of ownership, rapid transitions, and vertical programming limiting the scope for meaningful change. Finally, participants reported a disconnect between policy makers at the national level and realities on the ground, with poor dissemination of strategies, limited district resources, and poor consideration of local cultural contexts.ConclusionsTo achieve meaningful gains in women's health in Mozambique, more focus must be placed on resolving the bottleneck that is the implementation of existing policies. Barriers to implementation exist across multiple health systems components, therefore, solutions to address them must also reach across these multiple components. A holistic approach to strengthening the health system across multiple sectors and at multiple levels is needed.Supplementary informationSupplementary information accompanies this paper at (10.1186/s41256-019-0119-x).

Project description:Postoperative critical care is a finite resource that is recommended for high-risk patients. Despite national recommendations specifying that such patients should receive postoperative critical care, there is evidence that these recommendations are not universally followed. We performed a national survey aiming to better understand how patients are risk-stratified in practice; elucidate clinicians' opinions about how patients should be selected for critical care; and determine factors which affect the actual provision of postoperative critical care. As part of the second Sprint National Anaesthesia Project, epidemiology of critical care after surgery study, we distributed a paper survey to anaesthetists, surgeons and intensivists providing peri-operative care during a single week in March 2017. We collected data on respondent characteristics, and their opinions of postoperative critical care provision, potential benefits and real-world challenges. We undertook both quantitative and qualitative analyses to interpret the responses. We received 10,383 survey responses from 237 hospitals across the UK. Consultants used a lower threshold for critical care admission than other career grades, indicating potentially more risk-averse behaviour. The majority of respondents reported that critical care provision was inadequate, and cited the value of critical care as being predominantly due to higher nurse: patient ratios. Use of objective risk assessment tools was poor, and patients were commonly selected for critical care based on procedure-specific pathways rather than individualised risk assessment. Challenges were highlighted in the delivery of peri-operative critical care services, such as an overall lack of capacity, competition for beds with non-surgical cases and poor flow through the hospital leading to bed 'blockages'. Critical care is perceived to provide benefit to high-risk surgical patients, but there is variation in practice about the definition and determination of risk, how patients are referred and how to deal with the lack of critical care resources. Future work should focus on evaluating 'enhanced care' units for postoperative patients, how to better implement individualised risk assessment in practice, and how to improve patient flow through hospitals.

Project description:BackgroundBlinding is an established approach in clinical trials which aims to minimise the risk of performance and detection bias. There is little empirical evidence to guide UK clinical trials units (CTUs) about the practice of blinding statisticians. Guidelines recommend that statisticians remain blinded to allocation prior to the final analysis. As these guidelines are not based on empirical evidence, this study undertook a qualitative investigation relating to when and how statisticians should be blinded in clinical trials.MethodsData were collected through online focus groups with various stakeholders who work in the delivery and oversight of clinical trials. Recordings of the focus groups were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts.ResultsThirty-seven participants from 19 CTUs participated in one of six focus groups. Four main themes were identified, namely statistical models of work, factors affecting the decision to blind statisticians, benefits of blinding/not blinding statisticians and practicalities. Factors influencing the decision to blind the statistician included available resources, study design and types of intervention and outcomes and analysis. Although blinding of the statistician is perceived as a desirable mitigation against bias, there was uncertainty about the extent to which an unblinded statistician might impart bias. Instead, in most cases, the insight that the statistician offers was deemed more important to delivery of a trial than the risk of bias they may introduce if unblinded. Blinding of statisticians was only considered achievable with the appropriate resource and staffing, which were not always available. In many cases, a standard approach to blinding was therefore considered unrealistic and impractical; hence the need for a proportionate risk assessment approach identifying possible mitigations.ConclusionsThere was wide variation in practice between UK CTUs regarding the blinding of trial statisticians. A risk assessment approach would enable CTUs to identify risks associated with unblinded statisticians conducting the final analysis and alternative mitigation strategies. The findings of this study will be used to design guidance and a tool to support this risk assessment process.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to quantify the presence of psychological safety (defined as an environment 'safe for interpersonal risk taking') in critical care staff, exploring the ways in which this manifested.DesignQualitative interview study incorporating a short quantitative survey.SettingThree intensive care units within one National Health Service Trust in London.ParticipantsThirty participants were recruited from all levels of seniority and roles within the multidisciplinary team. A purposive sampling technique was used, with recruitment ceasing at the point of thematic saturation.InterventionsSemistructured interviews explored attitudes towards psychological safety and contained a quantitative assessment measuring the climate of psychological safety present.ResultsTwenty-eight participants agreed that it was easy to ask for help, with 20 agreeing it is safe to take a risk on the team, demonstrating a strong perception of psychological safety in this group.Our thematic analysis highlighted areas where the context influenced an individual's psychological safety including personality, culture and leadership. Possible negative consequences of psychological safety included distraction and fatigue for the team leader. We demonstrated that speaking up can be influenced by motivations other than patient safety, such as undermining or self-promotion.ConclusionsOur data demonstrate reassuring levels of psychological safety within the participants studied. This allowed us to explore in depth the participant experience of working within a psychologically safe environment. We add to the current literature by uniquely demonstrating there can be negative consequences to a psychologically safe environment in the healthcare setting. We expand on the influence of context on psychological safety by developing a model, allowing leaders to identify which elements of context can be modified in order to promote speaking up. Team leaders can use these data to help foster a culture of openness, innovation and error prevention while minimising the risk of negative implications.

Dataset Information

Exploring obstacles to critical care trials in the UK: A qualitative investigation.

Background

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Exploring obstacles to critical care trials in the UK: A qualitative investigation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets