Dataset Information

Sedation AND Weaning In Children (SANDWICH): protocol for a cluster randomised stepped wedge trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Weaning from ventilation is a complex process involving several stages that include recognition of patient readiness to begin the weaning process, steps to reduce ventilation while optimising sedation in order not to induce distress and removing the endotracheal tube. Delay at any stage can prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation. We developed a multicomponent intervention targeted at helping clinicians to safely expedite this process and minimise the harms associated with unnecessary mechanical ventilation.

Methods and analysis

This is a 20-month cluster randomised stepped wedge clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with an internal pilot and a process evaluation. It is being conducted in 18 paediatric intensive care units in the UK to evaluate a protocol-based intervention for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation. Following an initial 8-week baseline data collection period in all sites, one site will be randomly chosen to transition to the intervention every 4 weeks and will start an 8-week training period after which it will continue the intervention for the remaining duration of the study. We aim to recruit approximately 10 000 patients. The primary analysis will compare data from before the training (control) with that from after the training (intervention) in each site. Full details of the analyses will be in the statistical analysis plan.

Ethics and dissemination

This protocol was reviewed and approved by NRES Committee East Midlands-Nottingham 1 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 17/EM/0301). All sites started patient recruitment on 5 February 2018 before randomisation in April 2018. Results will be disseminated in 2020. The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN16998143.

SUBMITTER: Blackwood B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6858098 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Oxygen is a life-saving, essential medicine that is important for the treatment of many common childhood conditions. Improved oxygen systems can reduce childhood pneumonia mortality substantially. However, providing oxygen to children is challenging, especially in small hospitals with weak infrastructure and low human resource capacity.This trial will evaluate the implementation of improved oxygen systems at secondary-level hospitals in southwest Nigeria. The improved oxygen system includes: a standardised equipment package; training of clinical and technical staff; infrastructure support (including improved power supply); and quality improvement activities such as supportive supervision. Phase 1 will involve the introduction of pulse oximetry alone; phase 2 will involve the introduction of the full, improved oxygen system package. We have based the intervention design on a theory-based analysis of previous oxygen projects, and used quality improvement principles, evidence-based teaching methods, and behaviour-change strategies. We are using a stepped-wedge cluster randomised design with participating hospitals randomised to receive an improved oxygen system at 4-month steps (three hospitals per step). Our mixed-methods evaluation will evaluate effectiveness, impact, sustainability, process and fidelity. Our primary outcome measures are childhood pneumonia case fatality rate and inpatient neonatal mortality rate. Secondary outcome measures include a range of clinical, quality of care, technical, and health systems outcomes. The planned study duration is from 2015 to 2018.Our study will provide quality evidence on the effectiveness of improved oxygen systems, and how to better implement and scale-up oxygen systems in resource-limited settings. Our results should have important implications for policy-makers, hospital administrators, and child health organisations in Africa and globally.Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12617000341325 . Retrospectively registered on 6 March 2017.

Project description:IntroductionMost potential kidney transplant donors in the UK are aged over 60 years, yet increasing donor age is associated with poorer graft survival and function. Urgent preimplantation kidney biopsy can identify chronic injury, and may aid selection of better 'quality' kidneys from this group. However, the impact of biopsy on transplant numbers remains unproven. The PreImplantation Trial of Histopathology In renal Allografts (PITHIA) study will assess whether the introduction of a national, 24 hours, digital histopathology service increases the number, and improves outcomes, of kidneys transplanted in the UK from older deceased donors.Methods and analysisPITHIA is an open, multicentre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised study, involving all UK adult kidney transplant centres. At 4-monthly intervals, a group of 4-5 randomly selected clusters (transplant centres) will be given access to remote, urgent, digital histopathology (total intervention period, 24 months). The trial has two primary end points: it is powered for an 11% increase in the proportion of primary kidney offers from deceased donors aged over 60 years that are transplanted, and a 6 mL/min increase in the estimated glomerular filtration rate of recipients at 12 months post-transplant. This would equate to an additional 120 kidney transplants performed in the UK annually. Trial outcome data will be collected centrally via the UK Transplant Registry held by NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) and will be analysed using mixed effects models allowing for clustering within centres and adjusting for secular trends. An accompanying economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of the service to the National Health Service.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been given favourable ethical opinion by the Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee and is approved by the Health Research Authority. We will present our findings at key transplant meetings, publish results within 4 years of the trial commencing and support volunteers at renal patient groups to disseminate the trial outcome.Trial registration numberISRCTN11708741; Pre-results.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Prevention of overweight and obesity in childhood is a priority because of associated acute and chronic conditions in childhood and later in life, which place significant burden on health systems. Evidence suggests prevention should engage a range of actions and actors and target multiple levels. The Whole of Systems Trial Of Prevention Strategies for childhood obesity (WHO STOPS) will evaluate the outcomes of a novel systems-based intervention that aims to engage whole communities in a locally led multifaceted response. This paper describes the planned economic evaluation of WHO STOPS and examines the methodological challenges for economic evaluation of a complex systems-based intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Economic evaluation alongside a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial in regional and rural communities in Victoria, Australia. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will provide estimates of the incremental cost (in $A) per body mass index unit saved and quality adjusted life year gained. A Markov cohort model will be employed to estimate healthcare cost savings and benefits over the life course of children. The dollar value of community resources harnessed for the community-led response will be estimated. Probabilistic uncertainty analyses will be undertaken to test sensitivity of results to plausible variations in all trial-based and modelled variables. WHO STOPS will also be assessed against other implementation considerations (such as sustainability and acceptability to communities and other stakeholders). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The trial is registered by the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000980437). Full ethics clearances have been received for all methods described below: Deakin University's Human Research Ethics Committee 2014-279, Deakin University's Human Ethics Advisory Group-Health (HEAG-H) HEAG-H 194_2014, HEAG-H 17 2015, HEAG-H 155_2014, HEAG-H 197_2016, HEAG-H 118_2017, the Victorian Department of Education and Training 2015_002622 and the Catholic Archdiocese of Ballarat. Trial findings (including economic evaluation) will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. Collected data and analyses will be made available in accordance with journal policies and study ethics approvals. Results will be presented to relevant government authorities with an interest in cost-effectiveness of these types of interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN12616000980437; Pre-results.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Among preterm infants, mother's own milk feeding reduces neonatal morbidity and decreases the length of hospital stay. However, breastfeeding rates and duration are lower than among term infants. It is reported that peer counselling is effective in increasing breast feeding in term infants in low-income and middle-income countries, but results are mixed in high-income countries. We aim to investigate herein whether peer counselling may be a feasible and effective breastfeeding support among preterm infants in French-speaking high-income countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Eight European centres will participate in this stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. We plan to include 2400 hospitalised neonates born before 35 gestational weeks. Each centre will begin with an observational period. Every 3?months, a randomised cluster (centre) will begin the interventional period with peer counsellors until the end of the study. The counsellors will be trained and supervised by the trained nurses. They will have a weekly contact with participating mothers, with a face-to-face meeting at least once every fortnight. During these meetings, peer counsellors will listen to mothers' concerns, share experiences and help the mother with their own knowledge of breast feeding. The main outcome is breastfeeding rate at 2 months corrected age. Secondary outcomes are breastfeeding rates at hospital discharge and at 6 months, breastfeeding duration and severe neonatal morbidity and mortality. The mental health of the mother, mother-infant bonding and infant behaviour will be assessed using self-report questionnaires. A neurodevelopmental follow-up, a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-consequence at 2 years corrected age will be performed among infants in a French subgroup. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:French, Belgian and Swiss ethics committees gave their agreement. Publications in peer-reviewed journals are planned on breast feeding, mental health and economic outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03156946.

Project description:BackgroundTo ensure patients continue to get early access to antibiotics at admission, while also safely reducing antibiotic use in hospitals, one needs to target the continued need for antibiotics as more diagnostic information becomes available. UK Department of Health guidance promotes an initiative called 'Start Smart then Focus': early effective antibiotics followed by active 'review and revision' 24-72?h later. However in 2017, <?10% of antibiotic prescriptions were discontinued at review, despite studies suggesting that 20-30% of prescriptions could be stopped safely.Methods/designAntibiotic Review Kit for Hospitals (ARK-Hospital) is a complex 'review and revise' behavioural intervention targeting healthcare professionals involved in antibiotic prescribing or administration in inpatients admitted to acute/general medicine (the largest consumers of non-prophylactic antibiotics in hospitals). The primary study objective is to evaluate whether ARK-Hospital can safely reduce the total antibiotic burden in acute/general medical inpatients by at least 15%. The primary hypotheses are therefore that the introduction of the behavioural intervention will be non-inferior in terms of 30-day mortality post-admission (relative margin 5%) for an acute/general medical inpatient, and superior in terms of defined daily doses of antibiotics per acute/general medical admission (co-primary outcomes). The unit of observation is a hospital organisation, a single hospital or group of hospitals organised with one executive board and governance framework (National Health Service trusts in England; health boards in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland). The study comprises a feasibility study in one organisation (phase I), an internal pilot trial in three organisations (phase II) and a cluster (organisation)-randomised stepped-wedge trial (phase III) targeting a minimum of 36 organisations in total. Randomisation will occur over 18?months from November 2017 with a further 12?months follow-up to assess sustainability. The behavioural intervention will be delivered to healthcare professionals involved in antibiotic prescribing or administration in adult inpatients admitted to acute/general medicine. Outcomes will be assessed in adult inpatients admitted to acute/general medicine, collected through routine electronic health records in all patients.DiscussionARK-Hospital aims to provide a feasible, sustainable and generalisable mechanism for increasing antibiotic stopping in patients who no longer need to receive them at 'review and revise'.Trial registrationISRCTN Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN12674243 . Registered on 10 April 2017.

Project description:IntroductionAntimicrobial treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) is one of the most common unnecessary uses of antimicrobials. Earlier studies have shown that the prevalence of this inappropriate treatment ranges from 45% to 83%. Multifaceted interventions based on international guidelines and antimicrobial stewardship can decrease overtreatment of ASB. We have designed a study protocol with the main objective of reducing overtreatment of ASB by 50% through use of a deimplementation strategy.Methods and analysisWe will use a stepped-wedge cluster randomised design, comparing outcomes before and after introduction of our intervention in the emergency department (ED) of five hospitals (clusters) in the Netherlands. All patients (≥18 years old) who have a urine test performed in the ED will be screened for eligibility. The deimplementation strategy consists of a combination of interventions, including education, audit and feedback. The primary endpoint is overtreatment of ASB in patients without risk factors (eg, pregnancy, planned invasive urological procedures and neutropenia). Secondary endpoints are the duration of antimicrobial treatment for ASB, the number of urine cultures and urinalysis per 1000 patients, and overtreatment of positive urinalysis in asymptomatic patients.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the medical ethics research committee of the Academic Medical Centre (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) with a waiver for informed consent. Local feasibility was obtained by the local institutional review boards of all participating hospitals. Our study aims to reduce inappropriate screening and treatment of ASB in EDs, improve healthcare quality, lower the increase in antimicrobial resistance and save costs. If proven (cost)-effective, this study provides a well-suited strategy for a nationwide approach to reduce overtreatment of ASB. Relevant results of our study will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at relevant (scientific) conferences.Trial registration numberNL8242; Pre-results.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:A model of general practitioner (GP) and pharmacist collaboration in primary care may be an effective strategy to reduce medication-related problems and provide better support to patients after discharge. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a model of structured pharmacist and GP care reduces hospital readmissions in high-risk patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This protocol details a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial that will recruit participants over 9 months with a 12-month follow-up. There will be 14 clusters each representing a different general practice medical centre. A total of 2240 participants will be recruited from hospital who attend an enrolled medical centre, take five or more long-term medicines or whose reason for admission was related to heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The intervention is a multifaceted service, involving a pharmacist integrated into a medical centre to assist patients after hospitalisation. Participants will meet with the practice pharmacist and their GP after discharge to review and reconcile their medicines and discuss changes made in hospital. The pharmacist will follow-up with the participant and liaise with other health professionals involved in the participant's care. The control will be usual care, which usually involves a patient self-organising a visit to their GP after hospital discharge.The primary outcome is the rate of unplanned, all-cause hospital readmissions over 12 months, which will be analysed using a mixed effects Poisson regression model with a random effect for cluster and a fixed effect to account for any temporal trend. A cost analysis will be undertaken to compare the healthcare costs associated with the intervention to those of usual care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study has received ethical approval (HREC/16/QRBW/410). The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and reports to key stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN12616001627448.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) fail to meet their recruitment goals in time. Trialists are advised to include study recruitment strategies within their trials. EFFECTS is a Swedish, academic-led RCT of fluoxetine for stroke recovery. The trial's primary objective is to investigate whether 20 mg fluoxetine daily compared with placebo for 6 months after an acute stroke improves the patient's functional outcome. The first patient was included on 20 October 2014 and, as of 31 August 2017, EFFECTS has included 810 of planned 1500 individuals. EFFECTS currently has 32 active centres. The primary objective of the ERUTECC (Enhancing Recruitment Using Teleconference and Commitment Contract) study is to investigate whether a structured teleconference re-visit with the study personnel at the centres, accompanied by a commitment contract, can enhance recruitment by 20% at 60 days post intervention, compared with 60 days pre-intervention, in an ongoing RCT. METHODS:ERUTECC is a randomised, stepped-wedge cluster trial embedded in EFFECTS. The plan is to start ERUTECC with a running-in period of September 2017. The first intervention is due in October 2017, and the study will continue for 12 months. We are planning to intervene at all active centres in EFFECTS, except the five top recruiting centres (n?=?27). The rationale for not intervening at the top recruiting centres is that we believe they have reached their full potential and the intervention would be too weak for them. The hypothesis of this study is that a structured teleconference re-visit with the study personnel at the centres, accompanied by a commitment contract, can enhance recruitment by 20% 60 days post intervention, compared to 60 days pre-intervention, in an ongoing RCT. DISCUSSION:EFFECTS is a large, pragmatic RCT of stroke in Sweden. Results from the embedded ERUTECC study could probably be generalised to high-income Western countries, and is relevant to trial management and could improve trial management in the future. It might also be useful in clinical settings outside the field of stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS:The ERUTECC study was registered in the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research Studies Within a Trial repository ( SWAT58 ) on 30 April 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02683213 . Retrospectively registered on 2 February 2016.

Project description:IntroductionClinical trials are critical to the advancement of medical knowledge. However, the reliability of trial conclusions depends in part on consistency between pre-planned and reported study outcomes. Unfortunately, selective outcome reporting, in which outcomes reported in published manuscripts differ from pre-specified study outcomes, is common. Trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov have the potential to help identify and stop selective outcome reporting during peer review by allowing peer reviewers to compare outcomes between registry entries and submitted manuscripts. However, the persistently high rate of selective outcome reporting among published clinical trials indicates that the current peer review process at most journals does not effectively address the problem of selective outcome reporting.Methods and analysisPRE-REPORT is a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial that will test whether providing peer reviewers with a summary of registered, pre-specified primary trial outcomes decreases inconsistencies between prospectively registered and published primary outcomes. Peer reviewed manuscripts describing clinical trial results will be included. Eligible manuscripts submitted to each participating journal during the study period will comprise each cluster. After an initial control phase, journals will transition to the intervention phase in random order, after which peer reviewers will be emailed registry information consisting of the date of registration and any prospectively defined primary outcomes. Blinded outcome assessors will compare registered and published primary outcomes for all included trials. The primary PRE-REPORT outcome is the presence of a published primary outcome that is consistent with a prospectively defined primary outcome in the study's trial registry. The primary outcome will be analysed using a mixed effect logistical regression model to compare results between the intervention and control phases.Ethics and disseminationThe Cooper Health System Institutional Review Board determined that this study does not meet criteria for human subject research. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN41225307; Pre-results.