Dataset Information

Algorithmic surveillance of ICU patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ASIC): protocol for a multicentre stepped-wedge cluster randomised quality improvement strategy.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a highly relevant entity in critical care with mortality rates of 40%. Despite extensive scientific efforts, outcome-relevant therapeutic measures are still insufficiently practised at the bedside. Thus, there is a clear need to adhere to early diagnosis and sufficient therapy in ARDS, assuring lower mortality and multiple organ failure.

Methods and analysis

In this quality improvement strategy (QIS), a decision support system as a mobile application (ASIC app), which uses available clinical real-time data, is implemented to support physicians in timely diagnosis and improvement of adherence to established guidelines in the treatment of ARDS. ASIC is conducted on 31 intensive care units (ICUs) at 8 German university hospitals. It is designed as a multicentre stepped-wedge cluster randomised QIS. ICUs are combined into 12 clusters which are randomised in 12 steps. After preparation (18 months) and a control phase of 8 months for all clusters, the first cluster enters a roll-in phase (3 months) that is followed by the actual QIS phase. The remaining clusters follow in month wise steps. The coprimary key performance indicators (KPIs) consist of the ARDS diagnostic rate and guideline adherence regarding lung-protective ventilation. Secondary KPIs include the prevalence of organ dysfunction within 28 days after diagnosis or ICU discharge, the treatment duration on ICU and the hospital mortality. Furthermore, the user acceptance and usability of new technologies in medicine are examined. To show improvements in healthcare of patients with ARDS, differences in primary and secondary KPIs between control phase and QIS will be tested.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval was obtained from the independent Ethics Committee (EC) at the RWTH Aachen Faculty of Medicine (local EC reference number: EK 102/19) and the respective data protection officer in March 2019. The results of the ASIC QIS will be presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number

DRKS00014330.

SUBMITTER: Marx G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8039261 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesFrontline insights into care delivery correlate with patients' clinical outcomes. These outcomes might be improved through near-real time identification and mitigation of staff concerns. We evaluated the effects of a prospective frontline surveillance system on patient and team outcomes.DesignProspective, stepped wedge, non-randomised, cluster controlled trial; prespecified per protocol analysis for high-fidelity intervention delivery.ParticipantsSeven interdisciplinary medical ward teams from two hospitals in the UK.InterventionProspective clinical team surveillance (PCTS): structured daily interdisciplinary briefings to capture staff concerns, with organisational facilitation and feedback.Main measuresThe primary outcome was excess length of stay (eLOS): an admission more than 24?hours above the local average for comparable patients. Secondary outcomes included safety and teamwork climates, and incident reporting. Mixed-effects models adjusted for time effects, age, comorbidity, palliation status and ward admissions. Safety and teamwork climates were measured with the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. High-fidelity PCTS delivery comprised high engagement and high briefing frequency.ResultsImplementation fidelity was variable, both in briefing frequency (median 80% working days/month, IQR 65%-90%) and engagement (median 70 issues/ward/month, IQR 34-113). 1714/6518 (26.3%) intervention admissions had eLOS versus 1279/4927 (26.0%) control admissions, an absolute risk increase of 0.3%. PCTS increased eLOS in the adjusted intention-to-treat model (OR 1.32, 95%?CI 1.10 to 1.58, p=0.003). Conversely, high-fidelity PCTS reduced eLOS (OR 0.79, 95%?CI 0.67 to 0.94, p=0.006). High-fidelity PCTS also increased total, high-yield and non-nurse incident reports (incidence rate ratios 1.28-1.79, all p<0.002). Sustained PCTS significantly improved safety and teamwork climates over time.ConclusionsThis study highlighted the potential benefits and pitfalls of ward-level interdisciplinary interventions. While these interventions can improve care delivery in complex, fluid environments, the manner of their implementation is paramount. Suboptimal implementation may have an unexpectedly negative impact on performance.Trial registration numberISRCTN 34806867 (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN34806867).

Project description:Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer.This is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided ? 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4-6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6-8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F-FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy.If active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of care.

Project description:BackgroundDespite many efforts, long wait times and overcrowding in emergency departments (EDs) have remained a significant health service issue in Canada. For several years, Canada has had one of the longest wait times among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. From a patient's perspective, this challenge has been described as "patients wait in pain or discomfort for hours before being seen at EDs." To overcome the challenge of increased wait times, we developed an innovative ED management platform called SurgeCon that was designed based on continuous quality improvement principles to maintain patient flow and mitigate the impact of patient surge on ED efficiency. The SurgeCon quality improvement intervention includes a protocol-driven software platform, restructures ED organization and workflow, and aims to establish a more patient-centric environment. We piloted SurgeCon at an ED in Carbonear, Newfoundland and Labrador, and found that there was a 32% reduction in ED wait times.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this trial is to determine the effects of SurgeCon on ED performance by assessing its impact on length of stay, the time to a physician's initial assessment, and the number of patients leaving the ED without being seen by a physician. The secondary objectives of this study are to evaluate SurgeCon's effects on patient satisfaction and patient-reported experiences with ED wait times and its ability to create better-value care by reducing the per-patient cost of delivering ED services.MethodsThe implementation of the intervention will be assessed using a comparative effectiveness-implementation hybrid design. This type of hybrid design is known to shorten the amount of time associated with transitioning interventions from being the focus of research to being used for practice and health care services. All EDs with 24/7 on-site physician support (category A hospitals) will be enrolled in a 31-month, pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomized trial. All clusters (hospitals) will start with a baseline period of usual care and will be randomized to determine the order and timing of transitioning to intervention care until all hospitals are using the intervention to manage and operationalize their EDs.ResultsData collection for this study is continuing. As of February 2022, a total of 570 randomly selected patients have participated in telephone interviews concerning patient-reported experiences and patient satisfaction with ED wait times. The first of the 4 EDs was randomly selected, and it is currently using SurgeCon's eHealth platform and applying efficiency principles that have been learned through training since September 2021. The second randomly selected site will begin intervention implementation in winter 2022.ConclusionsBy assessing the impact of SurgeCon on ED services, we hope to be able to improve wait times and create better-value ED care in this health care context.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04789902; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04789902.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/30454.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cluster randomised trials with unequal sized clusters often have lower precision than with clusters of equal size. To allow for this, sample sizes are inflated by a modified version of the design effect for clustering. These inflation factors are valid under the assumption that randomisation is stratified by cluster size. We investigate the impact of unequal cluster size when that constraint is relaxed, with particular focus on the stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, where this is more difficult to achieve. METHODS:Assuming a multi-level mixed effect model with exchangeable correlation structure for a cross-sectional design, we use simulation methods to compare the precision for a trial with clusters of unequal size to a trial with clusters of equal size (relative efficiency). For a range of scenarios we illustrate the impact of various design features (the cluster-mean correlation - a function of the intracluster correlation and the cluster size, the number of clusters, number of randomisation sequences) on the average and distribution of the relative efficiency. RESULTS:Simulations confirm that the average reduction in precision, due to varying cluster sizes, is smaller in a stepped-wedge trial compared to the parallel trial. However, the variance of the distribution of the relative efficiency is large; and is larger under the stepped-wedge design compared to the parallel design. This can result in large variations in actual power, depending on the allocation of clusters to sequences. Designs with larger variations in cluster sizes, smaller number of clusters and studies with smaller cluster-mean correlations (smaller cluster sizes or smaller intra-cluster correlation) are particularly at risk. CONCLUSION:The actual realised power in a stepped-wedge trial might be substantially higher or lower than that estimated. This is particularly important when there are a small number of clusters or the variability in cluster sizes is large. Constraining the randomisation on cluster size, where feasible, might mitigate this effect.