Dataset Information

Improving patient self-reporting of antihypertensive adverse drug events in primary care: a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

About 25% of patients experience adverse drug events (ADE) in primary care, but few events are reported by the patients themselves. One solution to improve the detection and management of ADEs in primary care is for patients to report them to their general practitioner. The study aimed to assess the effect of a booklet designed to improve communication and interaction between patients treated with anti-hypertensive drugs and general practitioners on the reporting of ADEs.

Methods

A cluster randomized controlled cross-sectional stepped wedge open trial (five periods of 3 months) was conducted. A cluster was a group of general practitioners working in ambulatory offices in France. Adults consulting their general practitioner to initiate, modify, or renew an antihypertensive prescription were included. A booklet including information on cardiovascular risks, antihypertensive treatments, and ADE report forms was delivered by the general practitioner to the patient in the intervention group. The primary outcome was the reporting of at least one ADE by the patient to his general practitioner during the three-month period after enrolment. Two clusters were randomised by sequence for a total of 8 to receive the intervention. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. A logistic mixed model with random intercept was used.

Results

Sixty general practitioners included 1095 patients (median: 14 per general practitioner; range: 1-103). More patients reported at least one ADE to their general practitioner in the intervention condition compared to the control condition (aOR = 3.5, IC⁹⁵ [1.2-10.1], p = 0.02). The modification and initiation of an antihypertensive treatment were also significantly associated with the reporting of ADEs (aOR = 4.4, CI⁹⁵ [1.9-10.0], p < 0.001 and aOR = 11.0, CI⁹⁵ [4.6-26.4], p < 0.001, respectively). The booklet delivery also improved patient satisfaction on general practitioner communication and high blood pressure management.

Conclusion

A booklet can improve patient self-reporting of ADEs to their general practitioners. Future research should assess whether it can improve general practitioner management of ADEs and patient's health status.

Trial registration

Trial registry identifier NCT01610817 (2012/05/30).

SUBMITTER: Buchet-Poyau K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8349484 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Adverse drug events could often be prevented. One of their main causes is that patients rarely know how to detect them. Another cause is inadequate communication between patients and physicians. If patients were to be effectively trained in detecting and reporting adverse drug events, this should help to prevent their occurrence and subsequent complications. Our purpose is to present the protocol of the InPAct trial, which aims to evaluate an interactive program that encourages patients to report adverse drug events in primary care.We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled stepped wedge trial, with eight clusters of 10 general practitioners each. The physicians will suggest to all of their antihypertensive-treated patients that they take part in this study. The InPAct program will be implemented in the clusters in random order along five successive three-month periods. Two new clusters will be trained in implementing the program at each step. The program features: an interactive patient booklet including informative paragraphs, several care plans and adverse drug event report forms; and standardised training of physicians in how to present the booklet to the patient. The primary outcome will be the reporting of adverse drug events by patients to their physician within three months. We assume that the number of patients reporting at least one adverse drug event will increase from 3% before program implementation to 7.5% afterward (coefficient of variation?=?0.5, ??=?0.05, ??=?0.2), which means that 1,200 patients must be included. The effect of the intervention on the main outcome will be quantified and tested using a mixed logistic model to integrate cluster and time effects.Our choice of a stepped wedge design is particularly appropriate for evaluating the implementation of a patient safety program within the constraints of general practice. We describe the InPAct intervention, which is an original program that is intended to improve communication between patients and physicians. Indeed, none of the previously published intervention studies has combined a patient education program and a patient reporting system for adverse drug events with the aim of improving patient safety in primary care.This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01610817.

Project description:IntroductionAdverse events (AE) in care are recognized as a leading cause of mortality and injury in patients. Improving patients' safety is difficult to achieve. Therefore, innovative research strategies are needed to identify errors in subgroups of patients and related severity of outcomes as well as reliably measured efficiency of reproducible strategies to improve safety. This trial aims to evaluate the impact of a combined multiprofessional education program on the rate of AE in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).Methods and analysisThis is a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial with 3 clusters each containing 4 units. The study time period will be 20 months. The education program will be implemented within each cluster following a random sequence with a control period, a 4-month transition period and a post-educational intervention period. Eligibility criteria: for clusters: 6 NICUs from Ile-de-France and 6 NICUs from different regions in France; for patients: in-hospital during the study period (November 23, 2015 and November 2, 2017 [inclusion start dates varying by unit]) in one of the 12 NICUs; corrected gestational age ≤42 weeks upon admission; hospitalization period >2 days; and parents informed and not opposed to the use of their newborn's data. A routine occurrence reporting of medical errors and their consequence will take place during the entire study period. The intervention will combine an education to implement a standardized root cause analysis method, creation of bundles (insertion, daily goals, maintenance bundles) to prevent catheter-associated blood-stream infection and a poster to prevent extravasation injuries.OutcomeWe hypothesize a reduction from 60 (control) to 50 (intervention) AE/1000 patient-days. The primary outcome will be the rate of AE/1000 patient-days in the NICU.Trial registration numberNCT02598609, trial registered November 6, 2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02598609.Ethics and disseminationStudy approved by the regional ethic committee CPP Ile-de-France III (no 2014-A01751-46). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

Project description:IntroductionAchieving a sustained improvement in hand-hygiene compliance is the WHO's first global patient safety challenge. There is no RCT evidence showing how to do this. Systematic reviews suggest feedback is most effective and call for long term well designed RCTs, applying behavioural theory to intervention design to optimise effectiveness.MethodsThree year stepped wedge cluster RCT of a feedback intervention testing hypothesis that the intervention was more effective than routine practice in 16 English/Welsh Hospitals (16 Intensive Therapy Units [ITU]; 44 Acute Care of the Elderly [ACE] wards) routinely implementing a national cleanyourhands campaign). Intervention-based on Goal & Control theories. Repeating 4 week cycle (20 mins/week) of observation, feedback and personalised action planning, recorded on forms. Computer-generated stepwise entry of all hospitals to intervention. Hospitals aware only of own allocation.Primary outcomedirect blinded hand hygiene compliance (%).ResultsAll 16 trusts (60 wards) randomised, 33 wards implemented intervention (11 ITU, 22 ACE). Mixed effects regression analysis (all wards) accounting for confounders, temporal trends, ward type and fidelity to intervention (forms/month used). INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS: Estimated odds ratio (OR) for hand hygiene compliance rose post randomisation (1.44; 95% CI 1.18, 1.76;p<0.001) in ITUs but not ACE wards, equivalent to 7-9% absolute increase in compliance. PER-PROTOCOL ANALYSIS FOR IMPLEMENTING WARDS: OR for compliance rose for both ACE (1.67 [1.28-2.22]; p<0.001) & ITUs (2.09 [1.55-2.81]; p<0.001) equating to absolute increases of 10-13% and 13-18% respectively. Fidelity to intervention closely related to compliance on ITUs (OR 1.12 [1.04, 1.20]; p = 0.003 per completed form) but not ACE wards.ConclusionDespite difficulties in implementation, intention-to-treat, per-protocol and fidelity to intervention, analyses showed an intervention coupling feedback to personalised action planning produced moderate but significant sustained improvements in hand-hygiene compliance, in wards implementing a national hand-hygiene campaign. Further implementation studies are needed to maximise the intervention's effect in different settings.Trial registrationControlled-Trials.com ISRCTN65246961.