Dataset Information

Feasibility of allied health assistant management of people with acute hip fracture: protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Guidelines for hip fracture care state that patients with hip fracture should be mobilised on the day after surgery and at least once a day thereafter. However, compliance with these guidelines is poor. One approach that would assist physiotherapists to meet mobility guidelines after hip fracture is to delegate the provision of daily mobilisation to allied health assistants under their supervision. Therefore, we plan to conduct a randomised controlled trial to determine the feasibility of an allied health assistant providing daily inpatient rehabilitation to patients with hip fracture.

Methods and analysis

Using a parallel group randomised controlled design with one-to-one allocation, participants will be randomly allocated to an experimental group (allied health assistant management) or a comparison group (physiotherapist management). Inclusion criteria are: adult with diagnosis of hip fracture; inpatient in acute hospital; walked independently pre-hip fracture and able to communicate in conversational English. The experimental group will receive routine physiotherapy rehabilitation, including daily mobilisation, from an allied health assistant following initial physiotherapist assessment. The comparison group will receive routine rehabilitation from a physiotherapist. The primary outcome will be the feasibility of allied health assistant management of patients with hip fracture. Feasibility will be determined using the following areas of focus in Bowen's feasibility framework: acceptability (patient satisfaction), demand (proportion of patients who participate), implementation (time allied health assistant/physiotherapist spends with participant, occasions of service) and practicality (cost, adverse events). Staff involved in the implementation of allied health assistant care will be interviewed to explore their perspectives on feasibility. Secondary outcomes include compliance with daily mobilisation guidelines, discharge destination, hospital readmission, falls, functional activity and length of stay. We aim to recruit 50 participants. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe feasibility and mobilisation rates will be calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression to compare compliance with mobilisation guidelines.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval was obtained from the Peninsula Health human research ethics committee (HREC/63 005/PH-2020). The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

Trail registration number

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry; ACTRN12620000877987; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Snowdon DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8611436 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPelvic fragility fractures (PFF) are common in older people and associated with a significant burden of mortality and morbidity. This is related to the challenges of appropriate pain control and early mobilisation. The current standard for treatment of PFF is non-surgical management. Minimally invasive surgical techniques for sacral fracture stabilisation have been shown to improve outcomes in terms of pain control and mobility, and they are safe. Randomised controlled trials are required before recommendations can be made for surgical management of PFF to become the new standard of care. This feasibility study will explore several uncertainties around conducting such a trial.Methods and analysisASSERT (Acute Sacral inSufficiEncy fractuRe augmenTation) is a single-site randomised controlled, parallel-arm, feasibility trial of surgical stabilisation versus non-surgical management of acute sacral fragility fractures in people aged 70 years and over. Patients will be randomised to either surgical or non-surgical group on a 1:1 ratio. Follow-up of participants will occur at 2, 4 and 12 weeks with safety data collected at 52 weeks. Primary objectives are to determine feasibility and design of a future trial, including outcomes on recruitment, adherence to randomisation and safety. This will be supplemented with a qualitative interview study of participants and clinicians. Secondary objectives will inform study design procedures to determine clinical and economic outcomes between groups, including scored questionnaires, analgesia requirements, resource use and quality of life data. Data analysis will be largely descriptive to inform outcomes and future sample size.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was granted by the North East Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference 18/NE/0212). ASSERT was approved and sponsored by Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (reference 18HC001) and the Health Research Authority (reference IRAS 232791). Recruitment is ongoing. Results will be presented at relevant conferences and submitted to appropriate journals on study completion.Trial registration numberISRCTN16719542; Pre-results.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility of designing and conducting a definitive trial to evaluate the effectiveness of sacral fracture fixation compared with non-surgical management among older people admitted with a lateral compression pelvic fragility fracture (PFF).DesignSingle-site, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial.SettingA UK tertiary centre hospital.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥70 years who were ambulating pre-injury requiring hospital admission (within 28 days of injury) with a type 1 lateral compression PFF.InterventionsThe intervention group received sacral fracture fixation (cement augmentation±screw fixation) within 7 days of randomisation. Routine preoperative and postoperative care followed each surgical intervention. The control group received usual care consisting of analgesia, and regular input from the medical and therapy team.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe feasibility outcomes were the number of eligible patients, willingness to be randomised, adherence to allocated treatment, retention, data on the completeness and variability of the proposed definitive trial outcome measures, and reported adverse events.Results241 patients were screened. 13 (5.4%) were deemed eligible to participate. Among the eligible participants, nine (69.2%) were willing to participate. Five participants were randomised to the intervention group and four to the control group. The clinicians involved were willing to allow their patients to be randomised and adhere to the allocated treatment. One participant in the intervention group and two participants in the control group received their allocated treatment. All participants were followed up until 12 weeks post-randomisation, and had an additional safety follow-up assessment at 12 months. Overall, the proportion of completeness of outcome measures was at least 75%. No adverse events were directly related to the trial.ConclusionsThere were significant challenges in recruiting sufficient participants which will need to be addressed prior to a definitive trial.Trial registration numberISRCTN16719542.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery.DesignTwo-arm, multicentre, pragmatic, open, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study.SettingNational Health Service (NHS) providers in five English hospitals.ParticipantsCommunity-dwelling adults, aged 60 years and over, who undergo hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers.InterventionUsual care: usual NHS care.Experimentalusual NHS care plus a caregiver-patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme comprised three, 1 hour, one-to-one training sessions for a patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist or occupational therapist in the hospital setting predischarge. After discharge, patients and caregivers were supported through three telephone coaching sessions.Randomisation and blindingCentral randomisation was computer generated (1:1), stratified by hospital and level of patient cognitive impairment. There was no blinding.Main outcome measuresData collected at baseline and 4 months post randomisation included: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, acceptability data and clinical outcomes. Interviews were conducted with a subset of participants and health professionals.Results102 participants were enrolled (51 patients; 51 caregivers). Thirty-nine per cent (515/1311) of patients screened were eligible. Eleven per cent (56/515) of eligible patients consented to be randomised. Forty-eight per cent (12/25) of the intervention group reached compliance to their allocated intervention. There was no evidence of treatment contamination. Qualitative data demonstrated the trial and HIP HELPER programme was acceptable.ConclusionsThe HIP HELPER programme was acceptable to patient-caregiver dyads and health professionals. The COVID-19 pandemic impacting on site's ability to deliver the research. Modifications are necessary to the design for a viable definitive RCT.Trial registration numberISRCTN13270387.

Project description:BackgroundVariability between clinical practice guideline recommendations and actual clinical practice exists in many areas of health care. A 2004 systematic review examining the effectiveness of guideline implementation interventions concluded there was a lack of evidence to support decisions about effective interventions to promote the uptake of guidelines. Further, the review recommended the use of theory in the development of implementation interventions. A clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low-back pain has been developed in Australia (2003). Acute low-back pain is a common condition, has a high burden, and there is some indication of an evidence-practice gap in the allied health setting. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention which, if effective, may provide benefits for patients with this condition.AimsThis study aims to estimate the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention to increase allied health practitioners' (physiotherapists and chiropractors in Victoria, Australia) compliance with a clinical practice guideline for acute non-specific low back pain (LBP), compared with providing practitioners with a printed copy of the guideline. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of acute non-specific LBP patients who are either referred for or receive an x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-onset of acute LBP.MethodsThe design of the study is a cluster randomised trial. Restricted randomisation was used to randomise 210 practices (clusters) to an intervention or control group. Practitioners in the control group received a printed copy of the guideline. Practitioners in the intervention group received a theory-based intervention developed to address prospectively identified barriers to practitioner compliance with the guideline. The intervention primarily consisted of an educational symposium. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific LBP of less than three months duration over a two-week data collection period, three months post the intervention symposia, are eligible for inclusion. Sample size calculations are based on recruiting between 15 to 40 patients per practice. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group allocation.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609001022257 (date registered 25th November 2009).

Project description:ImportancePatients with a hip fracture lose more than 50% knee-extension strength in the fractured limb within one week of surgery. Hence, immediate progressive strength training following hip fracture surgery may be rational, but the feasibility unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the feasibility of in-hospital progressive strength training implemented in the acute ward following hip fracture surgery, based on pre-specified criteria for feasibility.Design, setting and patientsA prospective cohort study conducted in an acute orthopedic hip fracture unit at a university hospital. A consecutive sample of 36 patients, 18 with a cervical and 18 with a trochanteric hip fracture (27 women and 9 men, mean (SD) age of 79.4 (8.3) years) were included between June and December 2012.InterventionA daily (on weekdays) program of progressive knee-extension strength training for the fractured limb, using ankle weight cuffs in 3 sets of 10 repetition maximum loadings.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the change in training load (kg) during the knee-extension strength training. The secondary outcomes were changes in hip fracture-related pain and maximal isometric knee-extension strength.ResultsThe strength training was commenced at a mean of 2.4 (0.7) days after surgery. The training loads (kilograms lifted) increased from 1.6 (0.8) to 4.3 (1.7) kg over 4.3 (2.2) training sessions (P<.001). The maximal isometric knee-extension strength of the fractured limb increased from 0.37 (0.2) to 0.61 (0.3) Nm/kg (P<.001), while the average strength deficit in the fractured limb decreased from 50% to 32% (% non-fractured, P<.001). Only 3 of 212 sessions were not performed because of severe hip fracture-related pain.Conclusion and relevanceProgressive knee-extension strength training of the fractured limb commenced in the acute ward seems feasible, and may reduce strength asymmetry between limbs without hip pain interfering. The clinical efficacy needs confirmation in a randomized controlled design.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01616030.

Project description:IntroductionHip fractures are a leading cause of mortality and disability worldwide, and the number of hip fractures is expected to rise to over 6 million per year by 2050. The optimal approach for the surgical management of displaced femoral neck fractures remains unknown. Current evidence suggests the use of arthroplasty; however, there is lack of evidence regarding whether patients with displaced femoral neck fractures experience better outcomes with total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). The HEALTH trial compares outcomes following THA versus HA in patients 50 years of age or older with displaced femoral neck fractures.Methods and analysisHEALTH is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial where 1434 patients, 50 years of age or older, with displaced femoral neck fractures from international sites are randomised to receive either THA or HA. Exclusion criteria include associated major injuries of the lower extremity, hip infection(s) and a history of frank dementia. The primary outcome is unplanned secondary procedures and the secondary outcomes include functional outcomes, patient quality of life, mortality and hip-related complications-both within 2 years of the initial surgery. We are using minimisation to ensure balance between intervention groups for the following factors: age, prefracture living, prefracture functional status, American Society for Anesthesiologists (ASA) Class and centre number. Data analysts and the HEALTH Steering Committee are blinded to the surgical allocation throughout the trial. Outcome analysis will be performed using a χ(2) test (or Fisher's exact test) and Cox proportional hazards modelling estimate. All results will be presented with 95% CIs.Ethics and disseminationThe HEALTH trial has received local and McMaster University Research Ethics Board (REB) approval (REB#: 06-151).ResultsOutcomes from the primary manuscript will be disseminated through publications in academic journals and presentations at relevant orthopaedic conferences. We will communicate trial results to all participating sites. Participating sites will communicate results with patients who have indicated an interest in knowing the results.Trial registration numberThe HEALTH trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00556842).

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this randomised feasibility trial is to determine the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating the efficacy of prefabricated contoured foot orthoses in people with hip osteoarthritis (OA). The secondary aims of the trial are to compare the effect of prefabricated contoured foot orthoses to a flat shoe insert comparator on outcomes of hip-related pain, physical activity and quality of life. We hypothesise that the demand, implementation, acceptability and practicality of foot orthoses as a treatment option for people with hip OA will be deemed feasible, informing the development of an adequately powered RCT to evaluate the efficacy and long term outcomes.Methods and analysisWe will recruit 28 people with hip OA who will be randomised to receive either prefabricated contoured foot orthoses or flat shoe inserts to use for a 6-week period. Both groups will receive standardised education on hip OA and physical activity. The study's primary outcome is the feasibility domains of demand, implementation, acceptability and practicality. The secondary outcomes include the change in Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-12, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Brief Fear of Movement Scale for OA, Physical activity accelerometry and the Physical Activity Questionnaire-short form. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe feasibility outcomes with limited efficacy analysis used for the secondary outcomes. Linear mixed models will be used to analyse between-group differences at 6 weeks, with baseline values used as covariates, treatment allocation as a fixed factor and participant as a random factor.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been approved by the La Trobe University Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC20427), St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC 266/20) and Northern Health Research Governance (NH-2021-292862). The results will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT05138380.