ObjectivesTo explore paramedics’ experience of delivering fascia iliaca compartment block(FICB) to patients with suspected hip fracture at the scene of injury.DesignFocus groups within a randomised controlled trial.SettingParamedics based at ambulance stations in the catchment area of one Emergency Department in South Wales, recruited and trained in a feasibility study about an alternative to routine prehospital pain management for patients with suspected hip fracture.Participants11 paramedics.InterventionParamedic-administered FICB to patients with suspected hip fracture. We randomly allocated eligible patients to FICB, a local anaesthetic injection directly into the hip region—or usual care, most commonly morphine - using audited scratch cards.OutcomesParamedics’ experiences of administering FICB gathered through thematic analysis of interview transcripts by two researchers, one paramedic and one lay member.ResultsRespondents believed that FICB was a suitable intervention for paramedics to deliver. It aligned with routine practice and was within people’s capabilities. They said it took up to 10 minutes longer than usual care to prepare and deliver, in part due to nervousness and unfamiliarity with a new procedure. They praised the training provided but said they were anxious about causing harm by injecting into the wrong location. Confidence increased after one paramedic team successfully treated a patient for local anaesthetic toxicity. Reported challenges related to the emergency context: patients often waited many hours for ambulance arrival; moving patients exacerbated their pain; family and neighbours were present as paramedics administered treatment.ConclusionsParamedics are willing and able to administer FICB to patients with suspected hip fracture before ambulance transport to hospital. Feasibility study findings will inform further research.Trial registration numberISRCTN60065373; Pre results.
Objective The present parallel randomised control trial evaluated the feasibility of a nurse‐led psycho‐educational intervention aimed at improving the self‐management of prostate cancer survivors. Methods We identified 305 eligible patients from a district general hospital, diagnosed 9–48 months previously, who completed radical treatment, or were monitored clinically (ineligible for treatment). Ninety‐five patients were recruited by blinded selection and randomised to Intervention (N = 48) and Control (N = 47) groups. Participant allocation was revealed to patients and researchers after recruitment was completed. For 36 weeks, participants received augmented usual care (Control) or augmented usual care and additional nurse support (Intervention) provided in two community hospitals and a university clinic, or by telephone. Results Data from 91 participants (Intervention, N = 45; Control, N = 46) were analysed. All feasibility metrics met predefined targets: recruitment rate (31.15%; 95% CI: 25.95%–36.35%), attrition rate (9.47%; 95% CI: 3.58%–15.36%) and outcome measures completion rates (77%–92%). Forty‐five patients received the intervention, with no adverse events. The Extended Prostate Cancer Index Composite can inform the minimum sample size for a future effectiveness trial. The net intervention cost was £317 per patient. Conclusions The results supported the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, suggesting that it should be evaluated in a fully powered trial to assess its effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness.
BackgroundSepsis is a common condition which kills between 36,000 and 64,000 people every year in the UK. Early recognition and management of sepsis has been shown to reduce mortality and improve the health and well-being of people with sepsis. Paramedics frequently come into contact with patients with sepsis and are well placed to provide early diagnosis and treatment.We aim to determine the feasibility of undertaking a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of paramedics obtaining blood cultures from and administering IV antibiotics to patients with sepsis, so we can make a decision about whether to proceed to a fully powered randomised controlled trial, which will answer questions regarding safety and effectiveness for patients and benefit to the National Health Service (NHS).Methods/designThis is an individually randomised, two-arm feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 ratio. Sixty paramedics will receive training to assist them to recognise sepsis using a screening tool, obtain blood cultures, and provide IV antibiotics. If sepsis is suspected, paramedics will randomly allocate patients to intervention or usual care using their next sequential individually issued scratch card. Patients will be followed up at 90 days using linked anonymised data to capture length of hospital admission and mortality. We will also collect self-reported health-related quality of life (using SF-12) at this time. We will interview ten patients by telephone and hold a focus group with paramedics, to find out what they think about the intervention.DiscussionAt the end of this study, we will make a recommendation about whether a full randomised controlled trial of paramedics obtaining blood cultures and administering IV antibiotics for sepsis is warranted, and if so, we will develop a proposal for research funding in order to take the work forward.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN36856873Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40814-018-0258-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
BackgroundAdequate pain relief at the point of injury and during transport to hospital is a major challenge in all acute traumas, especially for those with hip fractures, whose injuries are difficult to immobilise and whose long-term outcomes may be adversely affected by administration of opiate analgesics. Fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) is a procedure routinely undertaken by doctors and nurses in the emergency department for patients with hip fracture but not yet evaluated for use by paramedics at the scene of emergency calls.In this feasibility study, we aim to test whether FICB administered by paramedics at the scene of participants’ hip fractures is feasible, safe and acceptable. This will enable us to decide whether to proceed to a fully powered, multi-centre pragmatic randomised trial to evaluate whether the procedure is effective for patients and worthwhile for the NHS.Methods/designIn this study, we propose to recruit ten paramedics in an urban area of South Wales. We will train them to carry out FICB when they attend patients with hip fracture. We will randomly allocate eligible patients to FICB or usual care using audited scratch cards. We will follow up participants to assess measurability of key outcomes including quality of life, pain scores, adverse events, length of stay in hospital, acceptability to patients and compliance of paramedics. We will assess whether the findings meet specified feasibility criteria and, if so, plan a full trial.DiscussionThis study will enable us to recommend whether to undertake a definitive trial of FICB by paramedics for hip fracture.Trial registration ISRCTN60065373
IntroductionProstate cancer is common and the incidence is increasing, but more men are living longer after diagnosis, and die with their disease rather than of it. Nonetheless, specific and substantial physical, sexual, emotional and mental health problems often lead to a poor quality of life. Urology services increasingly struggle to cope with the demands of follow-up care, and primary care is likely to play the central role in long-term follow-up. The present phase II trial will evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led, person-centred psychoeducational intervention, delivered in community or primary care settings.Methods and analysisProstate cancer survivors diagnosed in the past 9–48 months and currently biochemically stable will be identified from hospital records by their treating clinician. Eligible men would have either completed radical treatment, or would be followed up with prostate specific antigen monitoring and symptom reporting. We will recruit 120 patients who will be randomised to receive either an augmented form of usual care, or an additional nurse-led intervention for a period of 36 weeks. Following the health policy in Wales, the intervention is offered by a key worker, is promoting prudent healthcare and is using a holistic needs assessment. Outcome measures will assess physical symptoms, psychological well-being, confidence in managing own health and quality of life. Healthcare service use will be measured over 36 weeks. Feedback interviews with patients and clinicians will further inform the acceptability of the intervention. Recruitment, attrition, questionnaire completion rates and outcome measures variability will be assessed, and results will inform the design of a future phase III trial and accompanying economic evaluation.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was granted by Bangor University and North Wales REC (13/WA/0291). Results will be reported in peer-reviewed publications, at scientific conferences, and directly through national cancer and primary care networks.Trial registration numberISRCTN 34516019.
Aim: This study aims to clarify what practice for the follow-up of prostate cancer is occurring at present and to explain the reasons behind any variation. Background: Prostate cancer has been increasing in incidence in the UK for several years. It has been suggested that men with prostate cancer could be better managed, and that some aspects of care are duplicated by primary and secondary care professionals. Methods: This study aimed to interview the prostate cancer specialists identified as working within the district general hospitals of a large health board. The interviews used a qualitative semi-structured approach. Analysis was performed using The Framework method. Findings: Current practice for the follow-up of prostate cancer is variable both within and between hospitals. Patients are followed up in secondary care for longer than National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends due to a lack of trust of general practitioners’ management. This inevitably impacts upon waiting lists, and many patients’ appointments are long overdue. A remote prostate-specific antigen (PSA) surveillance system may be beneficial. It is generally thought that change to the usual practice of follow-up of prostate cancer patients is required.
BackgroundSelf-harm is among the top five causes of acute hospital admissions and ambulance clinicians are often the first point of contact. However, the Emergency Department (ED) may not be the most appropriate place of care and little is known about the existence or nature of alternative pathways available to UK ambulance services. This survey describes the current management pathways used by ambulance services for patients who have self-harmed.MethodsA structured questionnaire was sent to all UK ambulance services by email and followed up by telephone in 2018. Three independent researchers (two clinical) coded responses which were analysed thematically.ResultsAll 13 UK ambulance services responded to the survey: nine by email and four by telephone interview. Two services reported a service-wide protocol for managing people presenting with self-harm, with referral to mental health crisis team available as an alternative to conveyance to ED, following on-scene psychosocial assessment. Four services reported local pathways for managing mental health patients which included care of patients who had self-harmed. Four services reported being in the process of developing pathways for managing mental health patients. Six services reported no service-wide nor local pathways for managing self-harm patients. No robust evaluation of new care models was reported.ConclusionPractice in ambulance services in the UK is variable, with a minority having a specific clinical pathway for managing self-harm, with an option to avoid ED. New pathways for patients who have self-harmed must be evaluated in terms of safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness.
ObjectiveTo identify the features and effects of a pathway for emergency assessment and referral of patients with suspected transient ischaemic attack (TIA) in order to avoid admission to hospital.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesPubMed, CINAHL Web of Science, Scopus.Study selectionReports of primary research on referral of patients with suspected TIA directly to specialist outpatient services.Data extractionWe screened studies for eligibility and extracted data from relevant studies. Data were analysed to describe setting, assessment and referral processes, treatment, implementation and outcomes.Results8 international studies were identified, mostly cohort designs. 4 pathways were used by family doctors and 3 pathways by emergency department physicians. No pathways used by paramedics were found. Referrals were made to specialist clinic either directly or via a 24-hour helpline. Practitioners identified TIA symptoms and risk of further events using a checklist including the ABCD2 tool or clinical assessment. Antiplatelet medication was often given, usually aspirin unless contraindicated. Some patients underwent tests before referral and discharge. 5 studies reported reduced incident of stroke at 90 days, from 6–10% predicted rate to 1.3–2.1% actual rate. Between 44% and 83% of suspected TIA cases in these studies were referred through the pathways.ConclusionsResearch literature has focused on assessment and referral by family doctors and ED physicians to reduce hospitalisation of patients with TIA. No pathways for paramedical use were reported. We will use results of this scoping review to inform development of a paramedical referral pathway to be tested in a feasibility trial.Trial registration numberISRCTN85516498. Stage: pre-results.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.