1
|
Noble AJ, Mason SM, Bonnett LJ, Reuber M, Wright J, Pilbery R, Jacques RM, Simpson RM, Campbell R, Fuller A, Marson AG, Dickson JM. Supporting the ambulance service to safely convey fewer patients to hospital by developing a risk prediction tool: Risk of Adverse Outcomes after a Suspected Seizure (RADOSS)-protocol for the mixed-methods observational RADOSS project. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e069156. [PMID: 36375988 PMCID: PMC9668054 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069156] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2022] [Accepted: 10/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Ambulances services are asked to further reduce avoidable conveyances to emergency departments (EDs). Risk of Adverse Outcomes after a Suspected Seizure seeks to support this by: (1) clarifying the risks of conveyance and non-conveyance, and (2) developing a risk prediction tool for clinicians to use 'on scene' to estimate the benefits an individual would receive if conveyed to ED and risks if not. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Mixed-methods, multi-work package (WP) project. For WP1 and WP2 we shall use an existing linked data set that tracks urgent and emergency care (UEC) use of persons served by one English regional ambulance service. Risk tools are specific to clinical scenarios. We shall use suspected seizures in adults as an exemplar.WP1: Form a cohort of patients cared for a seizure by the service during 2019/2020. It, and nested Knowledge Exchange workshops with clinicians and service users, will allow us to: determine the proportions following conveyance and non-conveyance that die and/or recontact UEC system within 3 (/30) days; quantify the proportion of conveyed incidents resulting in 'avoidable ED attendances' (AA); optimise risk tool development; and develop statistical models that, using information available 'on scene', predict the risk of death/recontact with the UEC system within 3 (/30) days and the likelihood of an attendance at ED resulting in an AA.WP2: Form a cohort of patients cared for a seizure during 2021/2022 to 'temporally' validate the WP1 predictive models.WP3: Complete the 'next steps' workshops with stakeholders. Using nominal group techniques, finalise plans to develop the risk tool for clinical use and its evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION WP1a and WP2 will be conducted under database ethical approval (IRAS 307353) and Confidentiality Advisory Group (22/CAG/0019) approval. WP1b and WP3 have approval from the University of Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee (11450). We shall engage in proactive dissemination and knowledge mobilisation to share findings with stakeholders and maximise evidence usage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adam J Noble
- Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Suzanne M Mason
- School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Laura J Bonnett
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Markus Reuber
- Academic Neurology Unit, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Richard Pilbery
- Research and Development Department, Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Wakefield, UK
| | - Richard M Jacques
- School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Rebecca M Simpson
- School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Richard Campbell
- School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Anthony Guy Marson
- Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Jon Mark Dickson
- Academic Unit of Primary Medical Care, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cowley LE, Farewell DM, Maguire S, Kemp AM. Methodological standards for the development and evaluation of clinical prediction rules: a review of the literature. Diagn Progn Res 2019; 3:16. [PMID: 31463368 PMCID: PMC6704664 DOI: 10.1186/s41512-019-0060-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 120] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2018] [Accepted: 05/12/2019] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) that predict the absolute risk of a clinical condition or future outcome for individual patients are abundant in the medical literature; however, systematic reviews have demonstrated shortcomings in the methodological quality and reporting of prediction studies. To maximise the potential and clinical usefulness of CPRs, they must be rigorously developed and validated, and their impact on clinical practice and patient outcomes must be evaluated. This review aims to present a comprehensive overview of the stages involved in the development, validation and evaluation of CPRs, and to describe in detail the methodological standards required at each stage, illustrated with examples where appropriate. Important features of the study design, statistical analysis, modelling strategy, data collection, performance assessment, CPR presentation and reporting are discussed, in addition to other, often overlooked aspects such as the acceptability, cost-effectiveness and longer-term implementation of CPRs, and their comparison with clinical judgement. Although the development and evaluation of a robust, clinically useful CPR is anything but straightforward, adherence to the plethora of methodological standards, recommendations and frameworks at each stage will assist in the development of a rigorous CPR that has the potential to contribute usefully to clinical practice and decision-making and have a positive impact on patient care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura E. Cowley
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff University, Wales, CF14 4YS UK
| | - Daniel M. Farewell
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff University, Wales, CF14 4YS UK
| | - Sabine Maguire
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff University, Wales, CF14 4YS UK
| | - Alison M. Kemp
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff University, Wales, CF14 4YS UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hay AD, Birnie K, Busby J, Delaney B, Downing H, Dudley J, Durbaba S, Fletcher M, Harman K, Hollingworth W, Hood K, Howe R, Lawton M, Lisles C, Little P, MacGowan A, O'Brien K, Pickles T, Rumsby K, Sterne JA, Thomas-Jones E, van der Voort J, Waldron CA, Whiting P, Wootton M, Butler CC. The Diagnosis of Urinary Tract infection in Young children (DUTY): a diagnostic prospective observational study to derive and validate a clinical algorithm for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection in children presenting to primary care with an acute illness. Health Technol Assess 2018; 20:1-294. [PMID: 27401902 DOI: 10.3310/hta20510] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND It is not clear which young children presenting acutely unwell to primary care should be investigated for urinary tract infection (UTI) and whether or not dipstick testing should be used to inform antibiotic treatment. OBJECTIVES To develop algorithms to accurately identify pre-school children in whom urine should be obtained; assess whether or not dipstick urinalysis provides additional diagnostic information; and model algorithm cost-effectiveness. DESIGN Multicentre, prospective diagnostic cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS Children < 5 years old presenting to primary care with an acute illness and/or new urinary symptoms. METHODS One hundred and seven clinical characteristics (index tests) were recorded from the child's past medical history, symptoms, physical examination signs and urine dipstick test. Prior to dipstick results clinician opinion of UTI likelihood ('clinical diagnosis') and urine sampling and treatment intentions ('clinical judgement') were recorded. All index tests were measured blind to the reference standard, defined as a pure or predominant uropathogen cultured at ≥ 10(5) colony-forming units (CFU)/ml in a single research laboratory. Urine was collected by clean catch (preferred) or nappy pad. Index tests were sequentially evaluated in two groups, stratified by urine collection method: parent-reported symptoms with clinician-reported signs, and urine dipstick results. Diagnostic accuracy was quantified using area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and bootstrap-validated AUROC, and compared with the 'clinician diagnosis' AUROC. Decision-analytic models were used to identify optimal urine sampling strategy compared with 'clinical judgement'. RESULTS A total of 7163 children were recruited, of whom 50% were female and 49% were < 2 years old. Culture results were available for 5017 (70%); 2740 children provided clean-catch samples, 94% of whom were ≥ 2 years old, with 2.2% meeting the UTI definition. Among these, 'clinical diagnosis' correctly identified 46.6% of positive cultures, with 94.7% specificity and an AUROC of 0.77 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.83). Four symptoms, three signs and three dipstick results were independently associated with UTI with an AUROC (95% CI; bootstrap-validated AUROC) of 0.89 (0.85 to 0.95; validated 0.88) for symptoms and signs, increasing to 0.93 (0.90 to 0.97; validated 0.90) with dipstick results. Nappy pad samples were provided from the other 2277 children, of whom 82% were < 2 years old and 1.3% met the UTI definition. 'Clinical diagnosis' correctly identified 13.3% positive cultures, with 98.5% specificity and an AUROC of 0.63 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.72). Four symptoms and two dipstick results were independently associated with UTI, with an AUROC of 0.81 (0.72 to 0.90; validated 0.78) for symptoms, increasing to 0.87 (0.80 to 0.94; validated 0.82) with the dipstick findings. A high specificity threshold for the clean-catch model was more accurate and less costly than, and as effective as, clinical judgement. The additional diagnostic utility of dipstick testing was offset by its costs. The cost-effectiveness of the nappy pad model was not clear-cut. CONCLUSIONS Clinicians should prioritise the use of clean-catch sampling as symptoms and signs can cost-effectively improve the identification of UTI in young children where clean catch is possible. Dipstick testing can improve targeting of antibiotic treatment, but at a higher cost than waiting for a laboratory result. Future research is needed to distinguish pathogens from contaminants, assess the impact of the clean-catch algorithm on patient outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness of presumptive versus dipstick versus laboratory-guided antibiotic treatment. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alastair D Hay
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School of Primary Care Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Kate Birnie
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - John Busby
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Brendan Delaney
- Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, UK
| | - Harriet Downing
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School of Primary Care Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Jan Dudley
- Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Stevo Durbaba
- Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Margaret Fletcher
- Centre for Health and Clinical Research, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.,South West Medicines for Children Local Research Network, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Kim Harman
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School of Primary Care Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Kerenza Hood
- South East Wales Trials Unit (SEWTU), Institute for Translation, Innovation, Methodology and Engagement, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Robin Howe
- Specialist Antimicrobial Chemotherapy Unit, Public Health Wales Microbiology Cardiff, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Michael Lawton
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Catherine Lisles
- South East Wales Trials Unit (SEWTU), Institute for Translation, Innovation, Methodology and Engagement, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Paul Little
- Primary Care and Population Sciences Division, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | | | - Kathryn O'Brien
- Cochrane Institute of Primary Care & Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Timothy Pickles
- South East Wales Trials Unit (SEWTU), Institute for Translation, Innovation, Methodology and Engagement, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Kate Rumsby
- Primary Care and Population Sciences Division, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Jonathan Ac Sterne
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Emma Thomas-Jones
- South East Wales Trials Unit (SEWTU), Institute for Translation, Innovation, Methodology and Engagement, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Judith van der Voort
- Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Cherry-Ann Waldron
- South East Wales Trials Unit (SEWTU), Institute for Translation, Innovation, Methodology and Engagement, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Penny Whiting
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Mandy Wootton
- Specialist Antimicrobial Chemotherapy Unit, Public Health Wales Microbiology Cardiff, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Christopher C Butler
- Cochrane Institute of Primary Care & Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.,Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|