Evaluating an enhanced quality improvement intervention in maternity units: PReCePT trial protocol

Quality and reporting of large-scale improvement programmes: a review of maternity initiatives in the English NHS, 2010-2023

BACKGROUND

Large-scale improvement programmes are a frequent response to quality and safety problems in health systems globally, but have mixed impact. The extent to which they meet criteria for programme quality, particularly in relation to transparency of reporting and evaluation, is unclear.

AIM

To identify large-scale improvement programmes focused on intrapartum care implemented in English National Health Service maternity services in the period 2010-2023, and to conduct a structured quality assessment.

METHODS

We drew on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidance to inform the design and reporting of our study. We identified relevant programmes using multiple search strategies of grey literature, research databases and other sources. Programmes that met a prespecified definition of improvement programme, that focused on intrapartum care and that had a retrievable evaluation report were subject to structured assessment using selected features of programme quality.

RESULTS

We identified 1434 records via databases and other sources. 14 major initiatives in English maternity services could not be quality assessed due to lack of a retrievable evaluation report. Quality assessment of the 15 improvement programmes meeting our criteria for assessment found highly variable quality and reporting. Programme specification was variable and mostly low quality. Only eight reported the evidence base for their interventions. Description of implementation support was poor and none reported customisation for challenged services. None reported reduction of inequalities as an explicit goal. Only seven made use of explicit patient and public involvement practices, and only six explicitly used published theories/models/frameworks to guide implementation. Programmes varied in their reporting of the planning, scope and design of evaluation, with weak designs evident.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor transparency of reporting and weak or absent evaluation undermine large-scale improvement programmes by limiting learning and accountability. This review indicates important targets for improving quality in large-scale programmes.

Quality improvement interventions to increase the uptake of magnesium sulphate in preterm deliveries for the prevention of cerebral palsy (PReCePT study): a cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare two quality improvement (QI) interventions to improve antenatal magnesium sulphate (MgSO4 ) uptake in preterm births for the prevention of cerebral palsy.

DESIGN

Unblinded cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Academic Health Sciences Network, England, 2018.

SAMPLE

Maternity units with ≥10 preterm deliveries annually and MgSO4 uptake of ≤70%; 40 (27 NPP, 13 enhanced support) were included (randomisation stratified by MgSO4 uptake).

METHODS

The National PReCePT Programme (NPP) gave maternity units QI materials (clinical guidance, training), regional support, and midwife backfill funding. Enhanced support units received this plus extra backfill funding and unit-level QI coaching.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

MgSO4 uptake was compared using routine data and multivariable linear regression. Net monetary benefit was estimated, based on implementation costs, lifetime quality-adjusted life-years and societal costs. The implementation process was assessed through qualitative interviews.

RESULTS

MgSO4 uptake increased in all units, with no evidence of any difference between groups (0.84 percentage points lower uptake in the enhanced group, 95% CI -5.03 to 3.35). The probability of enhanced support being cost-effective was <30%. NPP midwives gave more than their funded hours for implementation. Units varied in their support needs. Enhanced support units reported better understanding, engagement and perinatal teamwork.

CONCLUSIONS

PReCePT improved MgSO4 uptake in all maternity units. Enhanced support did not further improve uptake but may improve teamwork, and more accurately represented the time needed for implementation. Targeted enhanced support, sustainability of improvements and the possible indirect benefits of stronger teamwork associated with enhanced support should be explored further.

What is the role of randomised trials in implementation science?

BACKGROUND

There is a consistent demand for implementation science to inform global efforts to close the gap between evidence and practice. Key evaluation questions for any given implementation strategy concern the assessment and understanding of effects. Randomised trials are generally accepted as offering the most trustworthy design for establishing effectiveness but may be underused in implementation science.

MAIN BODY

There is a continuing debate about the primacy of the place of randomised trials in evaluating implementation strategies, especially given the evolution of more rigorous quasi-experimental designs. Further critiques of trials for implementation science highlight that they cannot provide 'real world' evidence, address urgent and important questions, explain complex interventions nor understand contextual influences. We respond to these critiques of trials and highlight opportunities to enhance their timeliness and relevance through innovative designs, embedding within large-scale improvement programmes and harnessing routine data. Our suggestions for optimising the conditions for randomised trials of implementation strategies include strengthening partnerships with policy-makers and clinical leaders to realise the long-term value of rigorous evaluation and accelerating ethical approvals and decluttering governance procedures for lower risk studies.

CONCLUSION

Policy-makers and researchers should avoid prematurely discarding trial designs when evaluating implementation strategies and work to enhance the conditions for their conduct.