The rapid and accurate categorisation of critically ill patients (RACE) to identify outcomes of interest for longitudinal studies: a feasibility study

Approaches to enabling rapid evaluation of innovations in health and social care: a scoping review of evidence from high-income countries

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic increased the demand for rapid evaluation of innovation in health and social care. Assessment of rapid methodologies is lacking although challenges in ensuring rigour and effective use of resources are known. We mapped reports of rapid evaluations of health and social care innovations, categorised different approaches to rapid evaluation, explored comparative benefits of rapid evaluation, and identified knowledge gaps.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) databases were searched through 13 September 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included publications reporting primary research or methods for rapid evaluation of interventions or services in health and social care in high-income countries.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers developed and piloted a data extraction form. One reviewer extracted data, a second reviewer checked 10% of the studies; disagreements and uncertainty were resolved through consensus. We used narrative synthesis to map different approaches to conducting rapid evaluation.

RESULTS

We identified 16 759 records and included 162 which met inclusion criteria.We identified four main approaches for rapid evaluation: (1) Using methodology designed specifically for rapid evaluation; (2) Increasing rapidity by doing less or using less time-intensive methodology; (3) Using alternative technologies and/or data to increase speed of existing evaluation method; (4) Adapting part of non-rapid evaluation.The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an increase in publications and some limited changes in identified methods. We found little research comparing rapid and non-rapid evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a lack of clarity about what 'rapid evaluation' means but identified some useful preliminary categories. There is a need for clarity and consistency about what constitutes rapid evaluation; consistent terminology in reporting evaluations as rapid; development of specific methodologies for making evaluation more rapid; and assessment of advantages and disadvantages of rapid methodology in terms of rigour, cost and impact.

Outcomes Six Months after Delivering 100% or 70% of Enteral Calorie Requirements during Critical Illness (TARGET). A Randomized Controlled Trial

Rationale: The long-term effects of delivering approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake via the enteral route during critical illness compared with a lesser amount of calories are unknown.Objectives: Our hypotheses were that achieving approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness would increase quality-of-life scores, return to work, and key life activities and reduce death and disability 6 months later.Methods: We conducted a multicenter, blinded, parallel group, randomized clinical trial, with 3,957 mechanically ventilated critically ill adults allocated to energy-dense (1.5 kcal/ml) or routine (1.0 kcal/ml) enteral nutrition.Measurements and Main Results: Participants assigned energy-dense nutrition received more calories (percent recommended energy intake, mean [SD]; energy-dense: 103% [28] vs. usual: 69% [18]). Mortality at Day 180 was similar (560/1,895 [29.6%] vs. 539/1,920 [28.1%]; relative risk 1.05 [95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.16]). At a median (interquartile range) of 185 (182-193) days after randomization, 2,492 survivors were surveyed and reported similar quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions five-level quality-of-life questionnaire visual analog scale, median [interquartile range]: 75 [60-85]; group difference: 0 [95% confidence interval, 0-0]). Similar numbers of participants returned to work with no difference in hours worked or effectiveness at work (n = 818). There was no observed difference in disability (n = 1,208) or participation in key life activities (n = 705).Conclusions: The delivery of approximately 100% compared with 70% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness does not improve quality of life or functional outcomes or increase the number of survivors 6 months later.