A qualitative study exploring the acceptability of the McNulty-Zelen design for randomised controlled trials evaluating educational interventions

Health service utilization by people experiencing homelessness and engaging with community paramedics: a pre-post study

OBJECTIVES

To compare health service utilization of patients interacting with a mobile integrated health care program consisting of advanced care paramedics delivering community paramedic care to people experiencing homelessness before and after their initial visit.

METHODS

ED visits, physician claims, and pharmaceutical dispensations were compared in the year prior to and in the year following the initial community paramedic visit. Administrative databases were linked and utilization rates were calculated and analyzed between periods in this pre-post cohort study.

RESULTS

The 1360 community paramedic patients included in this study had no significant change in ED visits (IRR: 1.02) following their initial visit. There were 17,699 ED visits in the pre-period and 18,398 visits in the post-period. There was an observed increase in rates of primary care physician claims (IRR 1.22) and pharmaceutical dispensations from community pharmacies (IRR 1.04). Patients who did not have pharmaceutical dispensations and those without physician claims in the pre-period were significantly less likely to not access these services in the post-period.

CONCLUSIONS

In the year following the initial community paramedic visit there were small but significant increases in community-based care utilization of people experiencing homelessness. These data suggest that the continued development and implementation of paramedics as part of an interdisciplinary care team can increase access to care for a traditionally underserved population with complex health needs. Patients would likely benefit from the integration of community paramedics in community-based management that aim to improve access to care following ED visits.

Embedded point of care randomisation for evaluating comparative effectiveness questions: PROSPECTOR-critical care feasibility study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Many routinely administered treatments lack evidence as to their effectiveness. When treatments lack evidence, patients receive varying care based on the preferences of clinicians. Standard randomised controlled trials are unsuited to comparisons of different routine treatment strategies, and there remains little economic incentive for change.Integrating clinical trial infrastructure into electronic health record systems offers the potential for routine treatment comparisons at scale, through reduced trial costs. To date, embedded trials have automated data collection, participant identification and eligibility screening, but randomisation and consent remain manual and therefore costly tasks.This study will investigate the feasibility of using computer prompts to allow flexible randomisation at the point of clinical decision making. It will compare the effectiveness of two prompt designs through the lens of a candidate research question-comparing liberal or restrictive magnesium supplementation practices for critical care patients. It will also explore the acceptability of two consent models for conducting comparative effectiveness research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a single centre, mixed-methods feasibility study, aiming to recruit 50 patients undergoing elective surgery requiring postoperative critical care admission. Participants will be randomised to either 'Nudge' or 'Preference' designs of electronic point-of-care randomisation prompt, and liberal or restrictive magnesium supplementation.We will judge feasibility through a combination of study outcomes. The primary outcome will be the proportion of prompts displayed resulting in successful randomisation events (compliance with the allocated magnesium strategy). Secondary outcomes will evaluate the acceptability of both prompt designs to clinicians and ascertain the acceptability of pre-emptive and opt-out consent models to patients.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by Riverside Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 21/LO/0785) and will be published on completion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05149820.

Effects of primary care C-reactive protein point-of-care testing on antibiotic prescribing by general practice staff: pragmatic randomised controlled trial, England, 2016 and 2017

Background

C-reactive protein (CRP) testing can be used as a point-of-care test (POCT) to guide antibiotic use for acute cough.

Aim

We wanted to determine feasibility and effect of introducing CRP POCT in general practices in an area with high antibiotic prescribing for patients with acute cough and to evaluate patients’ views of the test.

Methods

We used a McNulty–Zelen cluster pragmatic randomised controlled trial design in general practices in Northern England. Eight intervention practices accepted CRP testing and eight control practices maintained usual practice. Data collection included process evaluation, patient questionnaires, practice audit and antibiotic prescribing data.

Results

Eight practices with over 47,000 patient population undertook 268 CRP tests over 6 months: 78% of patients had a CRP < 20 mg/L, 20% CRP 20–100 mg/L and 2% CRP > 100 mg/L, where 90%, 22% and 100%, respectively, followed National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) antibiotic prescribing guidance. Patients reported that CRP testing was comfortable (88%), convenient (84%), useful (92%) and explained well (85%). Patients believed CRP POCT aided clinical diagnosis, provided quick results and reduced unnecessary antibiotic use. Intervention practices had an estimated 21% reduction (95% confidence interval: 0.46–1.35) in the odds of prescribing for cough compared with the controls, a non-significant but clinically relevant reduction.

Conclusions

In routine general practice, CRP POCT use was variable. Non-significant reductions in antibiotic prescribing may reflect small sample size due to non-use of tests. While CRP POCT may be useful, primary care staff need clearer CRP guidance and action planning according to NICE guidance.

Improving Management of Respiratory Tract Infections in Community Pharmacies and Promoting Antimicrobial Stewardship: A Cluster Randomised Control Trial with a Self-Report Behavioural Questionnaire and Process Evaluation

In England, 81% of all antibiotic prescriptions originate in primary care/community settings, of which up to 20% are thought to be inappropriate. Community pharmacies are often the first point of community contact for patients with suspected infections; providing an opportunity for community pharmacy teams to promote antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). The objective of the study was to improve the management of infections and antimicrobial stewardship in community pharmacies. The study methodology included a non-blinded cluster randomised control trial with pharmacy staff in 272 community pharmacies in England. The intervention arm received an AMS webinar and a patient facing respiratory tract infection (RTI) leaflet (TARGET TYI-RTI) for use in everyday practice for four weeks. The control arm received a webinar on how to participate in the study. The primary outcome was self-reported referrals to general practitioners (GPs). The secondary outcomes were; provision of self-care advice/ written information to patients, referrals to pharmacists, sign-posting to non-prescription medicines and common barriers and facilitators to advice-giving in community pharmacies. Ethics approval was granted by the Public Health England Research Ethics and Governance Group. 66.91% (182 of 272) of pharmacies provided 3649 patient consultation data reports across both arms. Use of the leaflet was associated with a lower likelihood of referrals to GPs for certain RTIs (p < 0.05) and a more frequent provision of self-care advice than the control (p = 0.06). Opportunities to deliver self-care advice were limited due to lack of time. Pharmacy staff had good motivation and capability for managing self-limiting infections but the opportunity to do so was a perceived barrier. Use of the TARGET leaflet facilitated pharmacy staff to give more self-care advice and decreased referrals to GPs.

Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization

Saturation has attained widespread acceptance as a methodological principle in qualitative research. It is commonly taken to indicate that, on the basis of the data that have been collected or analysed hitherto, further data collection and/or analysis are unnecessary. However, there appears to be uncertainty as to how saturation should be conceptualized, and inconsistencies in its use. In this paper, we look to clarify the nature, purposes and uses of saturation, and in doing so add to theoretical debate on the role of saturation across different methodologies. We identify four distinct approaches to saturation, which differ in terms of the extent to which an inductive or a deductive logic is adopted, and the relative emphasis on data collection, data analysis, and theorizing. We explore the purposes saturation might serve in relation to these different approaches, and the implications for how and when saturation will be sought. In examining these issues, we highlight the uncertain logic underlying saturation-as essentially a predictive statement about the unobserved based on the observed, a judgement that, we argue, results in equivocation, and may in part explain the confusion surrounding its use. We conclude that saturation should be operationalized in a way that is consistent with the research question(s), and the theoretical position and analytic framework adopted, but also that there should be some limit to its scope, so as not to risk saturation losing its coherence and potency if its conceptualization and uses are stretched too widely.

Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization

Saturation has attained widespread acceptance as a methodological principle in qualitative research. It is commonly taken to indicate that, on the basis of the data that have been collected or analysed hitherto, further data collection and/or analysis are unnecessary. However, there appears to be uncertainty as to how saturation should be conceptualized, and inconsistencies in its use. In this paper, we look to clarify the nature, purposes and uses of saturation, and in doing so add to theoretical debate on the role of saturation across different methodologies. We identify four distinct approaches to saturation, which differ in terms of the extent to which an inductive or a deductive logic is adopted, and the relative emphasis on data collection, data analysis, and theorizing. We explore the purposes saturation might serve in relation to these different approaches, and the implications for how and when saturation will be sought. In examining these issues, we highlight the uncertain logic underlying saturation—as essentially a predictive statement about the unobserved based on the observed, a judgement that, we argue, results in equivocation, and may in part explain the confusion surrounding its use. We conclude that saturation should be operationalized in a way that is consistent with the research question(s), and the theoretical position and analytic framework adopted, but also that there should be some limit to its scope, so as not to risk saturation losing its coherence and potency if its conceptualization and uses are stretched too widely.