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

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.

Community collaboration to improve access and outcomes in breast cancer reconstruction: protocol for a mixed-methods qualitative research study

INTRODUCTION

Breast reconstruction plays an important role for many in restoring form and function of the breast after mastectomy. However, rates of breast reconstruction in the USA vary significantly by race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. The lower rates of breast reconstruction in non-white women and in women of lower socioeconomic status may reflect a complex interplay between patient and physician factors and access to care. It remains unknown what community-specific barriers may be impacting receipt of breast reconstruction.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a mixed-methods study combining qualitative patient interview data with quantitative practice patterns to develop an actionable plan to address disparities in breast reconstruction in the local community. The primary aims are to (1) capture barriers to breast reconstruction for patients in the local community, (2) quantitatively evaluate practice patterns at the host institution and (3) identify issues and prioritise interventions for change using community-based engagement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained at the investigators' institution. Results from both the quantitative and qualitative portions of the study will be circulated via peer-review publication. These findings will also serve as pilot data for extramural funding to implement and evaluate these proposed solutions.

Impact of a multifaceted intervention on physicians' knowledge, attitudes and practices in relation to pharmaceutical incentivisation: protocol for a randomised control trial

INTRODUCTION

In settings where the private sector constitutes a larger part of the health system, profit-gathering can take primacy over patients' well-being. In their interactions with pharmaceutical companies, private general practitioners (GPs) can experience the conflict of interest (COI), a situation whereby the impartiality of GPs' professional decision making may be influenced by secondary interests such as financial gains from prescribing specific pharmaceutical brands.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of a multifaceted intervention on GPs' medical practice. The study sample consists of 419 registered GPs who own/work in private clinics and will be randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. The intervention group GPs will be exposed to emotive and educational seminars on medical ethics, whereas control group GPs will be given seminars on general medical topics. The primary outcome measure will be GPs' prescribing practices, whereas the secondary outcome measures will be their knowledge and attitudes regarding COI that arises from pharmaceutical incentivisation. In addition to a novel standardised pharmaceutical representatives (SPSR) method, in which field researchers will simulate pharmaceutical marketing with GPs, presurvey and postsurvey, and qualitative interviewing will be performed to collect data on GPs' knowledge, attitudes and practices in relation to COI linked with pharmaceutical incentives. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses will be performed to measure a change in GPs' knowledge, attitudes and practices, while qualitative analysis will add to our understanding of the quantitative SPSR data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been obtained from the Pakistan National Bioethics Committee (# 4-87/NBC-582/21/1364), the Aga Khan University (# 2020-4759-1129) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (# 26506). We will release results within 6-9 months of the study's completion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN12294839.