Introduction and adoption of innovative invasive procedures and devices in the NHS: an in-depth analysis of written policies and qualitative interviews (the INTRODUCE study protocol).
ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Innovation is key to improving outcomes in healthcare. Innovative pharmaceutical products undergo rigorous phased research evaluation before they are introduced into practice. The introduction of innovative invasive procedures and devices is much less rigorous and phased research, including randomised controlled trials, is not always undertaken. While the innovator (usually a surgeon) may introduce a new or modified procedure/device within the context of formal research, they may also be introduced by applying for local National Health Service (NHS) organisation approval alone. Written policies for the introduction of new procedures and/or devices often form part of this local clinical governance infrastructure; however, little is known about their content or use in practice. This study aims to systematically investigate how new invasive procedures and devices are introduced in NHS England and Wales. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:An in-depth analysis of written policies will be undertaken. This will be supplemented with interviews with key stakeholders. All acute NHS trusts in England and Health Boards in Wales will be systematically approached and asked to provide written policies for the introduction of new invasive procedures and devices. Information on the following will be captured: (1) policy scope, including when new procedures should be introduced within a formal research framework; (2) requirements for patient information provision; (3) outcome reporting and/or monitoring. Data will be extracted using a standardised form developed iteratively within the study team. Semistructured interviews with medical directors, audit and governance leads, and surgeons will explore views regarding the introduction of new invasive procedures into practice, including knowledge of and implementation of current policies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:In-depth analysis of written policies does not require ethics approval. The University of Bristol Ethics Committee (56522) approved the interview component of the study. Findings from this work will be presented at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, administered in early adolescence, can substantially reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality. However, lack of written parental consent is a key reason why some young women do not receive the vaccine. The national legal framework allows girls to be vaccinated without parental consent provided they are deemed Gillick competent, but there is some reticence about vaccinating without written parental consent. Self-consent procedures are being implemented in Bristol and South Gloucestershire. This study will examine the implementation, acceptability and impact of these new procedures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Statistical analyses of routine data from Public Health England and the Child Health Information System will test if there has been an increase in HPV vaccination uptake in two ways: (a) Is there an increase when comparing before and after the change in our intervention sites? and (b) Does the percentage change in our intervention sites differ from comparison sites (similar to our intervention sites in terms of initial HPV uptake, ethnicity and deprivation levels) in England where no such intervention took place and how? For the process evaluation, we will develop a logic model and use questionnaires, observations and audio-recorded interviews with young women, school nurses, school staff and parents to examine the context, implementation of self-consent and response to the new procedures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee and the National Health Service Health Research Authority provided approvals for the study. We will produce a report with recommendations about self-consent procedures in conjunction with key stakeholders. At least two papers will be written for publication in peer-reviewed journals and for conference presentations. A summary of results will be shared with participating immunisation nurses, school staff, young people and parents as requested. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN49086105; Pre-results.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Little is known about how innovative surgical procedures are introduced and discussed with patients. This qualitative study aimed to explore perspectives on information provision and consent prior to innovative surgical procedures. DESIGN:Qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. PARTICIPANTS:42 interviews were conducted (26 surgeons and 16 governance representatives). SETTING:Surgeons and governance representatives recruited from various surgical specialties and National Health Service (NHS) Trusts across England, UK. RESULTS:Participants stated that if a procedure was innovative, patients should be provided with additional information extending beyond that given during routine surgical consultations. However, difficulty defining innovation had implications for whether patients were informed about novel components of surgery and how the procedure was introduced (ie, as part of a research study, trust approval or in routine clinical practice). Furthermore, data suggest surgeons found it difficult to establish what information is essential and how much detail is sufficient, and governance surrounding written and verbal information provision differed between NHS Trusts. Generally, surgeons believed patients held a view that 'new' was best and reported that managing these expectations could be difficult, particularly if patient views aligned with their own. CONCLUSIONS:This study highlights the challenges of information provision and obtaining informed consent in the context of innovative surgery, including establishing if and how a procedure is truly innovative, determining the key information to discuss with patients, ensuring information provision is objective and balanced, and managing patient expectations and preferences. This suggests that surgeons may require support and training to discuss novel procedures with patients. Further work should capture consultations where new procedures are discussed with patients and patients' views of these information exchanges.
Project description:Coeliac disease affects approximately 1% of the population and is increasingly diagnosed in the United Kingdom. A nationwide consultation in England has recommend that state-funded provisions for gluten-free (GF) food should be restricted to bread and mixes but not banned, yet financial strain has prompted regions of England to begin partially or fully ceasing access to these provisions. The impact of these policy changes on different stakeholders remains unclear.Prescription data were collected for general practice services across England (n =?7176) to explore changes in National Health Service (NHS) expenditure on GF foods over time (2012-2017). The effects of sex, age, deprivation and rurality on GF product expenditure were estimated using a multi-level gamma regression model. Spending rate within NHS regions that had introduced a 'complete ban' or a 'complete ban with age-related exceptions' was compared to spending in the same time periods amongst NHS regions which continued to fund prescriptions for GF products.Annual expenditure on GF products in 2012 (before bans were introduced in any area) was £25.1 million. Higher levels of GF product expenditure were found in general practices in areas with lower levels of deprivation, higher levels of rurality and higher proportions of patients aged under 18 and over 75. Expenditure on GF food within localities that introduced a 'complete ban' or a 'complete ban with age-related exceptions' were reduced by approximately 80% within the 3 months following policy changes. If all regions had introduced a 'complete ban' policy in 2014, the NHS in England would have made an annual cost-saving of £21.1 million (equivalent to 0.24% of the total primary care medicines expenditure), assuming no negative sequelae.The introduction of more restrictive GF prescribing policies has been associated with 'quick wins' for NHS regions under extreme financial pressure. However, these initial savings will be largely negated if GF product policies revert to recently published national recommendations. Better evidence of the long-term impact of restricting GF prescribing on patient health, expenses and use of NHS services is needed to inform policy.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Invasive aspergillosis is the most important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with haematological diseases. At present, voriconazole is the first-line treatment for invasive fungal disease. The pharmacokinetic interindividual variability of voriconazole depends on genetic factors. CYP450 is involved in 70%-75% of total metabolism of voriconazole, mainly CYP3A4 and CYP2C19, with the remaining 25%-30% of metabolism conducted by monooxygenase flavins. CYP2C19 single nucleotide polymorphisms could explain 50%-55% of variability in voriconazole metabolism. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The main objective is to compare efficiency of pre-emptive voriconazole genotyping with routine practice. The primary outcome is serum voriconazole on the fifth day within the therapeutic range. The secondary outcome is the combined variables of therapeutic failure and adverse events within 90?days of first administration, associated with voriconazole. A total of 146 patients at risk of invasive aspergillosis who will potentially receive voriconazole will be recruited, and CYP2C19 will be genotyped. If the patient ultimately receives voriconazole, they will be randomised (1:1 experimental/control). In the experimental arm, patients will receive a dose according to a pharmacogenetic algorithm, including CYP2C19 genotype and clinical and demographic information. In the control arm, patients will receive a dose according to clinical practice guidelines. In addition, a Spanish National Healthcare System (NHS) point-of-view cost-effectiveness evaluation will be performed. Direct cost calculations for each arm will be performed. CONCLUSION:This trial will provide information about the viability and cost-effectiveness of the implementation of a pre-emptive voriconazole genotyping strategy in the Spanish NHS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:A Spanish version of this protocol has been evaluated and approved by the La Paz University Hospital Ethics Committee and the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices. Trial results will be submitted for publication in an open peer-reviewed medical speciality-specific publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Eudra-CT: 2019-000376-41 and NCT04238884; Pre-results.
Project description:Since the first use of the Guglielmi detachable coil system for cerebral aneurysm embolization in 1990, various endovascular methods have been developed to treat large numbers of aneurysms. The main strategic and technical modifications introduced to date include balloon-assisted coil embolization, stent-assisted coil embolization, flow diverters, and flow disrupters. The development and introduction of such devices have been so persistent and rapid that new devices are being approved worldwide even before the earlier ones become available in some countries. However, even if some patient populations may possibly benefit from earlier introduction of new devices, the approval authorities should balance the available evidence of the safety and effectiveness of novel devices. This review aims to provide an overview of the recent innovations in endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms and a brief review of market access policies and regulations for importing high-risk medical devices, such as those used for endovascular aneurysm management, which correspond to class III devices, as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. We focus on the current situation in Korea and compare it with that in other Asian countries, such as China and Japan.
Project description:<h4>Introduction</h4>Predicting sudden cardiac death (SCD) is challenging as current risk predictors have significant limitations. Evaluating magnetocardiogram (MCG) parameters could be of great value and we plan to assess the capability of a new mobile unshielded MCG device in predicting SCD and ventricular arrhythmias (VA) in patients undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>A prospective multicentre (University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire (UHCW) National Health Service (NHS) Trust/University Hospital North Midlands NHS Trust, UK) observational study evaluating the VitalScan MCG (Creavo Medical Technologies, UK) to predict future VA risk; 270 patients meeting criteria for primary or secondary prevention ICDs (ischaemic or non-ischaemic aetiology) are being recruited. The first patient was recruited September 2019 and the study will be completed at final participant follow-up. The primary endpoint is appropriate ICD therapy for VA, secondary endpoint is SCD. Previous trials using MCG identified late QRS signals/QRS fragmentation as potential indicators of SCD in small samples using large shielded expensive MCG devices that were difficult to use clinically. It is hoped the MAGNETO-SCD trial will show this new MCG device can provide real world risk stratification for SCD/VA risk. The trial has recruited 25 patients (13 with secondary prevention indication) from a single site (UHCW) with recruitment starting at the second site in March 2020.<h4>Ethics and dissemination</h4>Research Ethics Committee, Yorkshire and Humber Sheffield Research Ethics Committee UK (Ref: 19/YH/0143) and Health Research Authority (IRAS reference 254466, EDGE ID: 123146) approval received on 17/07/2019. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency approval received 11/07/2019. Results will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed publication and presentation at international conferences.<h4>Trial registration numbers</h4>ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04352816) and EU Clinical Trials Registry (EudraCT2019-002994-78).
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Cholecystectomy is one of the most common general surgical operations performed. Despite level one evidence supporting the role of cholecystectomy in the management of specific gallbladder diseases, practice varies between surgeons and hospitals. It is unknown whether these variations account for the differences in surgical outcomes seen in population-level retrospective data sets. This study aims to investigate surgical outcomes following acute, elective and delayed cholecystectomies in a multicentre, contemporary, prospective, population-based cohort. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:UK and Irish hospitals performing cholecystectomies will be recruited utilising trainee-led research collaboratives. Two months of consecutive, adult patient data will be included. The primary outcome measure of all-cause 30-day readmission rate will be used in this study. Thirty-day complication rates, bile leak rate, common bile duct injury, conversion to open surgery, duration of surgery and length of stay will be measured as secondary outcomes. Prospective data on over 8000 procedures is anticipated. Individual hospitals will be surveyed to determine local policies and service provision. Variations in outcomes will be investigated using regression modelling to adjust for confounders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Research ethics approval is not required for this study and has been confirmed by the online National Research Ethics Service (NRES) decision tool. This novel study will investigate how hospital-level surgical provision can affect patient outcomes, using a cross-sectional methodology. The results are essential to inform commissioning groups and implement changes within the National Health Service (NHS). Dissemination of the study protocol is primarily through the trainee-led research collaboratives and the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons (AUGIS). Individual centres will have access to their own results and the collective results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant surgical conferences.
Project description:<h4>Introduction</h4>The emergence of patient and public involvement (PPI) in healthcare in the UK can be traced as far back as the 1970s. More recently, campaigns by harmed patients and their relatives have emerged as a result of clinical failings in the NHS, challenging paternalistic healthcare, which have led to a new focus on PPI in quality and safety, nationally and internationally. Evidence suggests that PPI within patient safety is often atheoretical and located within a biomedical discourse. This review will explore the literature on PPI across patient safety, healthcare and social care to identify theory, barriers and enablers that can be used to develop PPI in patient safety.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>Systematic searches of three electronic bibliographic databases will be conducted, using both MeSH and free-text terms to identify empirical literature published from database inception to May 2017. The screening process will involve input from at least two researchers and any disagreement will be resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. Initial inclusion and exclusion criteria have been developed and will be refined iteratively throughout the process. Data extraction from included articles will be conducted by at least two researchers using a data extraction form. Extracted information will be analysed using a narrative review approach, which synthesises data using a descriptive method.<h4>Ethics and dissemination</h4>No ethical approval is required for this review as no empirical data were collected. We believe that the findings and recommendations from this review will be particularly relevant for an audience of academics and policymakers. The findings will, therefore, be written up and disseminated in international peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences with a health focus. They will also be disseminated to leading health policy organisations in the NHS, such as NHS England and NHS Improvement and national policy bodies such as the Health Foundation.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Overuse of cardiac catheterisation (CC) for stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is documented in Germany and other regions, although percutaneous coronary interventions do not provide a benefit over medical therapy for stable patients. Various studies investigated health system, physician and patient factors driving non-adherence to guidelines which recommend a stepwise approach with invasive procedures only in case of signs of ischaemia in non-invasive testing. In a larger-scale project, we aim to better understand the patients' perspective in order to develop an intervention that enhances patient's acceptance of this stepwise diagnostic approach for stable CAD. As a first step, this qualitative study aims to identify patient factors that prevent and promote the described overuse. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The exploratory qualitative interview study will include about 20 patients with stable CAD and a history of acute coronary syndrome from two German teaching practices. Narrative, structured interviews designed to last 30 to 90?min will be conducted. The interviews will be analysed using qualitative content analysis by Mayring. The analysis will address the following questions: (1) What are reasons for stable patients to undergo CC? (2) How do patients deal with their heart disease (secondary prevention)? (3) Which processes do patients describe regarding decision-making for non-invasive and invasive coronary procedures? (4) What information needs exist on behalf of patients to better understand the stepwise diagnostic approach outlined in guidelines and thereby avoid low-appropriate CCs? Based on these data, empirical typification will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval for the study was obtained. All participants will provide written informed consent. Data will be pseudonymised for analysis. The findings will contribute to the development of an appropriate intervention. Results will be disseminated by conference presentations and journal publications.
Project description:<h4>Introduction</h4>Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves health-related quality of life and reduces hospital admissions. However, patients with heart failure (HF) often fail to attend centre-based CR programmes. Novel ways of delivering healthcare, such as home-based CR programmes, may improve uptake of CR. Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is a new, effective and cost-effective home-based CR programme for people with HF. The aim of this prospective mixed-method implementation evaluation study is to assess the implementation of the REACH-HF CR programme in the UK National Health Service (NHS). The specific objectives are to (1) explore NHS staff perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of REACH-HF, (2) assess the quality of delivery of the programme in real-life clinical settings, (3) consider the nature of any adaptation(s) made and how they might impact on intervention effectiveness and (4) compare real-world patient outcomes to those seen in a prior clinical trial.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>REACH-HF will be rolled out in four NHS CR centres across the UK. Three healthcare professionals from each site will be trained to deliver the 12-week programme. In-depth qualitative interviews and focus groups will be conducted with approximately 24 NHS professionals involved in delivering or commissioning the programme. Consultations for 48 patients (12 per site) will be audio recorded and scored using an intervention fidelity checklist. Outcomes routinely recorded in the National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation will be analysed and compared with outcomes from a recent randomised controlled trial: the Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire and exercise capacity (Incremental Shuttle Walk Test). Qualitative research findings will be mapped onto the Normalisation Process Theory framework and presented in the form of a narrative synthesis. Results of the study will inform national roll-out of REACH-HF.<h4>Ethics and dissemination</h4>The study (IRAS 261723) has received ethics approval from the South Central (Hampshire B) Research Ethics Committee (19/SC/0304). Written informed consent will be obtained from all health professionals and patients participating in the study. The research team will ensure that the study is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the Data Protection Act 2018, General Data Protection Regulations and in accordance with the Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care (2005). Findings will be published in scientific peer-reviewed journals and presented at local, national and international meetings to publicise and explain the research methods and findings to key audiences to facilitate the further uptake of the REACH-HF intervention.<h4>Trial registration</h4>ISRCTN86234930.