Anne-Marie Slowther
University of Warwick
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Anne-Marie Slowther.
The Lancet | 2015
Gavin D. Perkins; Ranjit Lall; Tom Quinn; Charles D. Deakin; Matthew Cooke; Jessica Horton; Sarah E Lamb; Anne-Marie Slowther; Malcolm Woollard; Andy Carson; Mike Smyth; Richard Whitfield; Amanda C. de C. Williams; Helen Pocock; John Black; John Wright; Kyee Han; Simon Gates
BACKGROUND Mechanical chest compression devices have the potential to help maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite their increasing use, little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We aimed to study whether the introduction of LUCAS-2 mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS The pre-hospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial was a pragmatic, cluster-randomised open-label trial including adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from four UK Ambulance Services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales, South Central). 91 urban and semi-urban ambulance stations were selected for participation. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (1:2) to LUCAS-2 or manual CPR. Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest and was analysed by intention to treat. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were masked to treatment allocation. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. The study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN08233942. FINDINGS We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group) between April 15, 2010 and June 10, 2013. 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression, and 11 (<1%) patients in the control group received LUCAS-2. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30 day survival was similar in the LUCAS-2 group (104 [6%] of 1652 patients) and in the manual CPR group (193 [7%] of 2819 patients; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·64-1·15). No serious adverse events were noted. Seven clinical adverse events were reported in the LUCAS-2 group (three patients with chest bruising, two with chest lacerations, and two with blood in mouth). 15 device incidents occurred during operational use. No adverse or serious adverse events were reported in the manual group. INTERPRETATION We noted no evidence of improvement in 30 day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. On the basis of ours and other recent randomised trials, widespread adoption of mechanical CPR devices for routine use does not improve survival. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research HTA - 07/37/69.
Journal of Medical Ethics | 2007
Samia Hurst; Arnaud Perrier; Renzo Pegoraro; Stella Reiter-Theil; Reidun Førde; Anne-Marie Slowther; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Marion Danis
Background: Ethics support services are growing in Europe to help doctors in dealing with ethical difficulties. Currently, insufficient attention has been focused on the experiences of doctors who have faced ethical difficulties in these countries to provide an evidence base for the development of these services. Methods: A survey instrument was adapted to explore the types of ethical dilemma faced by European doctors, how they ranked the difficulty of these dilemmas, their satisfaction with the resolution of a recent ethically difficult case and the types of help they would consider useful. The questionnaire was translated and given to general internists in Norway, Switzerland, Italy and the UK. Results: Survey respondents (n = 656, response rate 43%) ranged in age from 28 to 82 years, and averaged 25 years in practice. Only a minority (17.6%) reported having access to ethics consultation in individual cases. The ethical difficulties most often reported as being encountered were uncertain or impaired decision-making capacity (94.8%), disagreement among caregivers (81.2%) and limitation of treatment at the end of life (79.3%). The frequency of most ethical difficulties varied among countries, as did the type of issue considered most difficult. The types of help most often identified as potentially useful were professional reassurance about the decision being correct (47.5%), someone capable of providing specific advice (41.1%), help in weighing outcomes (36%) and clarification of the issues (35.9%). Few of the types of help expected to be useful varied among countries. Conclusion: Cultural differences may indeed influence how doctors perceive ethical difficulties. The type of help needed, however, did not vary markedly. The general structure of ethics support services would not have to be radically altered to suit cultural variations among the surveyed countries.
Journal of General Internal Medicine | 2006
Samia Hurst; Anne-Marie Slowther; Reidun Førde; Renzo Pegoraro; Stella Reiter-Theil; Arnaud Perrier; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Marion Danis
BACKGROUND: Bedside rationing by physicians is controversial. The debate, however, is clouded by lack of information regarding the extent and character of bedside rationing.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We developed a survey instrument to examine the frequency, criteria, and strategies used for bedside rationing. Content validity was assessed through expert assessment and scales were tested for internal consistency. The questionnaire was translated and administered to General Internists in Norway, Switzerland, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Logistic regression was used to identify the variables associated with reported rationing.RESULTS: Survey respondents (N=656, response rate 43%) ranged in age from 28 to 82, and averaged 25 years in practice. Most respondents (82.3%) showed some degree of agreement with rationing, and 56.3% reported that they did ration interventions. The most frequently mentioned criteria for rationing were a small expected benefit (82.3%), low chances of success (79.8%), an intervention intended to prolong life when quality of life is low (70.6%), and a patient over 85 years of age (70%). The frequency of rationing by clinicians was positively correlated with perceived scarcity of resources (odds ratio [OR]=1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06 to 1.16), perceived pressure to ration (OR=2.14, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.01), and agreement with rationing (OR=1.13, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.23).CONCLUSION: Bedside rationing is prevalent in all surveyed European countries and varies with physician attitudes and resource availability. The prevalence of physician bedside rationing, which presents physicians with difficult moral dilemmas, highlights the importance of discussions regarding how to ration care in the most ethically justifiable manner.
BMJ | 2000
Anne-Marie Slowther; Tony Hope
Research ethics committees, both local and for multicentre research, are now well established in the United Kingdom. Clinical ethics committees, which deal with issues that arise in clinical practice, are a more recent phenomenon. Earlier this year people from 14 clinical ethics committees within the United Kingdom met to compare their experiences—at a time when the pressure for such committees, or other mechanisms for dealing with the ethics of everyday practice, is growing. The first clinical ethics committees in the United Kingdom developed for a variety of local reasons. Some were an institutional response to one or two problem cases. Others developed because a few clinicians were particularly concerned with, and interested in, the ethical aspects of clinical practice. Now that medical ethics is part of the core of medical education,1 and with the high profile of medical ethics in the media, clinicians are increasingly aware of the ethical …
Journal of Medical Ethics | 2012
Anne-Marie Slowther; Leah McClimans; Charlotte Price
Background In 2001 a report on the provision of clinical ethics support in UK healthcare institutions identified 20 clinical ethics committees. Since then there has been no systematic evaluation or documentation of their work at a national level. Recent national surveys of clinical ethics services in other countries have identified wide variation in practice and scope of activities. Objective To describe the current provision of ethics support in the UK and its development since 2001. Method A postal/electronic questionnaire survey administered to the chairs of all 82 clinical ethics services registered with the UK Clinical Ethics Network in July 2010. Results Response rate was 62% with the majority of responding services situated in acute trusts. All services included a clinical ethics committee with one service also having a clinical ethicist. Lay members were present in 72% of responding committees. Individual case consultation has increased since 2001 with 29% of chairs spending more than 50% of their time on this. Access to and involvement in the process of case consultation is less for patients and families than for clinical staff. There is wide variation in committee processes and levels of institutional support. Over half of the responding committees undertook some form of evaluation. Conclusion Clinical ethics services in the UK are increasing as is their involvement in case consultation. However, the significant variation in committee processes suggests that further qualitative research is needed to understand how these committees function and the role they play in their institution.
Trials | 2011
Martin Underwood; Sandra Eldridge; Sallie Lamb; Rachel Potter; Bartley Sheehan; Anne-Marie Slowther; Stephanie Jc Taylor; Margaret Thorogood; Scott Weich
AbstractBackgroundDepression is common in residents of Residential and Nursing homes (RNHs). It is usually undetected and often undertreated. Depression is associated with poor outcomes including increased morbidity and mortality. Exercise has potential to improve depression, and has been shown in existing trials to improve outcomes among younger and older people. Existing evidence comes from trials that are short, underpowered and not from RNH settings. The aim of the OPERA trial is to establish whether exercise is effective in reducing the prevalence of depression among older RNH residents.MethodOPERA is a cluster randomised controlled trial. RNHs are randomised to one of two groups with interventions lasting 12 months Intervention group: a depression awareness and physical activity training session for care home staff, plus a whole home physical activation programme including twice weekly physiotherapist-led exercise groups. The intervention lasts for one year from randomisation, or Control group: a depression awareness training session for care home staff.Participants are people aged 65 or over who are free of severe cognitive impairment and willing to participate in the study. Our primary outcome is the prevalence of depressive symptoms, a GDS-15 score of five or more, in all participants at the end of the one year intervention period. Our secondary depression outcomes include remission of depressive symptoms and change in GDS-15 scores in those with depressive symptoms prior to randomisation. Other secondary outcomes include, fear of falling, mobility, fractures, pain, cognition, costs and health related quality of life. We aimed to randomise 77 RNHs.DiscussionHome recruitment was completed in May 2010; 78 homes have been randomised. Follow up will finish in May 2011 and results will be available late 2011.Trial Registration[ISRCTN: ISRCTN43769277]
BMJ | 2017
Zoë Fritz; Anne-Marie Slowther; Gavin D. Perkins
Zoë Fritz and colleagues discuss new approaches to resuscitation decisions that incorporate broader goals of care
Resuscitation | 2016
Gavin D. Perkins; Tom Quinn; Charles D. Deakin; Jerry P. Nolan; Ranjit Lall; Anne-Marie Slowther; Matthew Cooke; Sarah E Lamb; Stavros Petrou; Felix A. Achana; Judith Finn; Ian Jacobs; Andrew Carson; Mike Smyth; Kyee Han; Sonia Byers; Nigel Rees; Richard Whitfield; Fionna Moore; Rachael Fothergill; Nigel Stallard; John C. Long; Susie Hennings; Jessica Horton; Charlotte Kaye; Simon Gates
Despite its use since the 1960s, the safety or effectiveness of adrenaline as a treatment for cardiac arrest has never been comprehensively evaluated in a clinical trial. Although most studies have found that adrenaline increases the chance of return of spontaneous circulation for short periods, many studies found harmful effects on the brain and raise concern that adrenaline may reduce overall survival and/or good neurological outcome. The PARAMEDIC-2 trial seeks to determine if adrenaline is safe and effective in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This is a pragmatic, individually randomised, double blind, controlled trial with a parallel economic evaluation. Participants will be eligible if they are in cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital environment and advanced life support is initiated. Exclusions are cardiac arrest as a result of anaphylaxis or life threatening asthma, and patient known or appearing to be under 16 or pregnant. 8000 participants treated by 5 UK ambulance services will be randomised between December 2014 and August 2017 to adrenaline (intervention) or placebo (control) through opening pre-randomised drug packs. Clinical outcomes are survival to 30 days (primary outcome), hospital discharge, 3, 6 and 12 months, health related quality of life, and neurological and cognitive outcomes (secondary outcomes). Trial registration (ISRCTN73485024).
Emergency Medicine Journal | 2014
Hugh Davies; Haleema Shakur; Andrew Padkin; Ian Roberts; Anne-Marie Slowther; Gavin D. Perkins
Like all others, we believe that patients who need urgent treatment should receive evidence-based care. However, until recently, there have been particular difficulties or uncertainties for research when consent and consultation ‘at the time of the emergency’ are impossible or inappropriate and, therefore, should be waived.1 ,2 In this commentary we describe a practical framework of ‘questions and considerations’ for those developing or reviewing such research. The framework was developed in a workshop hosted by the Health Research Authority, UK, with the aim of providing a structured approach to the issues that arise when planning research that involves a waiver of consent or consultation. The framework …
Clinical Ethics | 2007
Anne-Marie Slowther
Even a fairly cursory examination of the bioethics literature on this subject suggests that the answer to this question is not a simple one, and that there is disagreement among ethicists and moral philosophers on the meaning of autonomy. The literal meaning is self rule (auto-nomos) and its original use was in the context of Greek City States not individual decision-making. In current medical ethics literature the concept has been analysed and defined in a number of ways and we will consider some alternative models below.