Robert Cicero

A multidimensional approach to assessing intervention fidelity in a process evaluation of audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions: a study protocol

BackgroundIn England, NHS Blood and Transplant conducts national audits of transfusion and provides feedback to hospitals to promote evidence-based practice. Audits demonstrate 20% of transfusions fall outside guidelines. The AFFINITIE programme (Development & Evaluation of Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence-based Transfusion practIcE) involves two linked, 2×2 factorial, cluster-randomised trials, each evaluating two theoretically-enhanced audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions in UK hospitals. The first intervention concerns the content/format of feedback reports. The second aims to support hospital transfusion staff to plan their response to feedback and includes a web-based toolkit and telephone support. Interpretation of trials is enhanced by comprehensively assessing intervention fidelity. However, reviews demonstrate fidelity evaluations are often limited, typically only assessing whether interventions were delivered as intended. This protocol presents methods for assessing fidelity across five dimensions proposed by the Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework, including intervention designer-, provider- and recipient-levels.Methods(1) Design: Intervention content will be specified in intervention manuals in terms of component behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Treatment differentiation will be examined by comparing BCTs across intervention/standard practice, noting the proportion of unique/convergent BCTs. (2) Training: draft feedback reports and audio-recorded role-play telephone support scenarios will be content analysed to assess intervention providers’ competence to deliver manual-specified BCTs. (3) Delivery: intervention materials (feedback reports, toolkit) and audio-recorded telephone support session transcripts will be content analysed to assess actual delivery of manual-specified BCTs during the intervention period. (4) Receipt and (5) enactment: questionnaires, semi-structured interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, and objective web-analytics data (report downloads, toolkit usage patterns) will be analysed to assess hospital transfusion staff exposure to, understanding and enactment of the interventions, and to identify contextual barriers/enablers to implementation. Associations between observed fidelity and trial outcomes (% unnecessary transfusions) will be examined using mediation analyses.DiscussionIf the interventions have acceptable fidelity, then results of the AFFINITIE trials can be attributed to effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of the interventions. Hence, this comprehensive assessment of fidelity will be used to interpret trial findings. These methods may inform fidelity assessments in future trials.Trial registrationISRCTN 15490813. Registered 11/03/2015

The evaluation of enhanced feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions (AFFINITIE): protocol for two linked cluster randomised factorial controlled trials

BackgroundBlood for transfusion is a frequently used clinical intervention, and is also a costly and limited resource with risks. Many transfusions are given to stable and non-bleeding patients despite no clear evidence of benefit from clinical studies. Audit and feedback (A&F) is widely used to improve the quality of healthcare, including appropriate use of blood. However, its effects are often inconsistent, indicating the need for coordinated research including more head-to-head trials comparing different ways of delivering feedback. A programmatic series of research projects, termed the ‘Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence-based Transfusion practIcE’ (AFFINITIE) programme, aims to test different ways of developing and delivering feedback within an existing national audit structure.MethodsThe evaluation will comprise two linked 2×2 factorial, cross-sectional cluster-randomised controlled trials. Each trial will estimate the effects of two feedback interventions, ‘enhanced content’ and ‘enhanced follow-on support’, designed in earlier stages of the AFFINITIE programme, compared to current practice. The interventions will be embedded within two rounds of the UK National Comparative Audit of Blood Transfusion (NCABT) focusing on patient blood management in surgery and use of blood transfusions in patients with haematological malignancies. The unit of randomisation will be National Health Service (NHS) trust or health board. Clusters providing care relevant to the audit topics will be randomised following each baseline audit (separately for each trial), with stratification for size (volume of blood transfusions) and region (Regional Transfusion Committee). The primary outcome for each topic will be the proportion of patients receiving a transfusion coded as unnecessary. For each audit topic a linked, mixed-method fidelity assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted in parallel to the trial.DiscussionAFFINITIE involves a series of studies to explore how A&F may be refined to change practice including two cluster randomised trials linked to national audits of transfusion practice. The methodology represents a step-wise increment in study design to more fully evaluate the effects of two enhanced feedback interventions on patient- and trust-level clinical, cost, safety and process outcomes.Trial registrationhttp://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15490813

Evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ to enable person-centred care for people with dementia and their carers (DCM-EPIC) in care homes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundUp to 90 % of people living with dementia in care homes experience one or more behaviours that staff may describe as challenging to support (BSC). Of these agitation is the most common and difficult to manage. The presence of agitation is associated with fewer visits from relatives, poorer quality of life and social isolation. It is recommended that agitation is treated through psychosocial interventions. Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM™) is an established, widely used observational tool and practice development cycle, for ensuring a systematic approach to providing person-centred care. There is a body of practice-based literature and experience to suggests that DCM™ is potentially effective but limited robust evidence for its effectiveness, and no examination of its cost-effectiveness, as a UK health care intervention. Therefore, a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of DCM™ in the UK is urgently needed.Methods/designA pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster-randomised controlled trial of Dementia Care Mapping (DCM™) plus Usual Care (UC) versus UC alone, where UC is the normal care delivered within the care home following a minimum level of dementia awareness training. The trial will take place in residential, nursing and dementia-specialist care homes across West Yorkshire, Oxfordshire and London, with residents with dementia. A random sample of 50 care homes will be selected within which a minimum of 750 residents will be registered. Care homes will be randomised in an allocation ratio of 3:2 to receive either intervention or control. Outcome measures will be obtained at 6 and 16 months following randomisation. The primary outcome is agitation as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory, at 16 months post randomisation. Key secondary outcomes are other BSC and quality of life. There will be an integral cost-effectiveness analysis and a process evaluation.DiscussionThe protocol was refined following a pilot of trial procedures. Changes include replacement of a questionnaire, whose wording caused some residents distress, to an adapted version specifically designed for use in care homes, a change to the randomisation stratification factors, adaption in how the staff measures are collected to encourage greater compliance, and additional reminders to intervention homes of when mapping cycles are due, via text message.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852. Registered on 16 January 2014.Full protocol version and date: v7.1: 18 December 2015.

The INVEST project: Investigating the use of evidence synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical trials

BackgroundWhen designing and analysing clinical trials, using previous relevant information, perhaps in the form of evidence syntheses, can reduce research waste. We conducted the INVEST (INVestigating the use of Evidence Synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical Trials) survey to summarise the current use of evidence synthesis in trial design and analysis, to capture opinions of trialists and methodologists on such use, and to understand any barriers.MethodsOur sampling frame was all delegates attending the International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference in November 2015. Respondents were asked to indicate (1) their views on the use of evidence synthesis in trial design and analysis, (2) their own use during the past 10 years and (3) the three greatest barriers to use in practice.ResultsOf approximately 638 attendees of the conference, 106 (17%) completed the survey, half of whom were statisticians. Support was generally high for using a description of previous evidence, a systematic review or a meta-analysis in trial design. Generally, respondents did not seem to be using evidence syntheses as often as they felt they should. For example, only 50% (42/84 relevant respondents) had used a meta-analysis to inform whether a trial is needed compared with 74% (62/84) indicating that this is desirable. Only 6% (5/81 relevant respondents) had used a value of information analysis to inform sample size calculations versus 22% (18/81) indicating support for this. Surprisingly large numbers of participants indicated support for, and previous use of, evidence syntheses in trial analysis. For example, 79% (79/100) of respondents indicated that external information about the treatment effect should be used to inform aspects of the analysis. The greatest perceived barrier to using evidence synthesis methods in trial design or analysis was time constraints, followed by a belief that the new trial was the first in the area.ConclusionsEvidence syntheses can be resource-intensive, but their use in informing the design, conduct and analysis of clinical trials is widely considered desirable. We advocate additional research, training and investment in resources dedicated to ways in which evidence syntheses can be undertaken more efficiently, offering the potential for cost savings in the long term.

PATCH: posture and mobility training for care staff versus usual care in care homes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundResidents of care homes have high levels of disability and poor mobility, but the promotion of health and wellbeing within care homes is poorly realised. Residents spend the majority of their time sedentary which leads to increased dependency and, coupled with poor postural management, can have many adverse outcomes including pressure sores, pain and reduced social interaction. The intervention being tested in this project (the Skilful Care Training Package) aims to increase the awareness and skills of care staff in relation to poor posture in the older, less mobile adult and highlight the benefits of activity, and how to skilfully assist activity, in this group to enable mobility and reduce falls risk. Feasibility work will be undertaken to inform the design of a definitive cluster randomised controlled trial.MethodsThis is a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial, aiming to recruit at least 12–15 residents at each of 10 care homes across Yorkshire. Care homes will be randomly allocated on a 1:1 basis to receive either the Skilful Care Training Package alongside usual care or to continue to provide usual care alone. Assessments will be undertaken by blinded researchers with participating residents at baseline (before care home randomisation) and at three and six months post randomisation. Data relating to changes in physical activity, mobility, posture, mood and quality of life will be collected. Data at the level of the home will also be collected and will include staff experience of care and changes in the numbers and types of adverse events residents experience (for example, hospital admissions, falls). Details of NHS service usage will be collected to inform the economic analysis. An embedded process evaluation will explore intervention delivery and its acceptability to staff and residents.DiscussionParticipant uptake, engagement and retention are key feasibility outcomes. Exploration of barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery will inform intervention optimisation. Study results will inform progression to a definitive trial and add to the body of evidence for good practice in care home research.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN50080330. Registered on 27 March 2017.

Optimising intervention implementation in the DCM™ epic trial (dementia care mapping™: to enable person-centred care in care homes)

The DCM™ EPIC trial requires participating care homes to identify two staff members willing to be trained in the DCM™ intervention and thereafter implement three DCM ‘mapping cycles’ during the trial. These staff are known as ‘mappers’. This is no small undertaking, and early pilot work highlighted the need to include additional measures to enhance adherence to some elements of intervention uptake and delivery. Various strategies were thus implemented which comprise: a) provision of enhanced information to prospective staff mappers, b) requirement for staff to detail their understanding of DCM™, c) DCM™ expert contact with mappers ahead of randomisation to ensure eligibility and suitability, d) an expert-supported first cycle of mapping, e) review of mapper and expert feedback after the first cycle to ensure areas of concern can be addressed prior to the next cycle, f) CTU contact with mappers to flag the timing of the next mapping cycle, and address any concerns. To achieve the above, trials unit staff act as a central point of contact, reviewing mapper consent and materials, monitoring each stage of the process and contacting DCM™ experts and the Chief Investigator to flag issues and problems in a timely manner. Although enhancing intervention compliance in this way can be seen to be altering the implementation of the intervention and thus reducing its generalizability, it will be discussed that intervention optimisation is necessary to minimise the likelihood of negative results attributable to poor implementation rather than intervention ineffectiveness.

Complexities of trial recruitment in the care home setting: an illustration via the DCM™epic (dementia care mapping™: to enable person-centred care in care homes) trial

Conducting trials in care homes is complex on multiple levels. Here we focus on recruitment issues surrounding: a) care home selection to participate in research, b) selection and involvement of participants fulfilling various roles (residents, relatives, staff), c) consent in the context of the Mental Capacity Act, and d) scheduling researcher time to undertake complex recruitment processes across multiple care homes. To ensure generalizability of results, EPIC care homes were selected to form a stratified random sample of a known sampling frame. This was done by first defining catchment areas around each of three participating UK hubs. Randomly ordered listings of all eligible care homes within those areas were then produced, with batches of care homes sent trial information and followed up by researchers. Trial participation for a home requires agreement to take part from residents and their relatives (as personal consultees and providers of proxy data), as well as staff involvement to provide data (proxy and self) and be trained to deliver the DCM™ intervention. This requires complex, lengthy discussions with all parties, provision of tailored information sheets specific to intended role and capacity, and involvement of trial experts to explain DCM™ in more detail to staff. The trial aims to recruit 50 care homes (750 residents) by the end of 2015. Thus there is the need to balance the complexity of processes with required speed of recruitment - a task which is achieved by detailed monitoring of projected researcher workload in relation to care home commitments and availability.

Complex considerations for randomisation across linked randomised trials of complex interventions: illustration from the affinitie programme.

Complex interventions are challenging to evaluate, as the same intervention can be used in a variety of settings. We will describe a large research programme that is developing and evaluating theory-based audit and feedback interventions to increase the uptake of evidence-based blood transfusion practice (AFFINITIE), encompassing two sequentially-linked factorial cluster-randomised trials, each evaluating the individual effect of two feedback interventions within national NHS Blood and Transplant audits, applied first to surgical use of blood and then to patients with haematological malignancies. This will enable us to have an understanding of the generalizability of the interventions across settings as part of a single research programme. As the two trials are national, each aiming to include 152 UK NHS Trust and Health Boards, we require most eligible clusters to take part in both trials. To minimise contamination and maintain equipoise, we require that clusters maintain their treatment allocation across trials. This poses new complications for the allocation of clusters to treatment arms, particularly for the second trial. We will discuss how we accounted for the shift from sequential to all-in-one randomisation, outlining the key considerations during this process. We will describe the issues arising from randomisation occurring at two stages (once for each trial), including awareness of which clusters will drop out between the trials, which clusters will join for the second and what minimisation factors they have. We will explore the need to ensure the randomisation for the second trial is robust, either maintaining or recreating balance in the treatment allocations.