5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Managing uncertain recovery for patients nearing the end of life in hospital: a mixed-methods feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of the AMBER care bundle

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The AMBER (Assessment, Management, Best Practice, Engagement, Recovery Uncertain) care bundle is a complex intervention used in UK hospitals to support patients with uncertain recovery. However, it has yet to be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to identify potential benefits or harms. The aim of this trial was to investigate the feasibility of a cluster RCT of the AMBER care bundle.

          Methods

          This is a prospective mixed-methods feasibility cluster RCT. Quantitative data collected from patients (or proxies if patients lack capacity) were used (i) to examine recruitment, retention and follow-up rates; (ii) to test data collection tools for the trial and determine their optimum timing; (iii) to test methods to identify the use of financial resources; and (iv) to explore the acceptability of study procedures for health professionals and patients. Descriptive statistical analyses and thematic analysis used the framework approach.

          Results

          In total, 894 patients were screened, of whom 220 were eligible and 19 of those eligible (8.6%) declined to participate. Recruitment to the control arm was challenging. Of the 728 patients screened for that arm, 647 (88.9%) were excluded. Overall, 65 patients were recruited (81.3% of the recruitment target of 80). Overall, many were elderly (≥80 years, 46.2%, n = 30, mean = 77.8 years, standard deviation [SD] = 12.3 years). Over half (53.8%) had a non-cancer diagnosis, with a mean of 2.3 co-morbidities; 24.6% patients ( n = 16) died during their hospital stay and 35.4% ( n = 23) within 100 days of discharge. In both trial arms, baseline IPOS subscale scores identified moderate patient anxiety (control: mean 13.3, SD 4.8; intervention: mean 13.3, SD 5.1), and howRwe identified a good care experience (control: mean 13.1, SD 2.5; intervention: mean 11.5, SD 2.1). Collecting quantitative service use and quality of life data was feasible. No patient participants regarded study involvement negatively. Focus groups with health professionals identified concerns regarding (i) the subjectivity of the intervention’s eligibility criteria, (ii) the need to prognosticate to identify potential patients and (iii) consent procedures and the length of the questionnaire.

          Conclusions

          A full trial of the AMBER care bundle is technically feasible but impractical due to fundamental issues in operationalising the intervention’s eligibility criteria, which prevents optimal recruitment. Since this complex intervention continues to be used in clinical care and advocated in policy, alternative research approaches must be considered and tested.

          Trial registration

          International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register, ISRCTN36040085.

          Related collections

          Most cited references82

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance

          Evaluating complex interventions is complicated. The Medical Research Council's evaluation framework (2000) brought welcome clarity to the task. Now the council has updated its guidance
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book Chapter: not found

            Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how

              Pilot studies for phase III trials - which are comparative randomized trials designed to provide preliminary evidence on the clinical efficacy of a drug or intervention - are routinely performed in many clinical areas. Also commonly know as "feasibility" or "vanguard" studies, they are designed to assess the safety of treatment or interventions; to assess recruitment potential; to assess the feasibility of international collaboration or coordination for multicentre trials; to increase clinical experience with the study medication or intervention for the phase III trials. They are the best way to assess feasibility of a large, expensive full-scale study, and in fact are an almost essential pre-requisite. Conducting a pilot prior to the main study can enhance the likelihood of success of the main study and potentially help to avoid doomed main studies. The objective of this paper is to provide a detailed examination of the key aspects of pilot studies for phase III trials including: 1) the general reasons for conducting a pilot study; 2) the relationships between pilot studies, proof-of-concept studies, and adaptive designs; 3) the challenges of and misconceptions about pilot studies; 4) the criteria for evaluating the success of a pilot study; 5) frequently asked questions about pilot studies; 7) some ethical aspects related to pilot studies; and 8) some suggestions on how to report the results of pilot investigations using the CONSORT format.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                jonathan.koffman@kcl.ac.uk
                emel.yorganci@kcl.ac.uk
                deok_hee.yi@kcl.ac.uk
                wei.gao@kcl.ac.uk
                fliss.murtagh@hyms.ac.uk
                andrew.pickles@kcl.ac.uk
                sigb2@medschl.cam.ac.uk
                halle.johnson@kcl.ac.uk
                rebecca.wilson@kcl.ac.uk
                e.sampson@ucl.ac.uk
                joanne.droney@rmh.nhs.uk
                m.farquhar@uea.ac.uk
                a.prevost@imperial.ac.uk
                catherine.evans@kcl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                16 August 2019
                16 August 2019
                2019
                : 20
                : 506
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2322 6764, GRID grid.13097.3c, King’s College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, ; London, UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0412 8669, GRID grid.9481.4, Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, , University of Hull, ; Hull, UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2322 6764, GRID grid.13097.3c, King’s College London, Clinical Trials Unit, ; London, UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000000121885934, GRID grid.5335.0, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care Organisation, , University of Cambridge, ; Cambridge, UK
                [5 ]ISNI 0000000121901201, GRID grid.83440.3b, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, , University College London, ; London, UK
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0304 893X, GRID grid.5072.0, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, ; London, UK
                [7 ]ISNI 0000 0001 1092 7967, GRID grid.8273.e, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, , University of East Anglia, ; Norwich, UK
                [8 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2113 8111, GRID grid.7445.2, Imperial College London, Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, ; London, UK
                [9 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0400 9627, GRID grid.414602.5, Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust, , Brighton General Hospital, ; Brighton, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8513-5681
                Article
                3612
                10.1186/s13063-019-3612-0
                6697995
                31419994
                6b573ef1-5839-48fc-b6fa-30c37ec45ad9
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 18 April 2019
                : 23 July 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000664, Health Technology Assessment Programme;
                Award ID: 15/10/17
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Medicine
                feasibility study,clinical trial,mixed methods,palliative care,end-of-life care,clinical uncertainty,amber care bundle,complex intervention

                Comments

                Comment on this article