scholarly journals Q fever—the superstition of avoiding the word “quiet” as a coping mechanism: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l6446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte R Brookfield ◽  
Patrick P J Phillips ◽  
Robert J Shorten
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Q Fever ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Teaching Hospitals ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Medical Microbiology ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Quiet Day

Abstract Objective To determine the validity of the superstition that utterance of the word “quiet” in a clinical setting increases workload. Design Prospective randomised controlled non-inferiority study. Setting Microbiology department of a large teaching hospital in Lancashire, UK. Participants Two members of the medical microbiology team carried out the duty work on any given week day and an on-call team member on any weekend day. 29 days were assigned in which staff were to say “Today will be a quiet day” and 32 days were assigned in which staff were to refrain from saying the word “quiet” in any context. Interventions Each day was randomly allocated to either saying “Today will be a quiet day” (intervention group) or refraining from saying the word “quiet” (control group) in any context. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was mean overall workload: a composite of number of clinically related telephone calls, clinically significant results, or validated results processed by the duty medical microbiology team during a 24 hour period referred to collectively as “clinical episodes.” A difference of 30 clinical episodes was considered as the margin of non-inferiority. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome. Results Workload was measured each day over a 61 day period (1 May to 30 June 2019). A mean 139.0 clinical episodes occurred on control days compared with 144.9 on days when the experimental intervention was uttered, a difference of 5.9 (95% confidence interval−12.9 to 24.7). The upper bound was less than the specified margin of 30, providing evidence for non-inferiority. No evidence of a difference in workload was found between interventions with any of the four components, whether considering unadjusted or adjusted analyses, or looking at the subgroups of week days or weekends. Conclusions The study findings refute the long held superstition that utterance of the word “quiet” impacts on clinical workload, and therefore it should not be avoided. In the era of considerable staff shortages and increased work related stress, doctors should look to other methods to increase resilience and protect their wellbeing and mental health. Trial registration Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust’s research department SE-259.

scholarly journals Randomised controlled trial of a financial incentive for increasing the number of daily walking steps: study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e026086
Author(s):  
Yasutake Tomata ◽  
Fumiya Tanji ◽  
Dieta Nurrika ◽  
Yingxu Liu ◽  
Saho Abe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Modifiable Factors ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionPhysical activity is one of the major modifiable factors for promotion of public health. Although it has been reported that financial incentives would be effective for promoting health behaviours such as smoking cessation or attendance for cancer screening, few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the effect of financial incentives for increasing the number of daily steps among individuals in a community setting. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of financial incentives for increasing the number of daily steps among community-dwelling adults in Japan.Methods and analysisThis study will be a two-arm, parallel-group RCT. We will recruit community-dwelling adults who are physically inactive in a suburban area (Nakayama) of Sendai city, Japan, using leaflets and posters. Participants that meet the inclusion criteria will be randomly allocated to an intervention group or a waitlist control group. The intervention group will be offered a financial incentive (a chance to get shopping points) if participants increase their daily steps from their baseline. The primary outcome will be the average increase in the number of daily steps (at 4–6 weeks and 7–9 weeks) relative to the average number of daily steps at the baseline (1–3 weeks). For the sample size calculation, we assumed that the difference of primary outcome would be 1302 steps.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been ethically approved by the research ethics committee of Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan (No. 2018-1-171). The results will be submitted and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.Trial registration numberUMIN000033276; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lightweight fibreglass heel casts in the management of ulcers of the heel in diabetes: a randomised controlled trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (34) ◽  
pp. 1-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Jeffcoate ◽  
Frances Game ◽  
Vivienne Turtle-Savage ◽  
Alison Musgrove ◽  
Patricia Price ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Advisory Panel ◽  
Health Economic Analysis ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background Ulcers of the foot in people with diabetes mellitus are slow to heal and result in considerable cost and patient suffering. The prognosis is worst for ulcers of the heel. Objective To assess both the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of lightweight fibreglass casts in the management of heel ulcers. Design A pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, observer-blinded randomised controlled trial. A central randomisation centre used a computer-generated random number sequence to allocate participants to groups. Setting Thirty-five specialist diabetic foot secondary care centres in the UK. Those recruited were aged ≥ 18 years and had diabetes mellitus complicated by ulcers of the heel of grades 2–4 on the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel scale. Participants In total, 509 participants [68% male, 15% with type 1 diabetes mellitus, mean age 67.5 years (standard deviation 12.4 years)] were randomised 1 : 1 to the intervention (n = 256) or the control (n = 253) arm. The primary outcome data were available for 425 participants (212 from the intervention arm and 213 from the control arm) and exceeded the total required; attrition was 16.5%. The median ulcer area at baseline was 275 mm2 [interquartile range (IQR) 104–683 mm2] in the intervention group and 206 mm2 (IQR 77–649 mm2) in the control group. There were no differences between the two groups at baseline in any parameter, neither in relation to the participant nor in relation to their ulcer. Interventions The intervention group received usual care supplemented by the addition of an individually moulded, lightweight, fibreglass heel cast. The control group received usual care alone. The intervention phase continued either until the participant’s ulcer had healed (maintained for 28 days) or for 24 weeks, whichever occurred first. During this intervention phase, the participants were reviewed every 2 weeks, and the fibreglass casts were replaced when they were no longer usable. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was ulcer healing (confirmed by a blinded observer and maintained for 4 weeks) within 24 weeks. Other outcome measures included the time taken for the ulcer to heal, the percentage reduction in the cross-sectional area, the reduction in local pain, amputation, survival and health economic analysis. The study was powered to define a difference in healing of 15% (55% intervention vs. 40% control). Results Forty-four per cent (n = 94) of the intervention group healed within 24 weeks, compared with 37% (n = 80) of the control participants (odds ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.14; p = 0.088), using an intention-to-treat analysis. No differences were observed between the two groups for any secondary outcome. Limitations Although the component items of care were standardised, because this was a pragmatic trial, usual care was not uniform. There was some evidence of a small excess of adverse events in the intervention group; however, non-blinded observers documented these events. There was no excess of adverse device effects. Conclusions There may be a small increase in healing with the use of a heel cast, but the estimate was not sufficiently precise to provide strong evidence of an effect. There was no evidence of any subgroup in which the intervention appeared to be particularly effective. A health economic analysis suggested that it is unlikely that the intervention represents good value for money. The provision of a lightweight heel cast may be of benefit to some individuals, but we have found no evidence to justify the routine adoption of this in clinical practice. Future work It is unlikely that further study of this intervention will have an impact on usual clinical care, and so future efforts should be directed towards other interventions designed to improve the healing of ulcers in this population. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN62524796. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Expert-based medication reviews to reduce polypharmacy in older patients in primary care: a northern-Italian cluster-randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelika Mahlknecht ◽  
Christian J. Wiedermann ◽  
Marco Sandri ◽  
Adolf Engl ◽  
Martina Valentini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Patients ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Evidence regarding clinically relevant effects of interventions aiming at reducing polypharmacy is weak, especially for the primary care setting. This study was initiated with the objective to achieve clinical benefits for older patients (aged 75+) by means of evidence-based reduction of polypharmacy (defined as ≥8 prescribed drugs) and inappropriate prescribing in general practice. Methods The cluster-randomised controlled trial involved general practitioners and patients in a northern-Italian region. The intervention consisted of a review of patient’s medication regimens by three experts who gave specific recommendations for drug discontinuation. Main outcome measures were non-elective hospital admissions or death within 24 months (composite primary endpoint). Secondary outcomes were drug numbers, hospital admissions, mortality, falls, fractures, quality of life, affective status, cognitive function. Results Twenty-two GPs/307 patients participated in the intervention group, 21 GPs/272 patients in the control group. One hundred twenty-five patients (40.7%) experienced the primary outcome in the intervention group, 87 patients (32.0%) in the control group. The adjusted rates of occurrence of the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the study groups (intention-to-treat analysis: adjusted odds ratio 1.46, 95%CI 0.99–2.18, p = 0.06; per-protocol analysis: adjusted OR 1.33, 95%CI 0.87–2.04, p = 0.2). Hospitalisations as single endpoint occurred more frequently in the intervention group according to the unadjusted analysis (OR 1.61, 95%CI 1.03–2.51, p = 0.04) but not in the adjusted analysis (OR 1.39, 95%CI 0.95–2.03, p = 0.09). Falls occurred less frequently in the intervention group (adjusted OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.31–0.98; p = 0.04). No significant differences were found regarding the other outcomes. Definitive discontinuation was obtained for 67 (16.0%) of 419 drugs rated as inappropriate. About 6% of the prescribed drugs were PIMs. Conclusions No conclusive effects were found regarding mortality and non-elective hospitalisations as composite respectively single endpoints. Falls were significantly reduced in the intervention group, although definitive discontinuation was achieved for only one out of six inappropriate drugs. These results indicate that (1) even a modest reduction of inappropriate medications may entail positive clinical effects, and that (2) focusing on evidence-based new drug prescriptions and prevention of polypharmacy may be more effective than deprescribing. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials (ID ISRCTN: 38449870), date: 11/09/2013.

scholarly journals Advance directives for patients compulsorily admitted to hospital with serious mental illness

2002 ◽  
Vol 181 (6) ◽  
pp. 513-519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexia Papageorgiou ◽  
Michael King ◽  
Anis Janmohamed ◽  
Oliver Davidson ◽  
John Dawson
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Advance Directives ◽  
Advance Directive ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Psychiatric Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Psychiatric Services ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundAn advance directive is a statement of a person's preferences for treatment, should he or she lose capacity to make treatment decisions in the future.AimsTo evaluate whether use of advance directives by patients with mental illness leads to lower rates of compulsory readmission to hospital.MethodIn a randomised controlled trial in two psychiatric services in inner London, 156 in-patients about to be discharged from compulsory treatment under the Mental Health Act were recruited. The trial compared usual psychiatric care with usual care plus the completion of an advance directive. The primary outcome was the rate of compulsory readmission.ResultsFifteen patients (19%) in the intervention group and 16 (21%) in the control group were readmitted compulsorily within 1 year of discharge. There was no difference in the numbers of compulsory readmissions, numbers of patients readmitted voluntarily, days spent in hospital or satisfaction with psychiatric services.ConclusionsUsers' advance instruction directives had little observable impact on the outcome of care at 12 months.

scholarly journals Triaging and Referring In Adjacent General and Emergency Departments (the TRIAGE trial): a cluster randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Morreel ◽  
Hilde Philips ◽  
Diana De Graeve ◽  
Koenraad G Monsieurs ◽  
Jarl Kampen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of a tool diverting low urgency patients eligible for primary care from an emergency department (ED) to the adjacent general practitioner cooperative (GPC). Methods: Unblinded, randomised controlled trial with weekends serving as clusters (three intervention clusters for each control). The intervention was nurse-led triage using a new tool assigning patients to either ED or GPC. During intervention weekends, patients were encouraged to follow this assignment while it was not communicated to the patients during control weekends (they remained at the ED). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients assigned to and handled by the GPC during intervention weekends. The trial was randomised for the secondary outcome: the proportion of patients assigned to the GPC during intervention and control weekends. Additional outcomes were association of these outcomes with possible confounders (study tool parameters, nurse, and patient characteristics), proportion of patients referred back to the ED by the GPC, hospitalisations, and performance of the study tool to detect primary care eligible patients (with the opinion of the treating physician as the gold standard). Results: In the intervention group, 838/6374 patients (13.3%, 95% CI 12.5 to 14.2) were assigned to the GPC (secondary outcome), in the control group 431/1744 (24.7%, 95% CI 22.7 to 26.8). In the intervention group, 599/6374 patients (9.5%, 95% CI 8.8 to 10.3) experienced the primary outcome which was influenced by the chosen MTS presentational flowchart, patient's age, and the nurse. 24/599 patients (4.0%, 95% CI 2.7 to 5.9) patients were referred back to the ED of which three were hospitalised. Positive and negative predictive values of the studied tool during intervention weekends were 0.96 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.97) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.62). Out of the patients assigned to the GPC, 2.4% (95% CI 1.7 to 3.4) were hospitalised. Conclusions: ED nurses using a new tool safely diverted 9.5% of the included patients to primary care. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03793972 Funding: Research Foundation, Flanders (FWO)

scholarly journals Short-term effect of a chronic pain self-management intervention delivered by an easily accessible primary healthcare service: a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e023017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torunn Hatlen Nøst ◽  
Aslak Steinsbekk ◽  
Ola Bratås ◽  
Kjersti Grønning
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Healthcare Service ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Patient Activation ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo investigate the effects on persons with chronic pain after 3 months of a group-based chronic pain self-management course compared with a drop-in, low-impact outdoor physical group activity on patient activation and a range of secondary outcomes.DesignAn open, pragmatic, parallel group randomised controlled trial. Analyses were performed using a two-level linear mixed model.SettingAn easily accessible healthcare service provided by Norwegian public primary healthcare.ParticipantsA total of 121 participants with self-reported chronic pain for 3 months or more were randomised with 60 participants placed in the intervention group and 61 placed in the control group (mean age 53 years, 88% women, 63% pain for 10 years or more).InterventionsThe intervention group was offered a group-based chronic pain self-management course with 2.5-hour weekly sessions for a period of 6 weeks. The sessions consisted of education, movement exercises and emphasised group discussions. The control group was offered a low-impact outdoor group physical activity in 1-hour weekly sessions that consisted of walking and simple strength exercises for a period of 6 weeks.Main outcomesThe primary outcome was patient activation assessed using the Patient Activation Measure. Secondary outcomes measured included assessments of pain, anxiety and depression, pain self-efficacy, sense of coherence, health-related quality of life, well-being and the 30 s chair to stand test.ResultsThere was no effect after 3 months of the group-based chronic pain self-management course compared with the control group for the primary outcome, patient activation (estimated mean difference: −0.5, 95% CI –4.8 to 3.7, p=0.802).ConclusionsThere was no support for the self-management course having a better effect after 3 months than a low-impact outdoor physical activity offered the control group.Trial registration numberNCT02531282; Results.

scholarly journals Early intervention, treatment and rehabilitation of employees with common mental disorders by using psychotherapeutic consultation at work: study protocol of a randomised controlled multicentre trial (friaa project)

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeannette Weber ◽  
Peter Angerer ◽  
Lorena Brenner ◽  
Jolanda Brezinski ◽  
Sophia Chrysanthou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Sickness Absence ◽  
Multicentre Trial ◽  
Common Mental Disorders ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Medical Indication ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Common mental disorders are one of the leading causes for sickness absence and early retirement due to reduced health. Furthermore, a treatment gap for common mental disorders has been described worldwide. Within this study, psychotherapeutic consultation at work defined as a tailored, module-based and work-related psychotherapeutic intervention will be applied to improve mental health care. Methods This study comprises a randomised controlled multicentre trial with 1:1 allocation to an intervention and control group. In total, 520 employees with common mental disorders shall be recruited from companies being located around five study centres in Germany. Besides care as usual, the intervention group will receive up to 17 sessions of psychotherapy. The first session will include basics diagnostics and medical indication of treatment and the second session will include work-related diagnostics. Then, participants of the intervention group may receive work-related psychotherapeutic consultation for up to ten sessions. Further psychotherapeutic consultation during return to work for up to five sessions will be offered where appropriate. The control group will receive care as usual and the first intervention session of basic diagnostics and medical indication of treatment. After enrolment to the study, participants will be followed up after nine (first follow-up) and fifteen (second follow-up) months. Self-reported days of sickness absence within the last 6 months at the second follow-up will be used as the primary outcome and self-efficacy at the second follow-up as the secondary outcome. Furthermore, a cost-benefit assessment related to costs of common mental disorders for social insurances and companies will be performed. Discussion Psychotherapeutic consultation at work represents a low threshold care model aiming to overcome treatment gaps for employees with common mental disorders. If successfully implemented and evaluated, it might serve as a role model to the care of employees with common mental disorders and might be adopted in standard care in cooperation with sickness and pension insurances in Germany. Trial registration The friaa project was registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS) at 01.03.2021 (DRKS00023049): https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023049.

scholarly journals Randomised controlled trial of adjunctive inspiratory muscle training for patients with COPD

Thorax ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 942-950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noppawan Charususin ◽  
Rik Gosselink ◽  
Marc Decramer ◽  
Heleen Demeyer ◽  
Alison McConnell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Muscle Function ◽  
Respiratory Muscle ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Inspiratory Muscle ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Muscle Training ◽  
Endurance Cycling ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate whether adjunctive inspiratory muscle training (IMT) can enhance the well-established benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with COPD.Methods219 patients with COPD (FEV1: 42%±16% predicted) with inspiratory muscle weakness (PImax: 51±15 cm H2O) were randomised into an intervention group (IMT+PR; n=110) or a control group (Sham-IMT+PR; n=109) in this double-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial between February 2012 and October 2016 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01397396). Improvement in 6 min walking distance (6MWD) was a priori defined as the primary outcome. Prespecified secondary outcomes included respiratory muscle function and endurance cycling time.FindingsNo significant differences between the intervention group (n=89) and the control group (n=85) in improvements in 6MWD were observed (0.3 m, 95% CI −13 to 14, p=0.967). Patients who completed assessments in the intervention group achieved larger gains in inspiratory muscle strength (effect size: 1.07, p<0.001) and endurance (effect size: 0.79, p<0.001) than patients in the control group. 75 s additional improvement in endurance cycling time (95% CI 1 to 149, p=0.048) and significant reductions in Borg dyspnoea score at isotime during the cycling test (95% CI −1.5 to −0.01, p=0.049) were observed in the intervention group.InterpretationImprovements in respiratory muscle function after adjunctive IMT did not translate into additional improvements in 6MWD (primary outcome). Additional gains in endurance time and reductions in symptoms of dyspnoea were observed during an endurance cycling test (secondary outcome)Trial registration numberNCT01397396; Results.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of a volunteer befriending programme for patients with schizophrenia: randomised controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 217 (3) ◽  
pp. 477-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Priebe ◽  
Agnes Chevalier ◽  
Thomas Hamborg ◽  
Eoin Golden ◽  
Michael King ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Social Isolation ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Social Contacts ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundBefriending by volunteers has the potential to reduce the frequent social isolation of patients with schizophrenia and thus improve health outcomes. However, trial-based evidence for its effectiveness is limited.AimsTo conduct a randomised controlled trial of befriending for patients with schizophrenia or related disorders.MethodPatients were randomised to a befriending programme for 1 year or to receive information about social activities only (trial registration: ISRCTN14021839). Outcomes were assessed masked to allocation at the end of the programme; at 12 months and at a 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome was daily time spent in activities (using the Time Use Survey (TUS)) with intention-to-treat analysis.ResultsA total of 124 patients were randomised (63 intervention, 61 active control) and 92 (74%) were followed up at 1 year. In the intervention group, 49 (78%) met a volunteer at least once and 31 (49%) had more than 12 meetings. At 1 year, mean TUS scores were more than three times higher in both groups with no significant difference between them (adjusted difference 8.9, 95% CI −40.7 to 58.5, P = 0.72). There were no significant differences in quality of life, symptoms or self-esteem. However, patients in the intervention group had significantly more social contacts than those in the control group at the end of the 12-month period. This difference held true at the follow-up 6 months later.ConclusionsAlthough no difference was found on the primary outcome, the findings suggest that befriending may have a lasting effect on increasing social contacts. It may be used more widely to reduce the social isolation of patients with schizophrenia.

scholarly journals Triaging and referring in adjacent general and emergency departments (the TRIAGE trial): A cluster randomised controlled trial

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0258561
Author(s):  
Stefan Morreel ◽  
Hilde Philips ◽  
Diana De Graeve ◽  
Koenraad G. Monsieurs ◽  
Jarl K. Kampen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Triage System ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Objectives To determine whether a new triage system safely diverts a proportion of emergency department (ED) patients to a general practitioner cooperative (GPC). Methods Unblinded randomised controlled trial with weekends serving as clusters (three intervention clusters for each control). The intervention was triage by a nurse using a new extension to the Manchester Triage System assigning low-risk patients to the GPC. During intervention weekends, patients were encouraged to follow this assignment; it was not communicated during control weekends (all patients remained at the ED). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients assigned to and handled by the GPC during intervention weekends. The trial was randomised for the secondary outcome: the proportion of patients assigned to the GPC. Additional outcomes were association of these outcomes with possible confounders (study tool parameters, nurse, and patient characteristics), proportion of patients referred back to the ED by the GPC, hospitalisations, and performance of the study tool to detect primary care patients (the opinion of the treating physician was the gold standard). Results In the intervention group, 838/6294 patients (13.3%, 95% CI 12.5 to 14.2) were assigned to the GPC, in the control group this was 431/1744 (24.7%, 95% CI 22.7 to 26.8). In total, 599/6294 patients (9.5%, 95% CI 8.8 to 10.3) experienced the primary outcome which was influenced by the reason for encounter, age, and the nurse. 24/599 patients (4.0%, 95% CI 2.7 to 5.9) were referred back to the ED, three were hospitalised. Positive and negative predictive values of the studied tool during intervention weekends were 0.96 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.97) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.62). Out of the patients assigned to the GPC, 2.4% (95% CI 1.7 to 3.4) were hospitalised. Conclusions ED nurses using a new tool safely diverted 9.5% of the included patients to primary care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03793972

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document