Hartley Suzanne, Foy Robbie, Walwyn Rebecca E A, Cicero Robert, Farrin Amanda J, Francis Jill J, Lorencatto Fabiana, Gould Natalie J, Grant-Casey John, Grimshaw Jeremy M, Glidewell Liz, Michie Susan, Morris Stephen, Stanworth Simon J
Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Implement Sci. 2017 Jul 3;12(1):84. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0614-8.
Blood 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.
The 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.
AFFINITIE 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.
输血用血液是一种常用的临床干预措施,也是一种成本高昂且资源有限并伴有风险的资源。尽管临床研究并未明确证明有益,但许多输血是给予病情稳定且未出血的患者。审核与反馈(A&F)被广泛用于提高医疗质量,包括合理用血。然而,其效果往往不一致,这表明需要开展协调一致的研究,包括更多比较不同反馈方式的直接对比试验。一系列有计划的研究项目,即“增加循证输血实践的审核与反馈干预措施”(AFFINITIE)项目,旨在在现有的国家审核框架内测试制定和提供反馈的不同方式。
该评估将包括两项相互关联的2×2析因横断面整群随机对照试验。每项试验将估计在AFFINITIE项目早期阶段设计的两种反馈干预措施“强化内容”和“强化后续支持”与当前实践相比的效果。这些干预措施将融入英国国家输血比较审核(NCABT)的两轮审核中,重点关注手术中的患者血液管理以及血液系统恶性肿瘤患者的输血使用情况。随机分组的单位将是国民保健服务(NHS)信托机构或健康委员会。在每次基线审核后(每项试验分别进行),将为与审核主题相关的护理整群进行随机分组,并按规模(输血量)和地区(区域输血委员会)进行分层。每个主题的主要结局将是被编码为不必要输血的患者比例。对于每个审核主题,将与试验并行开展一项关联的混合方法保真度评估和成本效益分析。
AFFINITIE涉及一系列研究,以探索如何改进审核与反馈来改变实践,包括两项与国家输血实践审核相关的整群随机试验。该方法代表了研究设计的逐步改进,以便更全面地评估两种强化反馈干预措施对患者和信托机构层面的临床、成本、安全及流程结局的影响。