The BLISS cluster randomised controlled trial of the effect of 'active dissemination of information' on standards of care for premature babies in England (BEADI) study protocol [ISRCTN89683698]

The future of medical education in neonatology, paediatrics and paediatric virology: An interview with Professor Alan Michael Weindling, Professor of Perinatal Medicine at the University of Liverpool

Professor Alan Michael Weindling, Emeritus Professor of Perinatal Medicine at the University of Liverpool in the UK, is one of the pioneers of modern neonatal care worldwide with an enormous contribution to the care of premature babies in the city of Liverpool. During the last 3 decades, his contributions focused on the development of the clinical service, the training provided and the strong research achievements at Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust, one of the most widely respected centres for neonatal medicine in western Europe. According to Professor Weindling, teaching a commitment to continuing lifelong learning as well as trying to make clinical care cost-effective is really important. He highlights the value of humility, holistic scientific approach, evidence-based medicine and multidisciplinary team working to neonatal and paediatric care. Looking back to neonatology as practiced in the 1990s, he accepts that since then, the overall standard of care has improved enormously. He supports that further neonatal care research is required for the prevention and treatment of acquired brain damage as well as on looking at ways of minimising stress for families, who have a child in an intensive care unit. He could see how for most trainees a module or series of lectures in paediatric infectious diseases would be helpful as part of their training and he estimates that in the future paediatric virology may become a specialist interest for a limited number of paediatric trainees. In the context of the ‘4th Workshop on Paediatric Virology’, which will be held in Athens, Greece, on September 22nd, 2018, Professor Weindling will receive the ‘2018 Paediatric Virology Award in Neonatology and Medical Education’.

Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews provide a transparent and robust summary of existing research. However, health system managers, national and local policy makers and healthcare professionals can face several obstacles when attempting to utilise this evidence. These include constraints operating within the health system, dealing with a large volume of research evidence and difficulties in adapting evidence from systematic reviews so that it is locally relevant. In an attempt to increase the use of systematic review evidence in decision-making a number of interventions have been developed. These include summaries of systematic review evidence that are designed to improve the accessibility of the findings of systematic reviews (often referred to as information products) and changes to organisational structures, such as employing specialist groups to synthesise the evidence to inform local decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and assess the effects of information products based on the findings of systematic review evidence and organisational supports and processes designed to support the uptake of systematic review evidence by health system managers, policy makers and healthcare professionals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Health Economic Evaluations Database. We also handsearched two journals (Implementation Science and Evidence and Policy), Cochrane Colloquium abstracts, websites of key organisations and reference lists of studies considered for inclusion. Searches were run from 1992 to March 2011 on all databases, an update search to March 2012 was run on MEDLINE only.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), interrupted time-series (ITS) and controlled before-after studies (CBA) of interventions designed to aid the use of systematic reviews in healthcare decision-making were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the study quality. We extracted the median value across similar outcomes for each study and reported the range of values for each median value. We calculated the median of the two middlemost values if an even number of outcomes were reported.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies evaluating the effectiveness of different interventions designed to support the uptake of systematic review evidence. The overall quality of the evidence was very low to moderate.Two cluster RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions, which contained access to systematic reviews relevant to reproductive health, to change obstetric care; the high baseline performance in some of the key clinical indicators limited the findings of these studies. There were no statistically significant effects on clinical practice for all but one of the clinical indicators in selected obstetric units in Thailand (median effect size 4.2%, range -11.2% to 18.2%) and none in Mexico (median effect size 3.5%, range 0.1% to 19.0%). In the second cluster RCT there were no statistically significant differences in selected obstetric units in the UK (median effect RR 0.92; range RR 0.57 to RR 1.10). One RCT evaluated the perceived understanding and ease of use of summary of findings tables in Cochrane Reviews. The median effect of the differences in responses for the acceptability of including summary of findings tables in Cochrane Reviews versus not including them was 16%, range 1% to 28%. One RCT evaluated the effect of an analgesic league table, derived from systematic review evidence, and there was no statistically significant effect on self-reported pain. Only one RCT evaluated an organisational intervention (which included a knowledge broker, access to a repository of systematic reviews and provision of tailored messages), and reported no statistically significant difference in evidence informed programme planning.Three interrupted time series studies evaluated the dissemination of printed bulletins based on evidence from systematic reviews. A statistically significant reduction in the rates of surgery for glue ear in children under 10 years (mean annual decline of -10.1%; 95% CI -7.9 to -12.3) and in children under 15 years (quarterly reduction -0.044; 95% CI -0.080 to -0.011) was reported. The distribution to general practitioners of a bulletin on the treatment of depression was associated with a statistically significant lower prescribing rate each quarter than that predicted by the rates of prescribing observed before the distribution of the bulletin (8.2%; P = 0.005).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Mass mailing a printed bulletin which summarises systematic review evidence may improve evidence-based practice when there is a single clear message, if the change is relatively simple to accomplish, and there is a growing awareness by users of the evidence that a change in practice is required. If the intention is to develop awareness and knowledge of systematic review evidence, and the skills for implementing this evidence, a multifaceted intervention that addresses each of these aims may be required, though there is insufficient evidence to support this approach.

The BRACELET Study: surveys of mortality in UK neonatal and paediatric intensive care trials

Background

The subject of death and bereavement in the context of randomised controlled trials in neonatal or paediatric intensive care is under-researched. The objectives of this phase of the Bereavement and RAndomised ControlLEd Trials (BRACELET) Study were to determine trial activity in UK neonatal and paediatric intensive care (2002-06); numbers of deaths before hospital discharge; and variation in mortality across intensive care units and trials and to determine whether bereavement support policies were available within trials. These are essential prerequisites to considering the implications of future policies and practice subsequent to bereavement following a child's enrolment in a trial.

Methods

The units survey involved neonatal units providing level 2 or 3 care, and paediatric units providing level II care or above; the trials survey involved trials where allocation was randomized and interventions were delivered to intensive care patients, or to parents but designed to affect patient outcomes.

Results

Information was available from 191/220 (87%) neonatal units (149 level 2 or 3 care); and 28/32 (88%) paediatric units. 90/177 (51%) eligible responding units participated in one or more trial (76 neonatal, 14 paediatric) and 54 neonatal units and 6 paediatric units witnessed at least one death. 50 trials were identified (36 neonatal, 14 paediatric). 3,137 babies were enrolled in neonatal trials, 210 children in paediatric trials. Deaths ranged 0-278 (median [IQR interquartile range] 2 [1, 14.5]) per neonatal trial, 0-4 (median [IQR] 1 [0, 2.5]) per paediatric trial. 534 (16%) participants died post-enrolment: 522 (17%) in neonatal trials, 12 (6%) in paediatric trials. Trial participants ranged 1-236 (median [IQR] 21.5 [8, 39.8]) per neonatal unit, 1-53 (median [IQR] 11.5 [2.3, 33.8]) per paediatric unit. Deaths ranged 0-37 (median [IQR] 3.5 [0.3, 8.8]) per neonatal unit, 0-7 (median [IQR] 0.5 [0, 1.8]) per paediatric unit. Three trials had a formal policy for responding to bereavement.

Conclusions

A substantial number of deaths after trial enrolment were identified, distributed over many trials and units. Few trial teams had responses to bereavement in place. Those with the largest numbers of deaths might be best placed to collaborate in developing and assessing responses to bereavement.

Quality of neonatal care and outcome

High quality of care in neonatology implies providing an appropriate level of care to well newborn babies as well as more specialised care for the few babies who need it. Audit, surveillance and outcome studies may not always capture the complexity of quality of care and its contribution to outcome, and a more focused approach to standards of care evaluation may be required. Future progress in this field in the UK would benefit from a more coordinated approach from different organisations to bring together expertise in large database, management and analysis, audit and a national profile for feedback, evidence-based guidelines and guidelines development skills, expertise in the practice of changes together with the promotion by credible perinatal authorities of clinical practice.