Public and patient involvement in prehospital care research development – designing the rapid 2 trial
Average rating
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Star rating
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Author
Evans, Bridie A.Bulger, Jenna
Ford, S.
Foster, Theresa

Goodacre, Steve
Jones, S.
Keen, L.
Longo, M.
Lyons, Ronan
Pallister, I.
Parry, L.
Rees, Nigel
Robinson, M.
Siriwardena, Aloysius

Watkins, Alan
Snooks, Helen
Journal title
BMJ Open
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Background Involving patients and public members in research helps ensure evidence is relevant, accountable and high quality. Public and patient involvement (PPI) is required in many funding applications. We aimed to involve public contributors in designing a research bid about prehospital management for hip fracture. Method We recruited two public contributors with experience of hip fracture and prehospital care to our research team of academic, clinical and managerial partners developing the RAPID 2 proposal evaluating paramedic administration of Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block, a local anesthetic injection into the hip. We supported them to consult with a public/patient group and identify patient priorities to inform our decisions. We held research development meetings and shared project drafts to gain views, share decisions and amend documents. Results Consultation responses suggested patient priorities after hip fracture were to return home, recover mobility and gain independence. These views guided our decisions on setting primary outcomes which were length-of-hospital-stay and health-related quality-of-life. Their concern about the study design causing delayed access to treatment meant we decided to identify common exclusion criteria before randomisation to expedite access to pain management and reduce attrition. Public contributors also agreed patients should be offered an incentive for completing and returning questionnaires to enhance data completeness. Conclusion Involving public contributors enabled the research team to identify patient-prioritised outcomes and adjust the proposed study design to reflect these in the proposal. Public contributors will remain involved if funding is awarded to ensure patient perspectives inform all stages of research management and dissemination. Conflict of interest None. Funding PRIME Centre Wales. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/., https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/Suppl_2/A8.2 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-EMS.22ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-EMS.22
Scopus Count