Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMiller, Joshua
dc.contributor.authorKeating, Samuel
dc.contributor.authorFuller, Gordon W.
dc.contributor.authorGoodacre, Steve
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-23T14:55:15Z
dc.date.available2020-01-23T14:55:15Z
dc.date.issued2019-09-24
dc.identifier.citationMiller, J. et al, 2019. ‘I wish there was CPAP in every box’: internet-based survey responses of clinicians recruiting to a pilot randomised controlled trial of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for patients with acute respiratory failure. Emergency Medicine Journal, 36 (10), e11.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1472-0213
dc.identifier.issn1472-0205
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/emermed-2019-999abs.25
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12417/679
dc.description.abstractBackground Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is not in widespread use in UK ambulance services, but could benefit patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). As a new treatment in this context, clinician acceptability is an important factor in the feasibility of conducting definitive research in the prehospital arena. Methods As part of a pilot randomised controlled trial (the ACUTE study), recruiting clinicians were emailed after enrolling patients to either the CPAP or standard-care arm, and were asked to complete an optional, anonymous, internet-based survey. The survey used a mixture of closed questions, Likert-scaled answers and free text to explore staff views on both the treatment and the trial procedures. Quantitative responses were analysed descriptively, and qualitative answers thematically. Results Recruiting clinicians for all 77 patients were sent survey links, with 40 email responses received. Respondents felt confident diagnosing ARF and determining trial eligibility. CPAP-arm respondents found the equipment easy-to-use and felt it did not delay transport to hospital. Most standard-care respondents said they would have liked CPAP to be available to their patients. Respondents described varying responses from receiving hospital staff. Conclusions Prehospital CPAP seems acceptable to clinicians. Limitations of this survey are that it was targeted only at clinicians who have already opted to take part in the trial, and so may exclude a body of staff who find the treatment unacceptable at face value. Not all clinicians who enrolled patients completed the survey, which could suggest a response bias or simply a reflection of its optional nature within the trial. Future pilot studies could mandate an acceptability survey, and also seek the views of staff not taking part in the interventional study. Trial teams may need to better explain the rationale of comparing a new intervention with standard care, and offer more widespread hospital staff awareness sessions., https://emj.bmj.com/content/36/10/e11.2 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/emermed-2019-999abs.25
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectEmergency Medical Servicesen_US
dc.subjectContinuous Positive Airway Pressureen_US
dc.subjectRespiratory Insufficiencyen_US
dc.subjectSurveys and Questionnairesen_US
dc.subjectEquipment and Suppliesen_US
dc.title‘I wish there was CPAP in every box’: internet-based survey responses of clinicians recruiting to a pilot randomised controlled trial of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for patients with acute respiratory failureen_US
dc.typeConference Paper/Proceeding/Abstract
dc.source.journaltitleEmergency Medicine Journalen_US
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-12-16
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
refterms.dateFirstOnline2019-09-24
html.description.abstractBackground Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is not in widespread use in UK ambulance services, but could benefit patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). As a new treatment in this context, clinician acceptability is an important factor in the feasibility of conducting definitive research in the prehospital arena. Methods As part of a pilot randomised controlled trial (the ACUTE study), recruiting clinicians were emailed after enrolling patients to either the CPAP or standard-care arm, and were asked to complete an optional, anonymous, internet-based survey. The survey used a mixture of closed questions, Likert-scaled answers and free text to explore staff views on both the treatment and the trial procedures. Quantitative responses were analysed descriptively, and qualitative answers thematically. Results Recruiting clinicians for all 77 patients were sent survey links, with 40 email responses received. Respondents felt confident diagnosing ARF and determining trial eligibility. CPAP-arm respondents found the equipment easy-to-use and felt it did not delay transport to hospital. Most standard-care respondents said they would have liked CPAP to be available to their patients. Respondents described varying responses from receiving hospital staff. Conclusions Prehospital CPAP seems acceptable to clinicians. Limitations of this survey are that it was targeted only at clinicians who have already opted to take part in the trial, and so may exclude a body of staff who find the treatment unacceptable at face value. Not all clinicians who enrolled patients completed the survey, which could suggest a response bias or simply a reflection of its optional nature within the trial. Future pilot studies could mandate an acceptability survey, and also seek the views of staff not taking part in the interventional study. Trial teams may need to better explain the rationale of comparing a new intervention with standard care, and offer more widespread hospital staff awareness sessions., https://emj.bmj.com/content/36/10/e11.2 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/emermed-2019-999abs.25en_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record