Effects of Trauma Life Support Training on Patient Outcomes: A Pilot Cluster Randomised Trial

Martin Gerdin Warnberg, Trauma life support training Effectiveness Research Network (TERN) collaborators
{"title":"Effects of Trauma Life Support Training on Patient Outcomes: A Pilot Cluster Randomised Trial","authors":"Martin Gerdin Warnberg, Trauma life support training Effectiveness Research Network (TERN) collaborators","doi":"10.1101/2024.03.13.24304236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Trauma life support training programmes aim to improve trauma outcomes but there is no evidence from controlled trials to show that they work. We conducted a pilot study to assess the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effect of Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) and Primary Trauma Care (PTC) with standard care on patient outcomes. Methods and analysis We piloted a pragmatic three-armed parallel, cluster randomised, controlled trial in tertiary care hospitals across metropolitan areas in India. We included adult trauma patients and residents managing these patients. Two hospitals were randomised to ATLS, two to PTC, and three to standard care. The feasibility outcomes were consent rate, lost to follow up rate, pass rate, missing data rates, and differences in distribution between observed and data extracted from medical records. We conducted community consultations in parallel with the pilot trial. Ethics and dissemination We obtained ethical approval from all participating hospitals. Results Between April 2022 and February 2023 we included 376 patients and 21 residents. The percentage of patients who consented to follow up was 77% and the percentage of residents who consented to training was 100%. The lost to follow up rate was 14%. The pass rate was 100%. The missing data rate ranged from 0 to 98. Data collected through observations were similar to data extracted from medical records, but there was more missing data in the extracted data. Conclusions Conducting a full-scale cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effects of ATLS, PTC, and standard care on patient outcomes should be feasible after incorporating key lessons from this pilot.","PeriodicalId":501290,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Emergency Medicine","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.13.24304236","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Trauma life support training programmes aim to improve trauma outcomes but there is no evidence from controlled trials to show that they work. We conducted a pilot study to assess the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effect of Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) and Primary Trauma Care (PTC) with standard care on patient outcomes. Methods and analysis We piloted a pragmatic three-armed parallel, cluster randomised, controlled trial in tertiary care hospitals across metropolitan areas in India. We included adult trauma patients and residents managing these patients. Two hospitals were randomised to ATLS, two to PTC, and three to standard care. The feasibility outcomes were consent rate, lost to follow up rate, pass rate, missing data rates, and differences in distribution between observed and data extracted from medical records. We conducted community consultations in parallel with the pilot trial. Ethics and dissemination We obtained ethical approval from all participating hospitals. Results Between April 2022 and February 2023 we included 376 patients and 21 residents. The percentage of patients who consented to follow up was 77% and the percentage of residents who consented to training was 100%. The lost to follow up rate was 14%. The pass rate was 100%. The missing data rate ranged from 0 to 98. Data collected through observations were similar to data extracted from medical records, but there was more missing data in the extracted data. Conclusions Conducting a full-scale cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effects of ATLS, PTC, and standard care on patient outcomes should be feasible after incorporating key lessons from this pilot.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
创伤生命支持培训对患者预后的影响:分组随机试验
导言:创伤生命支持培训计划旨在改善创伤治疗效果,但目前还没有对照试验的证据表明这些计划有效。我们开展了一项试点研究,以评估开展分组随机对照试验的可行性,比较高级创伤生命支持(ATLS)和初级创伤护理(PTC)与标准护理对患者预后的影响。方法与分析 我们在印度大都会地区的三级医院试行了一项三臂平行、分组随机对照试验。试验对象包括成年创伤患者和管理这些患者的住院医师。两家医院随机采用 ATLS,两家医院采用 PTC,三家医院采用标准护理。可行性结果包括同意率、失去随访率、合格率、数据缺失率,以及观察到的数据和从医疗记录中提取的数据之间的分布差异。在开展试点试验的同时,我们还进行了社区咨询。伦理和传播 我们获得了所有参与医院的伦理批准。结果 在 2022 年 4 月至 2023 年 2 月期间,我们纳入了 376 名患者和 21 名住院医师。同意接受随访的患者比例为 77%,同意接受培训的住院医师比例为 100%。失去随访的比例为 14%。合格率为 100%。数据缺失率从 0 到 98 不等。通过观察收集到的数据与从病历中提取的数据相似,但提取数据中的缺失数据较多。结论 在吸取本次试验的主要经验后,进行一次全面的分组随机对照试验,比较 ATLS、PTC 和标准护理对患者预后的影响应该是可行的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
In-hospital stay of anemic patients (70-90 g.L-1) in the ED with/without transfusion: a single-center propensity-matched study. Accuracy of the National Early Warning Score version 2 (NEWS2) in predicting need for time-critical treatment: Retrospective observational cohort study What strategies are used to select patients for direct admission under acute medicine services? A systematic review of the literature. Feasibility of mixed-reality telecollaboration to enhance pre-medical student shadowing education Evaluating the Impact of NHS Strikes on Patient Flow through Emergency Departments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1