Digital integration of research conduct into clinical care: results of the PROSPECTOR randomised feasibility study.

IF 9 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Matthew G Wilson, Folkert W Asselbergs, Nausheen Saleem, Lelia Jeilani, David Brealey, Matthew R Sydes, Steve Harris
{"title":"Digital integration of research conduct into clinical care: results of the PROSPECTOR randomised feasibility study.","authors":"Matthew G Wilson, Folkert W Asselbergs, Nausheen Saleem, Lelia Jeilani, David Brealey, Matthew R Sydes, Steve Harris","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a clinically integrated randomised comparative effectiveness trial using digital clinical trial infrastructure within an electronic patient record (EPR).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A mixed-methods, unblinded, feasibility study of digital clinical trial system incorporating testing of two designs of electronic point-of-care randomisation prompt.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The study was conducted at University College London Hospitals NHS Trust between March and November 2022. The study used a real clinical research question for context, comparing liberal vs restrictive strategies for magnesium supplementation to prevent new-onset atrial fibrillation in critical care.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adult patients undergoing elective, non-cardiac surgical procedures expecting postoperative admission to critical care were recruited.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>A digital trial system screened participants continuously against eligibility criteria. Participants were automatically randomised (1:1) to (1) magnesium supplementation strategy and (2) one of two electronic randomisation prompt designs (nudge or preference).Electronic point-of-care randomisation prompts displayed to clinicians at regular intervals, inviting them to follow a randomised magnesium supplementation suggestion.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome measure was a composite determination of study design feasibility (including recruitment, technical performance and concordance between the randomised suggestion and the observed clinician action).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>23 patients were recruited and 11 successfully randomised. The implemented digital systems for automated eligibility screening, randomisation, data collection and follow-up demonstrated technical feasibility. 47 electronic point-of-care randomisation prompts successfully deployed across 11 patients. Clinician actions were concordant with randomised suggestions in 32 prompts (68%).Technical and implementational barriers to delivering the electronic point-of-care randomisation prompts were identified. Patients were followed up to 30 days following discharge from hospital, with no serious adverse events attributable to participation identified.There was insufficient data to make a quantitative determination on the superiority of either prompt design. Clinician feedback suggested the simplified design (nudge) had greater utility.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates that digitally embedding clinical trial infrastructure into a site-level EPR and integrating conduct into clinical care is safe and feasible. Future work will focus on improving and expanding the integrated digital trial design across multiple centres.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT05149820.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113081","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a clinically integrated randomised comparative effectiveness trial using digital clinical trial infrastructure within an electronic patient record (EPR).

Design: A mixed-methods, unblinded, feasibility study of digital clinical trial system incorporating testing of two designs of electronic point-of-care randomisation prompt.

Setting: The study was conducted at University College London Hospitals NHS Trust between March and November 2022. The study used a real clinical research question for context, comparing liberal vs restrictive strategies for magnesium supplementation to prevent new-onset atrial fibrillation in critical care.

Participants: Adult patients undergoing elective, non-cardiac surgical procedures expecting postoperative admission to critical care were recruited.

Interventions: A digital trial system screened participants continuously against eligibility criteria. Participants were automatically randomised (1:1) to (1) magnesium supplementation strategy and (2) one of two electronic randomisation prompt designs (nudge or preference).Electronic point-of-care randomisation prompts displayed to clinicians at regular intervals, inviting them to follow a randomised magnesium supplementation suggestion.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was a composite determination of study design feasibility (including recruitment, technical performance and concordance between the randomised suggestion and the observed clinician action).

Results: 23 patients were recruited and 11 successfully randomised. The implemented digital systems for automated eligibility screening, randomisation, data collection and follow-up demonstrated technical feasibility. 47 electronic point-of-care randomisation prompts successfully deployed across 11 patients. Clinician actions were concordant with randomised suggestions in 32 prompts (68%).Technical and implementational barriers to delivering the electronic point-of-care randomisation prompts were identified. Patients were followed up to 30 days following discharge from hospital, with no serious adverse events attributable to participation identified.There was insufficient data to make a quantitative determination on the superiority of either prompt design. Clinician feedback suggested the simplified design (nudge) had greater utility.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that digitally embedding clinical trial infrastructure into a site-level EPR and integrating conduct into clinical care is safe and feasible. Future work will focus on improving and expanding the integrated digital trial design across multiple centres.

Trial registration number: NCT05149820.

将研究行为数字化整合到临床护理:PROSPECTOR随机可行性研究的结果。
目的:评估在电子病历(EPR)中使用数字临床试验基础设施进行临床综合随机比较有效性试验的可行性。设计:一项混合方法,非盲法,数字临床试验系统的可行性研究,包括两种电子护理点随机化提示设计的测试。环境:该研究于2022年3月至11月在伦敦大学学院医院NHS信托基金进行。该研究使用了一个真实的临床研究问题作为背景,比较了自由和限制性镁补充策略以预防危重症患者新发心房颤动。参与者:接受选择性非心脏外科手术的成年患者,期望术后进入重症监护。干预措施:一个数字试验系统根据资格标准不断筛选参与者。参与者被自动随机(1:1)分配到(1)镁补充策略和(2)两种电子随机提示设计中的一种(轻推或偏好)。定期向临床医生展示电子护理随机化提示,邀请他们遵循随机补充镁的建议。主要结局指标:主要结局指标是研究设计可行性的综合确定(包括招募、技术表现和随机建议与观察到的临床医生行动之间的一致性)。结果:23例患者被招募,11例成功随机化。实施的用于自动资格筛选、随机化、数据收集和随访的数字系统证明了技术可行性。在11名患者中成功部署了47个电子护理点随机提示。临床医生的行动与32个提示(68%)的随机建议一致。确定了提供电子即时护理随机化提示的技术和实施障碍。患者出院后随访至30天,未发现与参与相关的严重不良事件。没有足够的数据来定量确定两种提示设计的优越性。临床医生的反馈表明,简化的设计(轻推)有更大的效用。结论:本研究表明,将临床试验基础设施数字化嵌入到现场级EPR中,并将行为整合到临床护理中是安全可行的。未来的工作将侧重于改进和扩展跨多个中心的集成数字试验设计。试验注册号:NCT05149820。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (BMJ EBM) publishes original evidence-based research, insights and opinions on what matters for health care. We focus on the tools, methods, and concepts that are basic and central to practising evidence-based medicine and deliver relevant, trustworthy and impactful evidence. BMJ EBM is a Plan S compliant Transformative Journal and adheres to the highest possible industry standards for editorial policies and publication ethics.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信