Safety and compliance among newly qualified paramedics in a pre-hospital clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product: a post-hoc analysis of the PACKMaN randomised controlled trial.

Andy Rosser, Imogen Gunson, Zoe Green, Ranjit Lall, Felix Michelet, Elisha Miller, Joshua Miller, Hannah Noordali, Gavin Perkins, Owen Stanley, Michael Smyth
{"title":"Safety and compliance among newly qualified paramedics in a pre-hospital clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product: a post-hoc analysis of the PACKMaN randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Andy Rosser, Imogen Gunson, Zoe Green, Ranjit Lall, Felix Michelet, Elisha Miller, Joshua Miller, Hannah Noordali, Gavin Perkins, Owen Stanley, Michael Smyth","doi":"10.29045/14784726.2025.12.10.3.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pre-hospital research has unique challenges. Ambulance clinicians are required to enrol patients in research trials during emergency situations, often remote from the research team at time of recruitment. As newly qualified paramedics (NQPs) represent a significant and growing proportion of ambulance clinicians, it is important to establish whether they can safely and effectively recruit patients to clinical trials. This article reports a post-hoc analysis of the PACKMaN trial, a large, double-blind randomised controlled trial of an investigational medicinal product of ketamine versus morphine in the pre-hospital setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) experienced by patients recruited to the PACKMaN trial, as well as protocol non-compliances (NCs) experienced by paramedics during the trial, were retrospectively analysed. We compared recruitment, incidence and type of AE, as well as incidence of SAEs and NCs dichotomised by paramedic experience.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 458 patients, 259 (56.6%) and 199 (43.4%) were recruited by experienced paramedics and NQPs, respectively. Incidence of AEs was similar regardless of experience: experienced paramedics reported 128/259 (49.8%) and NQPs reported 91/199 (45.7%) (OR 0.86 95% CI [0.60-1.25]). Incidence of SAEs were slightly increased in the NQP group (8/199 (4.0%)), compared to experienced paramedics (4/259 (1.5%)); however, this was not statistically significant (OR 2.67, 95% CI [0.66-9.00]). NC was similar in both groups: experienced paramedics 3/259 (1.2%) and NQPs 6/199 (3.0%) (OR 2.65 95% CI [0.66-10.74]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In a double-blind controlled trial of an investigational medicinal product, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of AEs or NCs between NQPs and experienced paramedics. NQPs made an important contribution to patient recruitment in this study, improving the generalisability. SAEs and NCs were rare, and patients received analgesics safely. There was no correlation between experience and AE likelihood, and no safety concerns identified arising from NQP participation. Our findings demonstrate that NQPs can safely recruit patients to clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":72470,"journal":{"name":"British paramedic journal","volume":"10 3","pages":"10-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12699513/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British paramedic journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29045/14784726.2025.12.10.3.10","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: Pre-hospital research has unique challenges. Ambulance clinicians are required to enrol patients in research trials during emergency situations, often remote from the research team at time of recruitment. As newly qualified paramedics (NQPs) represent a significant and growing proportion of ambulance clinicians, it is important to establish whether they can safely and effectively recruit patients to clinical trials. This article reports a post-hoc analysis of the PACKMaN trial, a large, double-blind randomised controlled trial of an investigational medicinal product of ketamine versus morphine in the pre-hospital setting.

Methods: Adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) experienced by patients recruited to the PACKMaN trial, as well as protocol non-compliances (NCs) experienced by paramedics during the trial, were retrospectively analysed. We compared recruitment, incidence and type of AE, as well as incidence of SAEs and NCs dichotomised by paramedic experience.

Results: Of the 458 patients, 259 (56.6%) and 199 (43.4%) were recruited by experienced paramedics and NQPs, respectively. Incidence of AEs was similar regardless of experience: experienced paramedics reported 128/259 (49.8%) and NQPs reported 91/199 (45.7%) (OR 0.86 95% CI [0.60-1.25]). Incidence of SAEs were slightly increased in the NQP group (8/199 (4.0%)), compared to experienced paramedics (4/259 (1.5%)); however, this was not statistically significant (OR 2.67, 95% CI [0.66-9.00]). NC was similar in both groups: experienced paramedics 3/259 (1.2%) and NQPs 6/199 (3.0%) (OR 2.65 95% CI [0.66-10.74]).

Conclusion: In a double-blind controlled trial of an investigational medicinal product, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of AEs or NCs between NQPs and experienced paramedics. NQPs made an important contribution to patient recruitment in this study, improving the generalisability. SAEs and NCs were rare, and patients received analgesics safely. There was no correlation between experience and AE likelihood, and no safety concerns identified arising from NQP participation. Our findings demonstrate that NQPs can safely recruit patients to clinical trials.

一种研究性药品院前临床试验中新合格护理人员的安全性和依从性:PACKMaN随机对照试验的事后分析
院前研究面临着独特的挑战。救护车临床医生被要求在紧急情况下招募患者参加研究试验,通常在招募时远离研究小组。由于新合格的护理人员(nqp)在救护车临床医生中所占的比例越来越大,因此确定他们是否能够安全有效地招募患者参加临床试验非常重要。本文报道了PACKMaN试验的事后分析,PACKMaN试验是一项大型双盲随机对照试验,在院前环境中对氯胺酮与吗啡进行研究。方法:回顾性分析PACKMaN试验招募患者的不良事件(ae)和严重不良事件(sae),以及护理人员在试验期间遇到的方案不遵守情况(nc)。我们比较了招募、发生率和AE的类型,以及根据护理人员经验划分的SAEs和NCs的发生率。结果:458例患者中有259例(56.6%)由经验丰富的护理人员招募,199例(43.4%)由NQPs招募。无论经验如何,不良事件的发生率相似:经验丰富的护理人员报告为128/259 (49.8%),NQPs报告为91/199 (45.7%)(OR 0.86 95% CI[0.60-1.25])。NQP组的SAEs发生率(8/199(4.0%))略高于经验丰富的护理人员(4/259 (1.5%));然而,这没有统计学意义(OR 2.67, 95% CI[0.66-9.00])。两组的NC相似:经验丰富的护理人员3/259(1.2%)和NQPs 6/199 (3.0%) (OR 2.65 95% CI[0.66-10.74])。结论:在一项研究药品的双盲对照试验中,NQPs和经验丰富的护理人员之间ae或nc的发生率无统计学差异。NQPs在本研究中对患者招募做出了重要贡献,提高了通用性。SAEs和NCs是罕见的,患者接受镇痛药是安全的。经验与AE可能性之间没有相关性,也没有发现因参与NQP而引起的安全问题。我们的研究结果表明,NQPs可以安全地招募患者进行临床试验。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书