- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT05149820
Point of Care RandOmisation Systems for Performing Embedded Comparative Effectiveness Trials Of Routine Treatments (PROSPECTOR)
A Single-Centre Feasibility Study of PROSPECTOR - Point of Care RandOmisation Systems for Performing Embedded Comparative Effectiveness Trials Of Routine Treatments in Critical Care
Every day, doctors and nurses make hundreds of decisions about treatments - like when to start or stop them, or how frequently to give them. Ideally, decisions are based on gold standard evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs). Unfortunately, for many treatments little or no evidence exists and clinicians must use knowledge and experience to decide what is best.
As clinicians are all different, this leads to random variation in how treatments are given to patients. For example, magnesium is routinely given in intensive care to prevent abnormal heart rhythms. There is little evidence supporting this, and clinicians vary in how they administer magnesium. Traditional RCTs might be used to examine whether more magnesium is better than less magnesium, but this method is inefficient and expensive for investigating multiple comparative treatment questions.
Clinical trials are becoming more efficient by using existing hospital computer systems to run them. However, research teams continue to perform tasks like randomisation manually. For questions like magnesium supplementation, which occur daily, this is labour intensive and infeasible.
Hospital computer systems also possess mechanisms for prompting and alerting clinicians for particular decisions, reminding them of best practices, warning them of potential problems. These systems may be modified to allow clinicians to randomise patients, under specific conditions.
The investigators propose to assess whether modified computer prompts can be used to highlight the magnesium supplementation decision to clinicians. These would prompt the clinician to evaluate the uncertainty around giving or withholding magnesium in that instance. If in agreement that the optimal decision is unclear, clinicians can choose to randomise the patient within a predetermined trial structure. If the clinician knows better, they may override the prompt and continue with their preference. In both cases, the system learns from the decision and the patient receives optimal care determined by their clinician.
Study Overview
Status
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Trial Design:
A single-centre, mixed methods, feasibility study, embedded within the Electronic Health Record System (EHRS). The study will be conducted on critical care units within University College London Hospitals NHS Trust and will involve patients undergoing elective major surgery which necessitates postoperative admission to critical care. The study will be pragmatic in nature, with minimal disruption to usual care pathways.
The study will consist of three phases:
- Feasibility Phase - Simulation guided semi-structured interviews with clinicians.
- Intervention Phase - Deployment of electronic prompts to evaluate candidate clinical question.
- Follow Up Phase - Patient and clinician semi-structured interviews.
Research Hypothesis:
Electronically delivered prompts provide a feasible method of delivering point-of-care randomisation for the evaluation of routine treatments not amenable to investigation using standard clinical trial designs.
Clinical Example Hypothesis:
Liberal magnesium supplementation (serum concentration < 1.0 mmol/L) is superior to a restrictive supplementation strategy (serum concentration < 0.75 mmol/L) for the prevention of Atrial Fibrillation in a general critical care population.
Summary of Interventions:
This study will compare Nudge and Preference electronic Point-Of-Care Randomisation (ePOCR) prompts against their ability to generate compliance with randomised allocations to liberal or restrictive magnesium supplementation strategy.
Following postoperative admission to the critical care unit, participants will undergo randomisation between Nudge or Preference prompts and Liberal or Restrictive magnesium supplementation strategies. After the two randomisations steps are complete, both ePOCR designs follow the same pathway for activation and deployment to the bedside nurse.
Once the EHRS detects a new serum magnesium result has been received, the system will screen the participant against exclusion criteria 1-5. Each new result triggers the same screening process. If the participant is eligible to proceed, the prompt will activate and display to the bedside nurse under two conditions:
- Accessing of the blood test results in the EHRS.
- Accessing the supplemental magnesium prescription within the EHRS. Once the prompt has displayed and been acknowledged by the bedside nurse, further activation will be suppressed until a new serum magnesium result becomes available. This process will be tested in silico prior to deployment to the live EHRS and the results of testing made available as part of the study materials.
Where additional supplementation is indicated by the prompt, the nurse retains control over the dose and frequency of administration, as directed by the standardised prescription. All other aspects of postoperative care remain as standard and directed by the clinical team.
Study Type
Enrollment (Anticipated)
Phase
- Phase 4
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
- Name: Matthew G Wilson
- Phone Number: 02034567890
- Email: matthew.wilson8@nhs.net
Study Contact Backup
- Name: Steve K Harris
- Phone Number: 02034567890
- Email: S.harris8@nhs.net
Study Locations
-
-
-
London, United Kingdom
- Recruiting
- University College London Hospitals NHS Trust
-
Contact:
- Matthew Wilson, MBBS
- Email: matthew.wilson8@nhs.net
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
Patients:
- Age 18 years or over.
- Undergoing elective surgery of complexity sufficient to warrant postoperative critical care admission (major/complex major surgery)
- Must be able to give written informed consent to participate
Clinicians:
1. Must be regularly involved in the care of postoperative patients in critical care.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Active treatment for bronchospasm preceding deployment of the electronic prompt, defined as patient receiving bronchodilator therapy or Magnesium infusion.
- Any documented allergy or intolerance to any preparation of supplemental Magnesium.
- Serum Magnesium result > 1.5 or < 0.5 mmol/L on blood tests obtained during critical care admission .
- Pregnancy
- Atrial Fibrillation on initial arrival to critical care.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Other
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Active Comparator: Nudge Prompt, Liberal Magnesium Strategy
This group will be randomised to receive the Nudge design of electronic point of care randomisation prompt.
The prompt will encourage the clinician to follow a liberal magnesium supplementation strategy.
|
Two designs of electronic point of care randomisation tool will be evaluated.
Other Names:
Liberal Strategy: magnesium supplementation at serum level < 0.75 mmol/L Restrictive Strategy: magnesium supplementation at serum level < 1.0 mmol/L
Other Names:
|
Active Comparator: Nudge Prompt, Restrictive Magnesium Strategy
This group will be randomised to receive the Nudge design of electronic point of care randomisation prompt.
The prompt will encourage the clinician to follow a restrictive magnesium supplementation strategy.
|
Two designs of electronic point of care randomisation tool will be evaluated.
Other Names:
Liberal Strategy: magnesium supplementation at serum level < 0.75 mmol/L Restrictive Strategy: magnesium supplementation at serum level < 1.0 mmol/L
Other Names:
|
Active Comparator: Preference Prompt, Liberal Magnesium Strategy
This group will be randomised to receive the Preference design of electronic point of care randomisation prompt.
The prompt will encourage the clinician to follow a liberal magnesium supplementation strategy.
|
Two designs of electronic point of care randomisation tool will be evaluated.
Other Names:
Liberal Strategy: magnesium supplementation at serum level < 0.75 mmol/L Restrictive Strategy: magnesium supplementation at serum level < 1.0 mmol/L
Other Names:
|
Active Comparator: Preference Prompt, Restrictive Magnesium Strategy
This group will be randomised to receive the Preference design of electronic point of care randomisation prompt.
The prompt will encourage the clinician to follow a restrictive magnesium supplementation strategy.
|
Two designs of electronic point of care randomisation tool will be evaluated.
Other Names:
Liberal Strategy: magnesium supplementation at serum level < 0.75 mmol/L Restrictive Strategy: magnesium supplementation at serum level < 1.0 mmol/L
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Effectiveness of Electronic Point of Care Randomisation Prompts
Time Frame: Duration of individual participant admission to critical care, or five postoperative days, whichever is sooner
|
The proportion of each design which result in compliance with the randomised allocation by the clinician.
We define compliance with the prompt as 1) the appropriate administration of supplemental magnesium, following receiving the electronic prompt, where the measured serum magnesium is less than the randomised threshold OR; 2) the appropriate withholding of supplemental magnesium following prompt deployment, where the measured serum magnesium is greater than the randomised threshold.
|
Duration of individual participant admission to critical care, or five postoperative days, whichever is sooner
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Acceptability to critical care clinicians of using the Electronic Point of Care Randomisation prompts assessed by semi-structured interviews
Time Frame: Throughout study duration, maximum 6 months from study start date
|
The acceptability of using electronic point of care randomisation prompts, for the investigation of routine comparative effectiveness research questions like the study example will be assessed using a program of semi-structured interviews.
These interviews will be delivered to critical care clinicians who may interact with the prompts.
Interview data will be evaluated using a thematic analysis approach to derive an assessment of overall acceptability.
|
Throughout study duration, maximum 6 months from study start date
|
Clinician preferences for type of Electronic Point of Care Randomisation Prompt design assessed by semi-structured interviews
Time Frame: Throughout study duration, maximum 6 months from study start date
|
Critical care clinicians will be invited to express a preference for the design of electronic randomisation prompt having been introduced to both designs.
This will be evaluated using a programme of semi-structured interviews which will include simulations of both prompt designs to aid recall.
Preference will be asked directly and response displayed as proportion of clinicians preferring each design (Nudge or Preference).
|
Throughout study duration, maximum 6 months from study start date
|
Acceptability to patients of using either a Pre-Emptive or Opt-Out model to obtain informed consent for the conduct of Comparative Effectiveness Research, assessed by semi-structured interview.
Time Frame: Throughout study duration, maximum 6 months from study start date
|
Patients will be invited to undertake a semi-structured interview designed to ascertain their thoughts and opinions on each type of consent model.
In addition, the interview will invite patients to consider different hypothetical research questions and how acceptable they feel each method of obtaining consent is for each.
Interviews will be evaluated using a thematic analysis approach and examples supporting patient viewpoints presented in the results.
|
Throughout study duration, maximum 6 months from study start date
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Collaborators
Investigators
- Study Director: Steve K Harris, University College London Hospitals
- Principal Investigator: Matthew G Wilson, University College, London
Publications and helpful links
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Anticipated)
Study Completion (Anticipated)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- 142382
- 279737 (Other Identifier: IRAS ID, Health Research Agency)
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Magnesium Deficiency
-
Seoul National University Bundang HospitalCompleted
-
Anthony RosnerWilliam Maykel, D.C., Wellness MedicineCompleted
-
Wageningen UniversityGelderse Vallei HospitalUnknownMagnesium Deficiency
-
Natural Calm CanadaNutrasource Pharmaceutical and Nutraceutical Services, Inc.Completed
-
Frieda WolfRecruiting
-
University of WorcesterCoventry University; Beijing Sport UninversityCompletedMagnesium DeficiencyUnited Kingdom
-
Drexel UniversityTerminatedEpilepsy | Vitamin D Deficiency | Magnesium DeficiencyUnited States
-
University of Wisconsin, MadisonNational Institutes of Health (NIH); National Institute on Aging (NIA)CompletedCalcium Metabolism Disorders | Magnesium DeficiencyUnited States
-
My Goodlife SASNeptuneCompletedStress, Psychological | Magnesium DeficiencyFrance
-
Glasgow Royal InfirmaryNHS Greater Glasgow and ClydeCompletedInflammation | Iron-deficiency | Magnesium Deficiency | Thiamine DeficiencyUnited Kingdom
Clinical Trials on Electronic Point of Care Randomisation tool
-
University of WashingtonAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)CompletedConstipation | Sinusitis | Allergic Rhinitis | Bronchiolitis | Urticaria | Pharyngitis | Croup | Acute Otitis MediaUnited States
-
Ward of the 21st CenturyCanadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); Alberta Health services; University...CompletedOther Diagnoses, Comorbidities, and ComplicationsCanada
-
Goethe UniversityUniversity Hospital, EssenCompletedCardiac Surgery | Coagulation ManagementGermany
-
Temple UniversityCompleted
-
Medical University of ViennaWithdrawnTelemedicine | EchocardiographyAustria
-
University College, LondonRecruiting
-
International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research...RecruitingLactate Blood Increase | Severe Sepsis With Septic ShockBangladesh
-
WellSpan HealthStony Brook University; University of California, IrvineRecruitingPulmonary EmbolismUnited States