35 Online randomised controlled trial to improve clinical estimates of survival (ORACLES): study design

IntroductionClinicians often struggle to recognise whether palliative care patients are imminently dying.1 2 A previous study identified the factors that expert palliative care doctors (with demonstrated prognostic skills) had used to judge the probability of patients dying within 72 hours.Aim and methodsTo evaluate whether an online training resource can teach medical students to formulate survival estimates for palliative care patients that are more similar to experts’ estimates. In this online randomised controlled trial we will recruit 128 students in the penultimate/final year of medical school. Participants are asked to review three series of vignettes describing patients referred to palliative care and provide estimates (0%–100%) about the probability that patients will die within 72 hours. After the first series of vignettes students in the intervention arm are given access to the training resource showing how experts weighted the various symptoms/signs. Participants are asked to complete a second series of vignettes and then a third series after two weeks to assess if any effect has been maintained.ResultsStudents’ survival estimates will be correlated with experts’ estimates to determine the baseline level of agreement and any changes following the intervention. The primary outcome will be the survival estimates provided in the second series of vignettes. Secondary outcomes include the estimates provided at the follow-up the weighting of symptoms/signs and levels of discrimination and consistency.ConclusionThis study will provide evidence about whether a brief low-cost online training resource can influence how medical students make prognostic decisions in an experimental setting.References. Neuberger J. More care less pathway: A review of the liverpool care pathway.Department of Health2013. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212450/Liverpool_Care_Pathway.pdf [Accessed: 30thMay 2018]. White N, Reid F, Harris A, Harries P, Stone P. A systematic review of predictions of survival in palliative care: How accurate are clinicians and who are the experts?PLoS One25 August 2016;11(8):e0161407. Available from: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161407&type=printable [Accessed: 30th May 2018]

Download Full-text

Protocol for the ORaClES study: an online randomised controlled trial to improve clinical estimates of survival using a training resource for medical students

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025265 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. e025265 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Linda Oostendorp ◽

Nicola White ◽

Priscilla Harries ◽

Sarah Yardley ◽

Christopher Tomlinson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Medical Students ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Online Training ◽

Double Blind ◽

Patient Will ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

The Uk ◽

Symptoms And Signs

IntroductionClinicians often struggle to recognise when palliative care patients are imminently dying (last 72 hours of life). A previous study identified the factors that expert palliative care doctors (with demonstrated prognostic skills) had used, to form a judgement about which patients were imminently dying. This protocol describes a study to evaluate whether an online training resource showing how experts weighted the importance of various symptoms and signs can teach medical students to formulate survival estimates for palliative care patients that are more similar to the experts’ estimates.Methods and analysisThis online double-blind randomised controlled trial will recruit at least 128 students in the penultimate or final year of medical school in the UK. Participants are asked to review three series of vignettes describing patients referred to palliative care and provide an estimate about the probability (0%–100%) that each patient will die within 72 hours. After the first series, students randomised to the intervention arm are given access to an online training resource. All participants are asked to complete a second series of vignettes. After 2 weeks, all participants are asked to complete a third series. The primary outcome will be the probability of death estimates (0%–100%) provided by students in the intervention and control arms for the second series of vignettes. Secondary outcomes include the maintenance effect at 2-week follow-up, weighting of individual symptoms and signs, and level of expertise (discrimination and consistency).Ethics and disseminationApproval has been obtained from the UCL Research Ethics Committee (8675/002) and local approvals will be obtained as appropriate. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals using an open access format and presented at academic conferences. We will also publicise our findings on the Marie Curie website.Trial registration numberNCT03360812; Pre-results.

Download Full-text

Online training improves medical students’ ability to recognise when a person is dying: The ORaClES randomised controlled trial

Palliative Medicine ◽

10.1177/0269216319880767 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 34 (1) ◽

pp. 134-144

Author(s):

Nicola White ◽

Linda JM Oostendorp ◽

Christopher Tomlinson ◽

Sarah Yardley ◽

Federico Ricciardi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Medical Students ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Learning Effect ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Online Training ◽

Absolute Difference ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Time Point

Background: Recognising dying is a key clinical skill for doctors, yet there is little training. Aim: To assess the effectiveness of an online training resource designed to enhance medical students’ ability to recognise dying. Design: Online multicentre double-blind randomised controlled trial (NCT03360812). The training resource for the intervention group was developed from a group of expert palliative care doctors’ weightings of various signs/symptoms to recognise dying. The control group received no training. Setting/participants: Participants were senior UK medical students. They reviewed 92 patient summaries and provided a probability of death within 72 hours (0% certain survival – 100% certain death) pre, post, and 2 weeks after the training. Primary outcome: (1) Mean Absolute Difference (MAD) score between participants’ and the experts’ scores, immediately post intervention. Secondary outcomes: (2) weight attributed to each factor, (3) learning effect and (4) level of expertise (Cochran–Weiss–Shanteau (CWS)). Results: Out of 168 participants, 135 completed the trial (80%); 66 received the intervention (49%). After using the training resource, the intervention group had better agreement with the experts in their survival estimates ( δMAD = −3.43, 95% CI −0.11 to −0.34, p = <0.001) and weighting of clinical factors. There was no learning effect of the MAD scores at the 2-week time point ( δMAD = 1.50, 95% CI −0.87 to 3.86, p = 0.21). At the 2-week time point, the intervention group was statistically more expert in their decision-making versus controls (intervention CWS = 146.04 (SD 140.21), control CWS = 110.75 (SD 104.05); p = 0.01). Conclusion: The online training resource proved effective in altering the decision-making of medical students to agree more with expert decision-making.

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Effects of a transitional palliative care model on patients with end-stage heart failure: a randomised controlled trial.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.726213930.793517382 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Janet Abrahm

Keyword(s):

Heart Failure ◽

Palliative Care ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Care Model ◽

End Stage Heart Failure ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

End Stage

Download Full-text

Early Interdisciplinary Palliative Care in Patients with Previously Untreated Metastatic Oesophagogastric Cancer: A Phase 3 Randomised Controlled Trial

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.3582831 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Zhihao Lu ◽

Yu Fang ◽

Chang Liu ◽

Xiaotian Zhang ◽

Xiaowei Xin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Oesophagogastric Cancer

Download Full-text

Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of specialty outpatient versus nurse-led telephonic palliative care of older adults with advanced illness

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025692 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

pp. e025692 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Corita R Grudzen ◽

Deborah J Shim ◽

Abigail M Schmucker ◽

Jeanne Cho ◽

Keith S Goldfeld

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Older Adults ◽

Palliative Care ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Case Management ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Chronic Obstructive ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

End Stage

IntroductionEmergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. However, the optimal modality for providing such interventions is unknown. This study aims to compare nurse-led telephonic case management to specialty outpatient palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness on: (1) quality of life in patients; (2) healthcare utilisation; (3) loneliness and symptom burden and (4) caregiver strain, caregiver quality of life and bereavement.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled trial in ED patients comparing two established models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. We will enrol 1350 patients aged 50+ years and 675 of their caregivers across nine EDs. Eligible patients: (1) have advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumour) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, end-stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/m2, or global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease stage III, IV or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease); (2) speak English; (3) are scheduled for ED discharge or observation status; (4) reside locally; (5) have a working telephone and (6) are insured. Patients will be excluded if they: (1) have dementia; (2) have received hospice care or two or more palliative care visits in the last 6 months or (3) reside in a long-term care facility. We will use patient-level block randomisation, stratified by ED site and disease. Effectiveness will be compared by measuring the impact of each intervention on the specified outcomes. The primary outcome will measure change in patient quality of life.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained at all study sites. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT03325985; Pre-results.

Download Full-text