UNCORKED

UNCORKED
Understanding escalation area and corridor care in UK emergency departments (UNCORKED)
This study aims to estimate the proportion of UK emergency department patients experiencing escalation area and corridor care, establish which patients experience such care, and devise a standardised definition for escalation area and corridor care.

Overview

The Study

Due to demands on space many emergency departments in the UK care for patients in areas not originally designed for this purpose. These areas are collectively known as escalation areas and can include hospital corridors. The UNCORKED study aims to estimate the proportion of patients that experience care in these areas and describe which patients do so in terms of basic information such as age, diagnosis and where they move to from the ED.

The study also aims to come up with a standard definition for escalation area and corridor care, which is currently lacking. This work will be important for future research into how patient outcomes are affected by experiencing escalation area and corridor care.

The Data

As part of this study we will collect anonymised patient data from routine medical records such as age, gender and diagnosis made in the emergency department.

We will also be collecting some data about how the emergency department manages patients when their normal care areas are full.

The Benefits

There is currently little data that describes how often escalation areas are used across the UK and which patients experience care in these areas. This research will provide important information to help develop future research into the effects of this care. It will also give clinical leaders a real-world picture of how often emergency departments are over capacity.

An agreed upon definition for escalation and corridor care will provide a common language for future research and policy discussion.

The Results

The final outcomes from the UNCORKED study will be communicated via presentations in scientific meetings and by peer reviewed publications.

We will aim to publish the results approximately 12 months after completion. We may discuss interim results at academic conferences prior to this.

Study Protocol - coming soon

Expressions of interest

If you are interested in UNCORKED running in your emergency department, please complete the expressions of interest form via the button below

Expressions of interest

Site Portal

If you are involved in running UNCORKED at one of our sites, click on the button below to access all the relevant documents and training materials. One of your team will have the password, or email us to receive it.

Site portal - coming soon

ACS:ED

ACS:ED
Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Emergency Department (ACS:ED)
This research aims to evaluate different strategies for investigating suspected cardiac chest pain and the epidemiology of different causes of chest pain across the United Kingdom. We will be collecting data from emergency departments and on individual patients.

Overview

The Study

The ACS:ED study aims to understand how chest pain of a suspected cardiac origin is investigated in the Emergency Department. We will be examining different investigative strategies for evaluating this condition.

We will also be examining the prevalence of patients experiencing a heart attack (acute myocardial infarction) and the distribution of alternative diagnoses found in this group of patients presenting to the emergency department.

The Data

We will collect anonymised data such as your age and gender from your medical records, information about bloods results & the results of your heart-tracing, and what the doctor treating you thought was wrong with you.

We will also be collecting some data from the emergency department about how they investigate and manage these patients as a group.

The Benefits

This research will examine the different diagnostic strategies for investigating cardiac chest pain and how common different diagnoses are. This will impact how we look after these patients in the future.

Through this work we gain an understanding of how common these different conditions are. We will also find out information about the different strategies departments use to investigate these patients.

The Results

The final outcomes from the ACS:ED study will be communicated via presentations in scientific meetings and by peer reviewed publications.

We will aim to publish the results approximately 12 months after completion. We may discuss interim results at academic conferences prior to this.

Study Protocol

Site Portal

If you are involved in running ACS:ED at one of our sites, click on the button below to access all the relevant documents and training materials. One of your team will have the password, or email us to receive it.

Site Portal

Headache in Emergency Departments

HEAD Study
Headache in Emergency Departments
This research examined the epidemiology, management and outcomes for adult patients presenting to the ED across EDs in a number of countries.

Overview

The Study

The HEAD study sought to examine the epidemiology, management and outcome for adults patients presenting to the ED. The HEAD study was run in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, and France.

The Data

Data was collected on the epidemiology of non-trauma related headache, rates of compliance with recommended practice guidelines for treatment & investigation. We sought to examine inter-regional variation in working practices.

The Benefits

This research was the first of its kind to examine this question across so many different regions. The data is in its final stages of analysis.

The Results

The results of the different papers will be published in specialty-appropriate journals. Watch this space!

Publications

Patterns of Opioid Prescribing

Epidemiology, investigation, management and outcomes

Older patients presenting with headache

Study documents for administration of the trial

Study Protocol

Word Document

Patient Information Sheet

Word Document

Study Information Poster

Word Document

COVID-19 Emergency Responsive Assessment (CERA)

COVID-19 Emergency Responsive Assessment (CERA)
COVID-19 Emergency Response Assessment
This research is a survey of the psychological health of frontline doctors across anaesthetics, emergency medicine and intensive care medicine at three different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK & Ireland.

Overview

The Study

The CERA study sought to examine the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline doctors working in anaesthetics, emergency medicine & intensive care medicine. It was a study undertaken in collaboration with the Paediatric Emergency Research Network UK & Ireland (PERUKI), the Research and Audit Federation of Trainees (RAFT), Irish Trainee Emergency Research Network (ITERN) & Trainee Research in Intensive Care (TRIC).

The Data

We collected data on distress (using the General Health Questionnaire-12), post-traumatic stress symptoms (Impact of Events Scale – Revised), and personal & professional factors potentially associated with distress. We delivered three surveys, timed to coincide with the acceleration, peak, and deceleration of the first wave of the pandemic.

The Benefits

This research showed very high rates of distress at the acceleration & peak phase not previously seen in the literature, with some degree of natural recovery. There were a number of factors identified that were areas requiring further research. The high rates of trauma & distress has led to ongoing work examining how best we can help clinicians affected by their experiences, with follow-on work being performed in conjunction with the University of Bath, Oxford University & King’s College London.

The Results

Our acceleration survey response rate was 16% of all UK doctors (5440). The prevalence of psychological distress was 45% during the acceleration, 37% at the peak & 32% at the deceleration phase. The prevalence of trauma was 24% at the peak and 18% at deceleration. The prevalence of probably post-traumatic stress disorder was 13% at peak and 10% at deceleration. The factor that were most strongly associated with distress & trauma was worry of infecting family due to their clinical work.

Collaborative Work

COVID-19 Clinician Cohort (CoCCo) Study

Presentations

RCEM Annual Scientific Conference 2020

Media

Blog - RCEMLearning - Que CERA, CERA

Infographic - TERN - CERA Study

Article - Guardian - Doctors in UK and Ireland face 'ongoing distress' from Covid first wave

Article - Irish Examiner - Doctors suffered trauma and PTSD during and after first Covid-19 wave

Interview with LBC News - 18.01

Podcast - RCEM Learning - February 2021


TIRED / Need for Recovery

TIRED / Need for Recovery
Trainee-led evaluation of the need for Intershift Recovery among Emergency Department doctors in the United Kingdom.
This research examined the Need For Recovery (NFR) score among UK Emergency Physicians and examined the factors associated with a higher NFR.

Overview

The Study

The TIRED study sought to examine the Need for Recovery score in ED doctors in the UK & Ireland. The Need for Recovery score measures the feeling of needing to recuperate from the physical and mental demands of work. It was run as a pilot single-site study then as a large-scale multi-centre study.

The Data

We collected the Need for Recovery score for all emergency medicine doctors working in the UK & Ireland. We also examined individual and departmental factors that were thought would impact upon this score.

The Benefits

This research showed the highest group Need for Recovery score ever recorded in the literature. Factors associated with a higher score were poor access to study leave, annual leave, and a higher proportion of out of hours work.

The Results

The results of the first survey and the full manuscript are were published (see below) and widely disseminated across a range of media (see more below).

Publications

Pilot Survey

Full Manuscript

Second Paper

Presentations

RCEM Annual Scientific Conference 2019

EMTA Conference 2019

RCEM Academic Trainees Day 2020

South West Emergency Academic Training Day 2020

European Society of Emergency Medicine Congress 2020

EMTA Conference 2020

Media

Blog - RCEMLearning - TIRED

Podcast - RCEM Learning - September 2020

Blog - RCEMLearning - My Slice of the PI

Blog - Don't Forget The Bubbles - Take A Break

Summary - BMJ - Sixty seconds on... Need for Recovery

Infographic - TERN - NFR Study

Blog - BMJ - Top 10 Most Read in November


Subarachnoid Haemorrhage in the Emergency Department (SHED)

SHED
Subarachnoid Haemorrhage in the Emergency Department (SHED)
This research aims to evaluate different strategies for investigating serious causes of headache.
In particular, we are looking carefully at those patients who go on to have a scan of their brain and whether the timing of this affects the need for further investigations.

Overview

The Study

The SHED study aims to understand how acute headaches are dealt with by the Emergency Department (ED). This study doesn’t involve any additional treatments or tests, and no extra questions other than those that your Doctor will ask you routinely.

The Data

We will collect data from your medical records about the features of your headache, and the examination findings. We will also record the investigations you had whilst in hospital and the diagnosis provided

The Benefits

This research may change the way that headaches are managed in the future and therefore impact on your future treatment if you re-attend. It could also positively impact someone who comes to the hospital with the same problem as you.

The Results

The final outcomes from the study will be communicated via presentations in scientific meetings and by peer reviewed publications. We will aim to publish the results approximately 12 months after completion.

Publications

Study Protocol

Study documents for administration of the trial

Study Protocol

Word Document

Patient Information Sheet

Word Document

Study Inclusion Checklist

Word Document

Patient information poster

PDF Poster

Study Opt-Out Log

PDF Document

Delegation Log

Word Document

Opt Out Letter

Word Document

FAQ

What are the proposed GCP requirements for those providing patients with information sheets to opt-out?  

The sponsor has clarified that due to the study being low risk and involved collection of routinely collected data that ONLY the principal investigators need to be GCP trained. All others involved in data collection, recruitment and delivery of opt-out consent leaflets DO NOT require a GCP certificate

What were the discussions around feasibility if a site doesn’t have Clinical Research Nurse available for recruitment?

Although not having a research nurse may feel like a significant barrier to sites that currently have a research nurse, across our 100 sites we anticipate the majority will not have clinical research nurses.The good news is we know that from the TIRED UK study, sites that don’t have research nurses can still recruit exceptionally well.

Plan / Build a small study team

Organise for team members to take study leave (as per the study leave letter in the study pack)

Use study leave for site set-up and follow-up

The key is to informing doctors and nurses about the inclusion checklist and opt-out consent leaflet and empowering them to recruit patients using these documents

The inclusion checklist includes all poorly documented prospective data that we need

The process of completing the inclusion checklist and opt-out consent should take less than 2 minutes, therefore we anticipate it could be done 24/7, 7 days per week

All other data can be collected retrospectively

Study team organises time to complete REDCap data collection, using study leave at a later date

The local study team will be encouraged to ask their local R+Ds to second a research nurse to ED for the study period for the specific task of completing REDCap data collection during office hours (as per Research Nurse R+D Letter in the study pack).

28 day follow up – please confirm who does this? I think it will be us! – This is done by whoever is able to do it. If research nurses are available they would be a great asset. Otherwise Trainees will have some study leave time too.

Is there anyway on RedCaps to save the data and come back to continue inputting at a later stage?

REDCap saves automatically. When you open a new entry, it produces a new record which you can revisit and update at any stage later.

For the Hb question does this relate to the result of the Hb on a formal FBC sample taken on the day of attendance if there is one? Is the result on a VBG acceptable? Or are you looking for the most recent historical result?

We are looking for the result on the day of attendance. Formal lab Hb is best but a VBG is acceptable. The reason for this is, if a patient is significantly anaemic it is more difficult to identify blood on CT. Therefore, a SAH could be missed on brain CT due to anaemia and significantly affect our overall sensitivity.

I note CT scanners are to be labelled 1,2,or 3. I’m assuming we will need to send information regarding the configuration / type / slices / speed etc of each of our scanners in order for these to be identified prior to the trial starting. Is that correct?

Yes. There will be a CT questionnaire coming out prior to attendance. Locally you will have define which CT scanner is 1, 2 etc.

The data collection relates to data at least 28 days after attendance. Does all data have to be inputted at the same time – i.e. do we need to wait until all the information is available and hence wait at least 28 days to do this or will the system “save things as we go along” I.e. can we put the first bits in and then come back to it later?

REDCap autosaves as you go, so I would anticipate the data is collected on different occasions. REDCap will list all your local patients with the REDCap number plus the PIS number – this is how you will be able to identify the patients to re-enter their record. 

When we open the patients GP record it asks specifically if we have the patient’s consent to access their notes.

Good to raise this. We brought this up with ethics to ensure they were happy. In the Patient Information Sheet/opt out leaflet it explicitly states:

“we will check your hospital and GP medical records to check that you weren’t re-admitted to a hospital with headache for a 4-week period after today”

Ethics have approved this approach and I can confirm that we are covered by ethical approval to tick a box asking if we “approval” or “consent” to access GP or hospital records.

We estimate that around 60% of headaches present to the ED dept, and the remainder go via their GP into a day unit.  Would we still be able to take part in the SHED study as the inclusion criteria specifically mentions the ED dept?

Yes, you would still be able to take part.

As you know we are keen to recruit patients who present with “acute severe headache with maximal intensity within one hour”.

The growth of ambulatory care/medical day units or whatever your hospital calls them, is a UK system change over the last 5ish years. Prior to this all the patients who are managed here would have presented to ED.

If the patient presents to one of these units we would still be keen to recruit them if possible. We understand this may produce some logistical challenges. The department the patient is seen in, doesn’t really change their presenting complaint, our UK system has just “streamed” them to somewhere else.

So as long as the patient who presents to ambulatory care is >18 years old and has a severe headache with maximal intensity that peaks within one hour, we are keen to recruit them. It may be worth exploring with the medical day unit if these are the sort of patients they are seeing or are they seeing more chronic headaches?

Our research team are starting to question the feasibility of us joining in on this study.

I know you aim to recruit 90 in 3 months – as we are a small dept, we unlikely to get!

….is there a minimum number per site required?

Target recruitment is an interesting one. I understand its important to upload and prospectively declare your target recruitment. The truth is we don’t know the prevalence of acute severe headache in the UK, therefore its impossible for your to give an accurate target. I’m happy for you to state whatever you want!

Is there any funding available to support this study.  I seem to remember something about paying for stamps?

If you require stamps for the mailed opt-out consent then these can be provided.

These have not been included on any direct communication from the Sponsor as for something as small as stamps, it is not worth formulating official finance agreements between the 100 sites

What is the time period required by the sponsor for the retention of study documents post study closedown at site?

January 8th Meeting

Attendance certificate

Available here:

Recording:

Available here:

Minutes:

See website document page