ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the impact of an enhanced QI support programme (ESP) in further improving the magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) uptake compared to the National PReCePT Programme (NPP) model.
Design An unblinded cluster randomised controlled trial.
Setting NHS England and the AHSN network in 2018.
Participants Maternity units with ≥10 pre-term deliveries annually and MgSO4 uptake ≤70%. 40 maternity units (27 NPP, 13 ESP) were included. Randomisation was stratified by MgSO4 uptake.
Interventions MgSO4 reduces the risk of cerebral palsy by 30%. NHS England commissioned the AHSN network in 2018 to deliver the NPP to increase MgSO4 uptake in all maternity units in England. NPP units received PReCePT QI materials, regional support, and midwife backfill funding. ESP units received NPP plus backfill funding, unit-level QI coaching, and tablet computer
Main outcome measures MgSO4 uptake post-implementation was compared between trial groups. Implementation and lifetime costs, and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated. The implementation process, fidelity, and local adaptations were assessed through a qualitative process evaluation.
Results Using routine data and multivariable linear regression, both ESP and NPP units increased uptake between pre- and post-implementation. Post-implementation uptake increase in ESP units was similar to NPP units (−0.84 percentage points difference, 95% Confidence Interval -5.03 to 3.35 percentage points). Decision tree and probabilistic analyses were used to estimate cost-effectiveness and the probability ESP cost-effective was < 30%. Midwives implementing the NPP allocated more than their funded hours. Implementers of the ESP had better overall understanding of and collective engagement in PReCePT QI and made more use of QI methods. Units varied in amount and kind of support required to successfully implement the intervention.
Conclusion This trial did not find additional benefit from the ESP compared with the NPP. Units with low uptake of MgSO4 were found to experience a range of local challenges and targeted enhanced support may improve performance and represent good value.
Trial registration ISRCTN 40938673 (https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN40938673)
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC Since 2009 there has been strong evidence for the fetal neuroprotective benefits of antenatal MgSO4 in women at risk of pre-term birth. This took a further 6 years to become a NICE recommended intervention. By 2017, only two-thirds of all eligible women in England were being given MgSO4, with wide regional variations. The PReCePT pilot study in 2015 demonstrated that uptake could be increased significantly using a Quality Improvement (QI) intervention to increase maternity staff awareness of MgSO4, and investment in staff time for training. In 2018, NHS England funded the National PReCePT Programme (NPP) in maternity units nationally, which provided a QI toolkit, backfill funding for a unit-level support for a midwife ‘champion’ and regional-level clinical champion.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS The study has shown that national quality improvement programmes are effective in increasing MgSO4 across maternity units in England. While overall uptake increased in both groups between baseline and follow-up, the study did not demonstrate additional benefit of the ESP compared to the NPP. Enhanced support can be delivered to units who are struggling or those with low improvement capability. Instead of delivering enhanced support to all units, a targeted intervention might be valuable for units who have low MgSO4 implementation rates despite the national QI programme. Assessing individual organisations’ support needs based on factors including their readiness to change may help focus support to local needs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
ISRCTN 40938673
Clinical Protocols
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34031151/
Funding Statement
The Health Foundation funded this trial (Funder reference 557668). The funders were not involved in study design, conduct, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing of this manuscript. This research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West, core NIHR infrastructure funded: NIHR200181). The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The UK National Health Service Health Research Authority (NHS HRA) approved the conduct of the trial (HRA ID 242419) and gave authorisation that it did not require Research Ethics Committee approval as a low-risk study involving NHS staff who had given consent as participants and used anonymised patient data.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Anonymised individual-level data for this study comes from the NNRD. Our data sharing agreement with the NNRD prohibits sharing data extracts outside of the University of Bristol research team.