RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of standard and enhanced quality improvement methods to increase the uptake of magnesium sulfate in preterm deliveries for the prevention of neurodisability (PReCePT Study): a cluster randomized controlled trial
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.05.20.22275244
DO 10.1101/2022.05.20.22275244
A1 Edwards, Hannah B
A1 Redaniel, Maria Theresa
A1 Sillero-Rejon, Carlos
A1 Pithara-McKeown, Christalla
A1 Margelyte, Ruta
A1 Stone, Tracey
A1 Peters, Tim J
A1 Hollingworth, William
A1 McLeod, Hugh
A1 Craggs, Pippa
A1 Hill, Elizabeth M
A1 Redwood, Sabi
A1 Treloar, Emma
A1 Donovan, Jenny L
A1 Opmeer, Brent C
A1 Luyt, Karen
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/16/2022.05.20.22275244.abstract
AB Objective To compare the impact of the National PReCePT Programme (NPP) versus an enhanced Quality Improvement (QI) support programme in improving magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) uptake in English maternity units.Design Unblinded cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting England, Academic Health Sciences Network (AHSN), 2018.Participants Maternity units with ≥10 preterm deliveries annually and MgSO4 uptake ≤70%. 40 maternity units (27 NPP, 13 enhanced support) were included (randomisation stratified by MgSO4 uptake).Interventions NHS England commissioned the NPP to increase MgSO4 uptake in very preterm deliveries to reduce risk of cerebral palsy. NPP maternity units received PReCePT QI materials, regional support, and midwife backfill funding. Enhanced support units received this plus extra backfill funding and unit-level QI coaching.Outcome measures MgSO4 uptake post-implementation was compared between groups using routine data and multivariable linear regression. Net monetary benefit was estimated, based on implementation costs, lifetime quality-adjusted life-years and societal costs. The implementation process was assessed through qualitative process evaluation.Results MgSO4 uptake increased in all units, with no evidence of difference between groups (0.84 percentage points lower uptake in the enhanced group, 95% Confidence Interval -5.03 to 3.35 percentage points). The probability of enhanced support being cost-effective was <30%. NPP midwives allocated more than their funded hours. Units varied in support required to successfully implement the intervention. Enhanced support units reported better understanding, engagement, and perinatal teamwork.Conclusion PReCePT improved MgSO4 uptake in all maternity units. Enhanced support did not further improve uptake but may improve teamwork, and more accurately represented the time needed for implementation. Targeted enhanced support, sustainability of improvements and the possible indirect benefits of stronger teamwork associated with enhanced support should be explored further.Trial registration ISRCTN 40938673 (https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN40938673)WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPICDespite long-standing evidence that Magnesium Sulfate (MgSO4) confers fetal neuroprotection and reduces risk of cerebral palsy in very preterm babies, by 2017 only two-thirds of eligible women in England were receiving it, with wide regional variation.The pilot PReCePT (Prevention of Cerebral Palsy in preterm labour) Quality Improvement (QI) study appeared to effectively accelerate uptake of MgSO4, and a version of this support model was rolled-out nationwide in 2018.WHAT THIS STUDY ADDSPReCePT improved MgSO4 uptake in all maternity units, and the full (‘enhanced’) support model did not appear to improve uptake beyond the achievements of the standard support model used in the National PReCePT Programme. However, enhanced support may be associated with improved perinatal team working, and the funding more accurately represented the staff time needed for implementation.HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICYPReCePT may serve as a blueprint for other improvement programs to accelerate uptake of evidence-based interventions, and future studies should consider the potential for indirect but far-reaching benefits to staff and patients.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialISRCTN 40938673Clinical Protocols https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34031151/ Funding StatementThe 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 and Care 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 DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAnonymised 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.