Abstract
Background Improving outcomes after surgery in Africa is a priority. The SMARTER Pilot Trial was a step-wedge cluster-randomised trial of family member supplemented vital signs monitoring after surgery. A concurrent process evaluation provides contextual understanding of intervention delivery.
Methods Mixed methods approach with qualitative data sources including field notes from a research team diary and focus group discussions. Deductive analysis used the consolidated framework for implementation research. Quantitative data evaluating the efficacy of family members recognising abnormal vital signs and reporting them to nursing staff were collected following a prespecified intervention review held after two months.
Findings Focus group discussions were conducted with 16 nurses and research assistants. Field notes included 88 episodes documented throughout the trial in a research team diary. Quantitative data were collected in the final 397 patients following ethics amendments. Intervention facilitators included: relative advantage, inner context factors including tension for change and relative priority, and individual characteristics centred around knowledge and beliefs. Available resources, culture, and compatibility were identified as important barriers, with a smaller negative influence from self-efficacy and intervention complexity. Family members recognised 91.3% (42/46) of abnormal sets of vital signs and communicated 100% (42/42) of these to a member of the nursing or medical team. The team responded 90.5% (38/42) of the time.
Interpretation Family members were able to supplement nurse led monitoring of patients after surgery. This complex intervention was affected by context specific positive and negative influences. Scaling this intervention requires careful consideration of local context during planning.
Trial registration SMARTER Pilot Trial registered on clinicaltrials.gov - NCT04341558
Competing Interest Statement
RP has received research grants and/or honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences and Intersurgical UK and is an editor at the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All other authors have no interests to declare.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by the National Institute for Academic Anaesthesia and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR Global Health Group on Perioperative and Critical Care NIHR133850).
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:
Research and ethics committee of Mbale Regional Referral Hospital gave ethical approval for this work.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
