Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31419994›Full record

Trial reportTrials2019

Managing uncertain recovery for patients nearing the end of life in hospital: a mixed-methods feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of the AMBER care bundle.

J Koffman, E Yorganci, D Yi, W Gao, F Murtagh, A Pickles, S Barclay, H Johnson, R Wilson, L Sampson and 4 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Uncertainty and COVID-19: how are we to respond?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

J KoffmanKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, UK. jonathan.koffman@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8513-5681
E YorganciKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, UK.
D YiKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, UK.
W GaoKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, UK.
F MurtaghWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
A PicklesKing's College London, Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK.
S BarclayPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care Organisation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
H JohnsonKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, UK.
R WilsonKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, UK.
L SampsonMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, London, UK.
J DroneyThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
M FarquharSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
T PrevostImperial College London, Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, London, UK.
C J EvansKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health HTA/15/10/17Health Technology Assessment Programme 15/10/17
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe AMBER (Assessment, Management, Best Practice, Engagement, Recovery Uncertain) care bundle is a complex intervention used in UK hospitals to support patients with uncertain recovery. However, it has yet to be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to identify potential benefits or harms. The aim of this trial was to investigate the feasibility of a cluster RCT of the AMBER care bundle.

methodsThis is a prospective mixed-methods feasibility cluster RCT. Quantitative data collected from patients (or proxies if patients lack capacity) were used (i) to examine recruitment, retention and follow-up rates; (ii) to test data collection tools for the trial and determine their optimum timing; (iii) to test methods to identify the use of financial resources; and (iv) to explore the acceptability of study procedures for health professionals and patients. Descriptive statistical analyses and thematic analysis used the framework approach.

resultsIn total, 894 patients were screened, of whom 220 were eligible and 19 of those eligible (8.6%) declined to participate. Recruitment to the control arm was challenging. Of the 728 patients screened for that arm, 647 (88.9%) were excluded. Overall, 65 patients were recruited (81.3% of the recruitment target of 80). Overall, many were elderly (≥80 years, 46.2%, n = 30, mean = 77.8 years, standard deviation [SD] = 12.3 years). Over half (53.8%) had a non-cancer diagnosis, with a mean of 2.3 co-morbidities; 24.6% patients (n = 16) died during their hospital stay and 35.4% (n = 23) within 100 days of discharge. In both trial arms, baseline IPOS subscale scores identified moderate patient anxiety (control: mean 13.3, SD 4.8; intervention: mean 13.3, SD 5.1), and howRwe identified a good care experience (control: mean 13.1, SD 2.5; intervention: mean 11.5, SD 2.1). Collecting quantitative service use and quality of life data was feasible. No patient participants regarded study involvement negatively. Focus groups with health professionals identified concerns regarding (i) the subjectivity of the intervention's eligibility criteria, (ii) the need to prognosticate to identify potential patients and (iii) consent procedures and the length of the questionnaire.

conclusionsA full trial of the AMBER care bundle is technically feasible but impractical due to fundamental issues in operationalising the intervention's eligibility criteria, which prevents optimal recruitment. Since this complex intervention continues to be used in clinical care and advocated in policy, alternative research approaches must be considered and tested.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register, ISRCTN36040085 .

Indexed as

Patient Care BundlesTerminal CareAgedAged, 80 and overCluster AnalysisFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SelectionProspective StudiesResearch DesignUncertaintyAMBER care bundleclinical trialclinical uncertaintycomplex interventionend-of-life careFeasibility studymixed methodspalliative care

Identifiers

PMID31419994
PMCPMC6697995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.