Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The number of surgical trials is increasing but such trials can be complex to deliver and pose specific challenges. A multi-centre, Phase III, RCT comparing Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Treatment of Cervical Brachialgia (FORVAD Trial) was unable to recruit to target. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during trial closedown to understand the experiences of healthcare professionals who participated in the FORVAD Trial, with the aim of informing future research in this area. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 healthcare professionals who had participated in the FORVAD Trial. Interviews explored participants’ experiences of the FORVAD trial. A rapid qualitative analysis was conducted, informed by Normalisation Process Theory. Results Four main themes were generated in the data analysis: (1) individual vs. community equipoise; (2) trial set-up and delivery; (3) identifying and approaching patients; and (4) timing of randomisation. The objectives of the FORVAD trial made sense to participants and they supported the idea that there was clinical or collective equipoise regarding the two FORVAD interventions; however, many surgeons had treatment preferences and lacked individual equipoise. The site which had most recruitment success had adopted a more structured process for identification and recruitment of patients, whereas other sites that adopted more “ad hoc” screening strategies struggled to identify patients. Randomisation on the day of surgery caused both medico-legal and practical concerns at some sites. Conclusions Organisation and implementation of a surgical trial in neurosurgery is complex and presents many challenges. Sites often reported low recruitment and discussed the logistical issues of conducting a complex surgical RCT. Future trials in neurosurgery may need to offer more flexibility and time during set-up to maximise opportunities for larger recruitment numbers. Rapid qualitative analysis informed by Normalisation Process Theory was able to quickly identify key issues with trial implementation so rapid qualitative analysis may be a useful approach for teams conducting qualitative research in trials. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN reference: 10,133,661. Registered 23rd November 2018.

ObjectiveThe aim of the knee arthroplasty versus joint distraction (KARDS) randomised trial was to investigate whether knee joint distraction (KJD) is non-inferior to knee arthroplasty, also known as knee replacement (KR). Here we report the findings from qualitative interviews that were part of the planned KARDS process evaluation.Design and methodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews with staff and participants in secondary care. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis.FindingsWe were unable to complete the full-planned KARDS process evaluation as recruitment to the trial was closed early but key common themes emerged.Eleven members of staff were interviewed from two KARDS sites (eight initial interviews just after site opening and three follow-up interviews at 12 months). Eleven KARDS participants (six KR and five KJD) were interviewed. One overarching theme emerged: ‘An unexpected journey’. This incorporated subthemes including ‘an important research question’, ‘a roller coaster ride’, ‘lessons learnt’, ‘managing expectations’ and ‘a slow recovery’. These encapsulate experiences of both staff and participants.ConclusionThe information that we were able to collect highlights that providing adequate and comprehensive information about all aspects of treatment including estimated timelines of recovery are essential in clinical trials of novel interventions. Incorporating a comprehensive rehabilitation package following KJD was a key learning. Process evaluations in these complex trials are essential to determine issues as early as possible so appropriate changes can be made to ensure participants have a smooth journey through the trial experience.Trial registration number ISRCTN14879004.

IntroductionKnee replacement (KR) is a clinically proven procedure typically offered to patients with severe knee osteoarthritis (OA) to relieve pain and improve quality of life. However, artificial joints fail over time, requiring revision associated with higher mortality and inferior outcomes. With more young people presenting with knee OA and increasing life expectancy, there is an unmet need to postpone time to first KR. Knee joint distraction (KJD), the practice of using external fixators to open up knee joint space, is proposed as potentially effective to preserve the joint following initial studies in the Netherlands, however, has not been researched within an NHS setting. The KARDS trial will investigate whether KJD is non-inferior to KR in terms of patient-reported postoperative pain 12 months post-surgery.Methods and analysisKARDS is a phase III, multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing KJD with KR in patients with severe knee OA, employing a hybrid-expertise design, with internal pilot phase and process evaluation. 344 participants will be randomised (1:1) to KJD or KR. The primary outcome measure is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) pain domain score at 12 months post-operation. Secondary outcome measures include patient-reported overall KOOS, Pain Visual Analogue Scale and Oxford Knee Scores, knee function assessments, joint space width, complications and further interventions over 24 months post-operation. Per patient cost difference between KR and KJD and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained over 24 months will be estimated within trial, and incremental cost per QALY gained over 20 years by KJD relative to KR predicted using decision analytic modelling.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Research Authority (HRA). Trial results will be disseminated at clinical conferences, through relevant patient groups and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN14879004; recruitment opened April 2021.

Background Prescribing, dispensing and administering pro re nata (PRN; as needed or necessary, as determined by an individual) medicines to people with intermittent or short-term conditions is a potential area for medication errors and inappropriate prescribing and administration. In people with dementia, regular PRN medicines use can demonstrate good practice when appropriate or poor in situations where their use is not recommended. However, the frequency of PRN prescription and administration within long-term care settings (care homes) for people with dementia is largely unknown. A limited number of studies worldwide suggest variation between countries. Objective To describe the prescription and administration rates of PRN medicines for people with dementia in UK care homes. Setting Fifty UK care homes. Method Medication details were collected from review of residents’ medicines records within the care home for the previous month. Main outcome measure Prescription and administration of PRN medicines for the treatment of behaviours associated with neuropsychiatric symptoms and pain. Results The most commonly prescribed PRN medicines were analgesics (35.3%), although lower levels of PRN prescription were observed compared to recent studies. The percentage of residents receiving PRN administrations varied, with 20% for antipsychotics, 50% for benzodiazepines, 59% for analgesics, and 85.7% for nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics being administered. Conclusion Further research is needed to understand the decision making in PRN prescription and administration within long-term care. The prescribing of potentially inappropriate medicines remains a problem in long-term care settings and pharmacists have a key role in reducing inappropriate polypharmacy by undertaking medication reviews that consider both regular and PRN medicines.