Design and evaluation of an interactive quality dashboard for national clinical audit data: a realist evaluation

BACKGROUND: National audits aim to reduce variations in quality by stimulating quality improvement. However, varying provider engagement with audit data means that this is not being realised. AIM: The aim of the study was to develop and evaluate a quality dashboard (i.e. QualDash) to support clinical teams' and managers' use of national audit data. DESIGN: The study was a realist evaluation and biography of artefacts study. SETTING: The study involved five NHS acute trusts. METHODS AND RESULTS: In phase 1, we developed a theory of national audits through interviews. Data use was supported by data access, audit staff skilled to produce data visualisations, data timeliness and quality, and the importance of perceived metrics. Data were mainly used by clinical teams. Organisational-level staff questioned the legitimacy of national audits. In phase 2, QualDash was co-designed and the QualDash theory was developed. QualDash provides interactive customisable visualisations to enable the exploration of relationships between variables. Locating QualDash on site servers gave users control of data upload frequency. In phase 3, we developed an adoption strategy through focus groups. 'Champions', awareness-raising through e-bulletins and demonstrations, and quick reference tools were agreed. In phase 4, we tested the QualDash theory using a mixed-methods evaluation. Constraints on use were metric configurations that did not match users' expectations, affecting champions' willingness to promote QualDash, and limited computing resources. Easy customisability supported use. The greatest use was where data use was previously constrained. In these contexts, report preparation time was reduced and efforts to improve data quality were supported, although the interrupted time series analysis did not show improved data quality. Twenty-three questionnaires were returned, revealing positive perceptions of ease of use and usefulness. In phase 5, the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial of QualDash was assessed. Interviews were undertaken to understand how QualDash could be revised to support a region-wide Gold Command. Requirements included multiple real-time data sources and functionality to help to identify priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Audits seeking to widen engagement may find the following strategies beneficial: involving a range of professional groups in choosing metrics;real-time reporting;presenting 'headline' metrics important to organisational-level staff;using routinely collected clinical data to populate data fields;and dashboards that help staff to explore and report audit data. Those designing dashboards may find it beneficial to include the following: 'at a glance' visualisation of key metrics;visualisations configured in line with existing visualisations that teams use, with clear labelling;functionality that supports the creation of reports and presentations;the ability to explore relationships between variables and drill down to look at subgroups;and low requirements for computing resources. Organisations introducing a dashboard may find the following strategies beneficial: clinical champion to promote use;testing with real data by audit staff;establishing routines for integrating use into work practices;involving audit staff in adoption activities;and allowing customisation. LIMITATIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic stopped phase 4 data collection, limiting our ability to further test and refine the QualDash theory. Questionnaire results should be treated with caution because of the small, possibly biased, sample. Control sites for the interrupted time series analysis were not possible because of research and development delays. One intervention site did not submit data. Limited uptake meant that assessing the impact on more measures was not appropriate. FUTURE WORK: The extent to which national audit dashboards are used and the strategies national audits use to encourage uptake, a realist review of the impact of dashboards, and rigorous evaluations of the impact of dashboards and the effectiveness of adoption strategies should be explored. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as ISRCTN18289782. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research;Vol. 10, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Repurposing existing medications for coronavirus disease 2019: protocol for a rapid and living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has no confirmed specific treatments. However, there might be in vitro and early clinical data as well as evidence from severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome that could inform clinicians and researchers. This systematic review aims to create priorities for future research of drugs repurposed for COVID-19. METHODS: This systematic review will include in vitro, animal, and clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of a list of 34 specific compounds and 4 groups of drugs identified in a previous scoping review. Studies will be identified both from traditional literature databases and pre-print servers. Outcomes assessed will include time to clinical improvement, time to viral clearance, mortality, length of hospital stay, and proportions transferred to the intensive care unit and intubated, respectively. We will use the GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. DISCUSSION: The challenge posed by COVID-19 requires not just a rapid review of drugs that can be repurposed but also a sustained effort to integrate new evidence into a living systematic review. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020175648.

Management of primary skin cancer during a pandemic: Multidisciplinary recommendations.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, providers and patients must engage in shared decision making regarding the pros and cons of early versus delayed interventions for localized skin cancer. Patients at highest risk of COVID-19 complications are older; are immunosuppressed; and have diabetes, cancer, or cardiopulmonary disease, with multiple comorbidities associated with worse outcomes. Physicians must weigh the patient's risk of COVID-19 complications in the event of exposure against the risk of worse oncologic outcomes from delaying cancer therapy. Herein, the authors have summarized current data regarding the risk of COVID-19 complications and mortality based on age and comorbidities and have reviewed the literature assessing how treatment delays affect oncologic outcomes. They also have provided multidisciplinary recommendations regarding the timing of local therapy for early-stage skin cancers during this pandemic with input from experts at 11 different institutions. For patients with Merkel cell carcinoma, the authors recommend prioritizing treatment, but a short delay can be considered for patients with favorable T1 disease who are at higher risk of COVID-19 complications. For patients with melanoma, the authors recommend delaying the treatment of patients with T0 to T1 disease for 3 months if there is no macroscopic residual disease at the time of biopsy. Treatment of tumors ≥T2 can be delayed for 3 months if the biopsy margins are negative. For patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, those with Brigham and Women's Hospital T1 to T2a disease can have their treatment delayed for 2 to 3 months unless there is rapid growth, symptomatic lesions, or the patient is immunocompromised. The treatment of tumors ≥T2b should be prioritized, but a 1-month to 2-month delay is unlikely to worsen disease-specific mortality. For patients with squamous cell carcinoma in situ and basal cell carcinoma, treatment can be deferred for 3 months unless the individual is highly symptomatic.

Repurposing Existing Medications for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protocol for a Rapid and Living Systematic Review (preprint)

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has no known specific treatments. However, there might be in vitro and early clinical data as well as evidence from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome that could inform clinicians and researchers. This systematic review aims to create priorities for future research of drugs repurposed for COVID-19. Methods: This systematic review will include in vitro, animal, and clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of a list of 34 specific compounds and four groups of drugs identified in a previous scoping review. Studies will be identified both from traditional literature databases and pre-print servers. Outcomes assessed will include time to clinical improvement, time to viral clearance, mortality, length of hospital stay, and proportions transferred to the intensive care unit and intubated, respectively. We will use the GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. Discussion: The challenge posed by COVID-19 requires not just a rapid review of drugs that can be repurposed but also a sustained effort to integrate new evidence into a living systematic review. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020175648