Codeveloping an effective EMPA to maturity in an acute NHS Trust: an implementer report.

INTRODUCTION: University Hospitals Leicester has codeveloped, with Nervecentre, an Electronic Prescribing and Medicines Administration System that meets specific clinical and interoperability demands of the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: The system was developed through a frontline-led and agile approach with a project team consisting of clinicians, Information Technology (IT) specialists and the vendor's representatives over an 18-month period. RESULTS: The system was deployed successfully with more than a thousand transcriptions during roll-out. Despite the high caseload and novelty of the system, there was no increase in error rates within the first 3 months of roll-out. Healthcare professionals perceived the new system as efficient with improved clinical workflow, and safe through an integrated medication alert system. DISCUSSION: This case study demonstrates how NHS trusts can successfully co-develop, with vendors, new IT systems which meet interoperability standards such as Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources, while improving front line clinical experience. CONCLUSION: Alternative methods to the 'big bang' deployment of IT projects, such as 'gradual implementation', must be demonstrated and evaluated for their ability to deliver digital transformation projects in the NHS successfully.

Randomized trial of the Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular prosthesis versus the Medtronic Mosaic aortic prosthesis: 10-year results.

OBJECTIVES: We performed a prospective randomized study comparing the clinical performance of the Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular valve (CE-SAV) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) and the newer Mosaic (Medtronic Corporation, Minneapolis, MN, USA) porcine bioprostheses in the aortic position over a 10-year period. METHODS: Between January 2001 and March 2005, 394 patients undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement were randomized to receive either the CE-SAV (n = 191) or the Mosaic (n = 203) prosthesis. The preoperative demographics, EuroSCORE and intraoperative characteristics concerning cardiopulmonary bypass of the 2 groups were comparable. All patients were followed annually for 10 years. RESULTS: There were 77 (40.3%) deaths in the CE-SAV group and 93 (45.8%) deaths in the Mosaic group. The 10-year survival rate in the 2 groups was 59.7% and 54.2%, respectively (P = 0.27). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of structural valve deterioration (P = 0.08), endocarditis (P = 0.95), thromboembolism (P = 0.06) and major bleeds (P = 0.09). However, the incidence of paravalvular leaks and valve-related reoperations were higher in the Mosaic group, with 5 leaks and 6 reoperations when compared to none in the CE-SAV group, (P = 0.02) and (P = 0.01) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At 10 years after implantation, freedom from reoperation was greater in the CE-SAV group with no incidences of paravalvular leaks. There were no other statistically significant differences between CE-SAV and Mosaic aortic prostheses. Clinical trial registration: clinicaltrial.gov ID 1301 (NCT03346044).