Project management lessons learned from the multicentre CYCLE pilot randomized controlled trial.
Data Collection
Endpoint Determination
Humans
Multicenter Studies as Topic
/ methods
Patient Selection
Personnel Staffing and Scheduling
/ organization & administration
Pilot Projects
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
/ methods
Research Design
Research Personnel
/ organization & administration
Retrospective Studies
Time Factors
Workflow
Critical care
Project management
Randomized controlled trial
Rehabilitation
Trial management
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Aug 2019
28 Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
01
03
2019
accepted:
08
08
2019
entrez:
29
8
2019
pubmed:
29
8
2019
medline:
11
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Clinical trials management can be studied using project management theory. The CYCLE pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to determine the feasibility of a future rehabilitation trial of early in-bed cycling in the intensive care unit (ICU). In-bed cycling is a novel intervention, not typically available in ICUs. Implementation of this intervention requires personnel with specialized clinical expertise caring for critically ill patients and use of the in-bed cycle. Our objective was to describe the implementation and conduct of our pilot RCT using a project management approach. We retrospectively reviewed activities, timelines, and personnel involved in the trial. We organized activities into four project management phases: initiation, planning, execution, and monitoring and controlling. Data sources included Methods Centre documents used for trial coordination and conduct, and the trial data set. We report descriptive statistics as counts and proportions and also medians and quartiles, and we summarize the lessons learned. Seven ICUs in Canada participated in the trial. Time from research ethics board and contracts submission to first enrolment was a median (first quartile, third quartile) of 185 (146, 209) and 162 (114, 181) days, respectively. We trained 128 personnel on the CYCLE pilot RCT protocol, and 80 (63%) completed trial-related activities. Four sites required additional training after start-up due to staff turnover and leaves of absence. Over 15 months, we screened 864 patients: 256 were eligible and 66 were enrolled. Despite an 85% consent rate, 74% (190/256) of eligible patients were not randomized, largely (80% [152/190]) due to physiotherapist availability. Thirteen percent of recruitment weeks were lost due to physiotherapist staffing shortages. We highlight five key lessons learned: (1) prepare and anticipate site needs; (2) communicate regularly; (3) proactively analyse and act on process measure data; (4) develop contingency plans; (5) express appreciation to participating sites. Our analysis highlights the scope of relevant activities, rigorous training and monitoring, number and types of required personnel, and time required to conduct a multicentre ICU rehabilitation intervention trial. Our lessons learned can help others interested in implementing complex intervention trials, such as rehabilitation. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02377830 . Registered prospectively on 4 March 2015.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Clinical trials management can be studied using project management theory. The CYCLE pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to determine the feasibility of a future rehabilitation trial of early in-bed cycling in the intensive care unit (ICU). In-bed cycling is a novel intervention, not typically available in ICUs. Implementation of this intervention requires personnel with specialized clinical expertise caring for critically ill patients and use of the in-bed cycle. Our objective was to describe the implementation and conduct of our pilot RCT using a project management approach.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed activities, timelines, and personnel involved in the trial. We organized activities into four project management phases: initiation, planning, execution, and monitoring and controlling. Data sources included Methods Centre documents used for trial coordination and conduct, and the trial data set. We report descriptive statistics as counts and proportions and also medians and quartiles, and we summarize the lessons learned.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Seven ICUs in Canada participated in the trial. Time from research ethics board and contracts submission to first enrolment was a median (first quartile, third quartile) of 185 (146, 209) and 162 (114, 181) days, respectively. We trained 128 personnel on the CYCLE pilot RCT protocol, and 80 (63%) completed trial-related activities. Four sites required additional training after start-up due to staff turnover and leaves of absence. Over 15 months, we screened 864 patients: 256 were eligible and 66 were enrolled. Despite an 85% consent rate, 74% (190/256) of eligible patients were not randomized, largely (80% [152/190]) due to physiotherapist availability. Thirteen percent of recruitment weeks were lost due to physiotherapist staffing shortages. We highlight five key lessons learned: (1) prepare and anticipate site needs; (2) communicate regularly; (3) proactively analyse and act on process measure data; (4) develop contingency plans; (5) express appreciation to participating sites.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis highlights the scope of relevant activities, rigorous training and monitoring, number and types of required personnel, and time required to conduct a multicentre ICU rehabilitation intervention trial. Our lessons learned can help others interested in implementing complex intervention trials, such as rehabilitation.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02377830 . Registered prospectively on 4 March 2015.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31455384
doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3634-7
pii: 10.1186/s13063-019-3634-7
pmc: PMC6712681
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02377830']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
532Subventions
Organisme : Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis
ID : 142327
Organisme : Canadian Frailty Network
ID : CAT2014-05
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999 Jun;70(2):113-9
pubmed: 10380242
Singapore Med J. 2003 Feb;44(2):60-3
pubmed: 14503778
Trials. 2006 Apr 07;7:9
pubmed: 16603070
Health Technol Assess. 2007 Nov;11(48):iii, ix-105
pubmed: 17999843
Crit Care Resusc. 2009 Jun;11(2):110-5
pubmed: 19485874
Trials. 2010 Jul 13;11:78
pubmed: 20626885
JAMA. 2010 Oct 27;304(16):1787-94
pubmed: 20978258
N Engl J Med. 2011 Apr 7;364(14):1293-304
pubmed: 21470008
J Vis Exp. 2011 Apr 12;(50):null
pubmed: 21505416
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Jun 1;187(11):1212-8
pubmed: 23525935
Trials. 2013 Jun 09;14:166
pubmed: 23758961
Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2013 Dec;29(6):300-9
pubmed: 23871290
Phys Ther. 2013 Dec;93(12):1636-45
pubmed: 23886842
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Jul;95(7):1366-73
pubmed: 24607837
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Sep;95(9):1759-75
pubmed: 24814460
J Crit Care. 2015 Feb;30(1):32-9
pubmed: 25307979
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Mar;96(3):472-7
pubmed: 25450135
BMJ. 2015 Dec 11;351:h6432
pubmed: 26658193
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Oct 1;194(7):831-844
pubmed: 26974173
BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 08;6(4):e011659
pubmed: 27059469
J Crit Care. 2017 Feb;37:85-90
pubmed: 27660922
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 28;11(12):e0167561
pubmed: 28030555
Trials. 2018 Jan 8;19(1):11
pubmed: 29310691
Trials. 2018 Jul 13;19(1):378
pubmed: 30005659
BMJ Open Respir Res. 2019 Feb 18;6(1):e000383
pubmed: 30956804