Atrial Fibrillation New OnsetPhase 4PROSPECTORNCT05149820
Point of Care RandOmisation Systems for Performing Embedded Comparative Effectiveness Trials Of Routine Treatments
A Phase 4 study testing Electronic Point of Care Randomisation tool and Magnesium in people with Atrial Fibrillation New Onset and Magnesium Deficiency, run by University College, London at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
Every day, doctors and nurses make hundreds of decisions about treatments - like when to start or stop them, or how frequently to give them. Ideally, decisions are based on gold standard evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Atrial Fibrillation New Onset, Magnesium Deficiency
- What is being tested?
- Electronic Point of Care Randomisation tool and Magnesium
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 22 Mar 2022to Aug 2023
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients:
- Age 18 years or over.
- Undergoing elective surgery of complexity sufficient to warrant postoperative critical care admission (major/complex major surgery)
- Must be able to give written informed consent to participate
- Clinicians:
- 1. Must be regularly involved in the care of postoperative patients in critical care.
Who cannot join
- Active treatment for bronchospasm preceding deployment of the electronic prompt, defined as patient receiving bronchodilator therapy or Magnesium infusion.
- Any documented allergy or intolerance to any preparation of supplemental Magnesium.
- Serum Magnesium result > 1.5 or < 0.5 mmol/L on blood tests obtained during critical care admission .
- Pregnancy
- Atrial Fibrillation on initial arrival to critical care.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United Kingdom1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
University College London Hospitals NHS Trust
London
Matthew Wilson, MBBS, matthew.wilson8@nhs.net
About this study
Official title: A Single-Centre Feasibility Study of PROSPECTOR - Point of Care RandOmisation Systems for Performing Embedded Comparative Effectiveness Trials Of Routine Treatments in Critical Care
Every day, doctors and nurses make hundreds of decisions about treatments - like when to start or stop them, or how frequently to give them. Ideally, decisions are based on gold standard evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs). Unfortunately, for many treatments little or no evidence exists and clinicians must use knowledge and experience to decide what is best.
As clinicians are all different, this leads to random variation in how treatments are given to patients. For example, magnesium is routinely given in intensive care to prevent abnormal heart rhythms. There is little evidence supporting this, and clinicians vary in how they administer magnesium. Traditional RCTs might be used to examine whether more magnesium is better than less magnesium, but this method is inefficient and expensive for investigating multiple comparative treatment questions.
Read more
Clinical trials are becoming more efficient by using existing hospital computer systems to run them. However, research teams continue to perform tasks like randomisation manually. For questions like magnesium supplementation, which occur daily, this is labour intensive and infeasible.
Hospital computer systems also possess mechanisms for prompting and alerting clinicians for particular decisions, reminding them of best practices, warning them of potential problems. These systems may be modified to allow clinicians to randomise patients, under specific conditions.
The investigators propose to assess whether modified computer prompts can be used to highlight the magnesium supplementation decision to clinicians. These would prompt the clinician to evaluate the uncertainty around giving or withholding magnesium in that instance. If in agreement that the optimal decision is unclear, clinicians can choose to randomise the patient within a predetermined trial structure. If the clinician knows better, they may override the prompt and continue with their preference. In both cases, the system learns from the decision and the patient receives optimal care determined by their clinician.
Read the detailed description
Trial Design:
A single-centre, mixed methods, feasibility study, embedded within the Electronic Health Record System (EHRS). The study will be conducted on critical care units within University College London Hospitals NHS Trust and will involve patients undergoing elective major surgery which necessitates postoperative admission to critical care. The study will be pragmatic in nature, with minimal disruption to usual care pathways.
The study will consist of three phases:
- Feasibility Phase - Simulation guided semi-structured interviews with clinicians.
- Intervention Phase - Deployment of electronic prompts to evaluate candidate clinical question.
- Follow Up Phase - Patient and clinician semi-structured interviews.
Research Hypothesis:
Electronically delivered prompts provide a feasible method of delivering point-of-care randomisation for the evaluation of routine treatments not amenable to investigation using standard clinical trial designs.
Clinical Example Hypothesis:
Liberal magnesium supplementation (serum concentration < 1.0 mmol/L) is superior to a restrictive supplementation strategy (serum concentration < 0.75 mmol/L) for the prevention of Atrial Fibrillation in a general critical care population.
Summary of Interventions:
This study will compare Nudge and Preference electronic Point-Of-Care Randomisation (ePOCR) prompts against their ability to generate compliance with randomised allocations to liberal or restrictive magnesium supplementation strategy.
Following postoperative admission to the critical care unit, participants will undergo randomisation between Nudge or Preference prompts and Liberal or Restrictive magnesium supplementation strategies. After the two randomisations steps are complete, both ePOCR designs follow the same pathway for activation and deployment to the bedside nurse.
Once the EHRS detects a new serum magnesium result has been received, the system will screen the participant against exclusion criteria 1-5. Each new result triggers the same screening process. If the participant is eligible to proceed, the prompt will activate and display to the bedside nurse under two conditions:
- Accessing of the blood test results in the EHRS.
- Accessing the supplemental magnesium prescription within the EHRS. Once the prompt has displayed and been acknowledged by the bedside nurse, further activation will be suppressed until a new serum magnesium result becomes available. This process will be tested in silico prior to deployment to the live EHRS and the results of testing made available as part of the study materials.
Where additional supplementation is indicated by the prompt, the nurse retains control over the dose and frequency of administration, as directed by the standardised prescription. All other aspects of postoperative care remain as standard and directed by the clinical team.
- Being tested
- Electronic Point of Care Randomisation tool, Magnesium
- Keywords
- Electronic Health Record Trials, Point of Care Randomisation, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Learning Health Systems, Feasibility Studies
- Medical subject headings
- Magnesium Deficiency
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Electronic Point of Care Randomisation toolOther
Also called Nudge Prompt Design and Preference Prompt Design
Two designs of electronic point of care randomisation tool will be evaluated.
MagnesiumDrug
Also called Liberal and Restrictive Magnesium Supplementation Strategies
Liberal Strategy: magnesium supplementation at serum level < 0.75 mmol/L Restrictive Strategy: magnesium supplementation at serum level < 1.0 mmol/L
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Nudge Prompt, Liberal Magnesium Strategy | Active comparator | This group will be randomised to receive the Nudge design of electronic point of care randomisation prompt. The prompt will encourage the clinician to follow a liberal magnesium supplementation strategy. Receives: Other: Electronic Point of Care Randomisation tool; Drug: Magnesium |
| Nudge Prompt, Restrictive Magnesium Strategy | Active comparator | This group will be randomised to receive the Nudge design of electronic point of care randomisation prompt. The prompt will encourage the clinician to follow a restrictive magnesium supplementation strategy. Receives: Other: Electronic Point of Care Randomisation tool; Drug: Magnesium |
| Preference Prompt, Liberal Magnesium Strategy | Active comparator | This group will be randomised to receive the Preference design of electronic point of care randomisation prompt. The prompt will encourage the clinician to follow a liberal magnesium supplementation strategy. Receives: Other: Electronic Point of Care Randomisation tool; Drug: Magnesium |
| Preference Prompt, Restrictive Magnesium Strategy | Active comparator | This group will be randomised to receive the Preference design of electronic point of care randomisation prompt. The prompt will encourage the clinician to follow a restrictive magnesium supplementation strategy. Receives: Other: Electronic Point of Care Randomisation tool; Drug: Magnesium |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Effectiveness of Electronic Point of Care Randomisation Prompts
The proportion of each design which result in compliance with the randomised allocation by the clinician. We define compliance with the prompt as 1) the appropriate administration of supplemental magnesium, following receiving the electronic prompt, where the measured serum magnesium is less than the randomised threshold OR; 2) the appropriate withholding of supplemental magnesium following prompt deployment, where the measured serum magnesium is greater than the randomised threshold.
Measured: Duration of individual participant admission to critical care, or five postoperative days, whichever is sooner
Secondary outcomes (3)
Acceptability to critical care clinicians of using the Electronic Point of Care Randomisation prompts assessed by semi-structured interviews
The acceptability of using electronic point of care randomisation prompts, for the investigation of routine comparative effectiveness research questions like the study example will be assessed using a program of semi-structured interviews. These interviews will be delivered to critical care clinicians who may interact with the prompts. Interview data will be evaluated using a thematic analysis approach to derive an assessment of overall acceptability.
Measured: Throughout study duration, maximum 6 months from study start date
Clinician preferences for type of Electronic Point of Care Randomisation Prompt design assessed by semi-structured interviews
Critical care clinicians will be invited to express a preference for the design of electronic randomisation prompt having been introduced to both designs. This will be evaluated using a programme of semi-structured interviews which will include simulations of both prompt designs to aid recall. Preference will be asked directly and response displayed as proportion of clinicians preferring each design (Nudge or Preference).
Measured: Throughout study duration, maximum 6 months from study start date
Acceptability to patients of using either a Pre-Emptive or Opt-Out model to obtain informed consent for the conduct of Comparative Effectiveness Research, assessed by semi-structured interview.
Patients will be invited to undertake a semi-structured interview designed to ascertain their thoughts and opinions on each type of consent model. In addition, the interview will invite patients to consider different hypothetical research questions and how acceptable they feel each method of obtaining consent is for each. Interviews will be evaluated using a thematic analysis approach and examples supporting patient viewpoints presented in the results.
Measured: Throughout study duration, maximum 6 months from study start date
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Dec 2021
- Study start22 Mar 2022
- Primary completionFeb 2023 (estimated)
- Study completionAug 2023 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Atrial Fibrillation New OnsetStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University College, LondonThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Two stage randomisation process with participants first randomised to receive either Nudge or Preference electronic point of care randomisation prompt design, and then randomised to receive Liberal or Restrictive magnesium supplementation strategy.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University College, London
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University College London Hospitals
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Steve K Harris, Study director, University College London HospitalsMatthew G Wilson, Principal investigator, University College, London
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05149820
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 142382
- Other IDs
- 279737
- Acronym
- PROSPECTOR
- Status last verified
- Oct 2022
- First submitted
- 8 Nov 2021
- Last updated
- 1 Nov 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Wilson MG, Asselbergs FW, Saleem N, Jeilani L, Brealey D, Sydes MR, Harris S. Digital integration of research conduct into clinical care: results of the PROSPECTOR randomised feasibility study. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2025 Sep 22;30(5):323-332. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113081.
PubMed 40348398Wilson MG, Asselbergs FW, Miguel R, Brealey D, Harris SK. Embedded point of care randomisation for evaluating comparative effectiveness questions: PROSPECTOR-critical care feasibility study protocol. BMJ Open. 2022 Sep 19;12(9):e059995. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059995.
PubMed 36123103
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Nov 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Single-Centre Feasibility Study of PROSPECTOR - Point of Care RandOmisation Systems for Performing Embedded Comparative Effectiveness Trials Of Routine Treatments in Critical Care
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05149820
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PROSPECTOR / 142382
- Keywords
- Electronic Health Record Trials, Point of Care Randomisation, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Learning Health Systems, Feasibility Studies
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University College, LondonUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University College London Hospitals
- Study start
- 22 Mar 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Feb 2023 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Aug 2023 (estimated)
- First posted
- 8 Dec 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Every day, doctors and nurses make hundreds of decisions about treatments - like when to start or stop them, or how frequently to give them. Ideally, decisions are based on gold standard evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs). Unfortunately, for many treatments little or no evidence exists and clinicians must use knowledge and experience to decide what is best.
As clinicians are all different, this leads to random variation in how treatments are given to patients. For example, magnesium is routinely given in intensive care to prevent abnormal heart rhythms. There is little evidence supporting this, and clinicians vary in how they administer magnesium. Traditional RCTs might be used to examine whether more magnesium is better than less magnesium, but this method is inefficient and expensive for investigating multiple comparative treatment questions.
Clinical trials are becoming more efficient by using existing hospital computer systems to run them. However, research teams continue to perform tasks like randomisation manually. For questions like magnesium supplementation, which occur daily, this is labour intensive and infeasible.
Hospital computer systems also possess mechanisms for prompting and alerting clinicians for particular decisions, reminding them of best practices, warning them of potential problems. These systems may be modified to allow clinicians to randomise patients, under specific conditions.
The investigators propose to assess whether modified computer prompts can be used to highlight the magnesium supplementation decision to clinicians. These would prompt the clinician to evaluate the uncertainty around giving or withholding magnesium in that instance. If in agreement that the optimal decision is unclear, clinicians can choose to randomise the patient within a predetermined trial structure. If the clinician knows better, they may override the prompt and continue with their preference. In both cases, the system learns from the decision and the patient receives optimal care determined by their clinician.
Detailed description
Trial Design:
A single-centre, mixed methods, feasibility study, embedded within the Electronic Health Record System (EHRS). The study will be conducted on critical care units within University College London Hospitals NHS Trust and will involve patients undergoing elective major surgery which necessitates postoperative admission to critical care. The study will be pragmatic in nature, with minimal disruption to usual care pathways.
The study will consist of three phases:
- Feasibility Phase - Simulation guided semi-structured interviews with clinicians.
- Intervention Phase - Deployment of electronic prompts to evaluate candidate clinical question.
- Follow Up Phase - Patient and clinician semi-structured interviews.
Research Hypothesis:
Electronically delivered prompts provide a feasible method of delivering point-of-care randomisation for the evaluation of routine treatments not amenable to investigation using standard clinical trial designs.
Clinical Example Hypothesis:
Liberal magnesium supplementation (serum concentration < 1.0 mmol/L) is superior to a restrictive supplementation strategy (serum concentration < 0.75 mmol/L) for the prevention of Atrial Fibrillation in a general critical care population.
Summary of Interventions:
This study will compare Nudge and Preference electronic Point-Of-Care Randomisation (ePOCR) prompts against their ability to generate compliance with randomised allocations to liberal or restrictive magnesium supplementation strategy.
Following postoperative admission to the critical care unit, participants will undergo randomisation between Nudge or Preference prompts and Liberal or Restrictive magnesium supplementation strategies. After the two randomisations steps are complete, both ePOCR designs follow the same pathway for activation and deployment to the bedside nurse.
Once the EHRS detects a new serum magnesium result has been received, the system will screen the participant against exclusion criteria 1-5. Each new result triggers the same screening process. If the participant is eligible to proceed, the prompt will activate and display to the bedside nurse under two conditions:
- Accessing of the blood test results in the EHRS.
- Accessing the supplemental magnesium prescription within the EHRS. Once the prompt has displayed and been acknowledged by the bedside nurse, further activation will be suppressed until a new serum magnesium result becomes available. This process will be tested in silico prior to deployment to the live EHRS and the results of testing made available as part of the study materials.
Where additional supplementation is indicated by the prompt, the nurse retains control over the dose and frequency of administration, as directed by the standardised prescription. All other aspects of postoperative care remain as standard and directed by the clinical team.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 4
- Model description
- Two stage randomisation process with participants first randomised to receive either Nudge or Preference electronic point of care randomisation prompt design, and then randomised to receive Liberal or Restrictive magnesium supplementation strategy.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Nudge Prompt, Liberal Magnesium Strategy | Active comparator | Other: Electronic Point of Care Randomisation tool, Drug: MagnesiumThis group will be randomised to receive the Nudge design of electronic point of care randomisation prompt. The prompt will encourage the clinician to follow a liberal magnesium supplementation strategy. |
| Nudge Prompt, Restrictive Magnesium Strategy | Active comparator | Other: Electronic Point of Care Randomisation tool, Drug: MagnesiumThis group will be randomised to receive the Nudge design of electronic point of care randomisation prompt. The prompt will encourage the clinician to follow a restrictive magnesium supplementation strategy. |
| Preference Prompt, Liberal Magnesium Strategy | Active comparator | Other: Electronic Point of Care Randomisation tool, Drug: MagnesiumThis group will be randomised to receive the Preference design of electronic point of care randomisation prompt. The prompt will encourage the clinician to follow a liberal magnesium supplementation strategy. |
| Preference Prompt, Restrictive Magnesium Strategy | Active comparator | Other: Electronic Point of Care Randomisation tool, Drug: MagnesiumThis group will be randomised to receive the Preference design of electronic point of care randomisation prompt. The prompt will encourage the clinician to follow a restrictive magnesium supplementation strategy. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Age 18 years or over.
- Undergoing elective surgery of complexity sufficient to warrant postoperative critical care admission (major/complex major surgery)
- Must be able to give written informed consent to participate
- 1. Must be regularly involved in the care of postoperative patients in critical care.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Active treatment for bronchospasm preceding deployment of the electronic prompt, defined as patient receiving bronchodilator therapy or Magnesium infusion.
- Any documented allergy or intolerance to any preparation of supplemental Magnesium.
- Serum Magnesium result > 1.5 or < 0.5 mmol/L on blood tests obtained during critical care admission .
- Pregnancy
- Atrial Fibrillation on initial arrival to critical care.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Electronic Point of Care Randomisation toolAlso: Nudge Prompt Design and Preference Prompt DesignTwo designs of electronic point of care randomisation tool will be evaluated. | Other | Nudge Prompt, Liberal Magnesium Strategy, Nudge Prompt, Restrictive Magnesium Strategy, Preference Prompt, Liberal Magnesium Strategy, Preference Prompt, Restrictive Magnesium Strategy |
| MagnesiumAlso: Liberal and Restrictive Magnesium Supplementation StrategiesLiberal Strategy: magnesium supplementation at serum level < 0.75 mmol/L Restrictive Strategy: magnesium supplementation at serum level < 1.0 mmol/L | Drug | Nudge Prompt, Liberal Magnesium Strategy, Nudge Prompt, Restrictive Magnesium Strategy, Preference Prompt, Liberal Magnesium Strategy, Preference Prompt, Restrictive Magnesium Strategy |
Primary outcome
Effectiveness of Electronic Point of Care Randomisation Prompts
Time frame: Duration of individual participant admission to critical care, or five postoperative days, whichever is sooner
The proportion of each design which result in compliance with the randomised allocation by the clinician. We define compliance with the prompt as 1) the appropriate administration of supplemental magnesium, following receiving the electronic prompt, where the measured serum magnesium is less than the randomised threshold OR; 2) the appropriate withholding of supplemental magnesium following prompt deployment, where the measured serum magnesium is greater than the randomised threshold.
3 secondary outcomes
Acceptability to critical care clinicians of using the Electronic Point of Care Randomisation prompts assessed by semi-structured interviews
Time frame: Throughout study duration, maximum 6 months from study start date
Clinician preferences for type of Electronic Point of Care Randomisation Prompt design assessed by semi-structured interviews
Time frame: Throughout study duration, maximum 6 months from study start date
Acceptability to patients of using either a Pre-Emptive or Opt-Out model to obtain informed consent for the conduct of Comparative Effectiveness Research, assessed by semi-structured interview.
Time frame: Throughout study duration, maximum 6 months from study start date
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Nov 2022.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 40348398Wilson MG, Asselbergs FW, Saleem N, Jeilani L, Brealey D, Sydes MR, Harris S. Digital integration of research conduct into clinical care: results of the PROSPECTOR randomised feasibility study. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2025 Sep 22;30(5):323-332. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113081.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 36123103Wilson MG, Asselbergs FW, Miguel R, Brealey D, Harris SK. Embedded point of care randomisation for evaluating comparative effectiveness questions: PROSPECTOR-critical care feasibility study protocol. BMJ Open. 2022 Sep 19;12(9):e059995. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059995.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Atrial Fibrillation New Onset
Recruiting
BoxX-NoAF Clinical Trial
Post Operative Atrial Fibrillation, Atrial Fibrillation, Postoperative
Recruiting
The Impact of LBBAP vs RVP on the Incidence of New-onset Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Atrioventricular Block
Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing, Right Ventricular Pacing
RecruitingPhase 3
Short Term Anti-aRrhythmic Therapy for Post-Operative AF in Cardiac Surgery Patients Pilot Trial
Atrial Fibrillation New Onset
Not yet recruiting
The Effect of Ligament of Marshall Excision During Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery-Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (MICS-CABG) on the Prevention of Postoperative New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Triple-Blinded Study
Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Clinical Validation of SMD-AFECG for Predicting New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation Within 2 Hours Using Single-Lead ECG Data
Atrial Fibrillation (AF), Atrial Fibrillation New Onset
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Steve K Harris study director
University College London Hospitals
Matthew G Wilson principal investigator
University College, London
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing Electronic Point of Care Randomisation tool and Magnesium in people with Atrial Fibrillation New Onset and Magnesium Deficiency, run by University College, London at 1 site in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Nov 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Matthew G Wilson (02034567890, matthew.wilson8@nhs.net), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Effectiveness of Electronic Point of Care Randomisation Prompts (time frame: Duration of individual participant admission to critical care, or five postoperative days, whichever is sooner). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05149820, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Nov 2022.