Introduction Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent. Methods The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have. Results Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation. Discussion Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal.

Key Points Question Were resource constraints due to the COVID-19 pandemic associated with a delay in urgent fracture surgery beyond national time-to-surgery benchmarks? Findings In this cohort pre-post study that included 3589 patients, there was no association between time to surgery and COVID-19 in either open fracture or closed femur/hip fracture cohorts. Meaning Despite concerns that the unprecedented challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic would delay acute management of urgent surgery, many hospital systems within the US were able to implement strategies in keeping with time-to-surgery standards for orthopedic trauma.

Introduction Pragmatic trials in comparative effectiveness research assess the effects of different treatment, therapeutic, or healthcare options in clinical practice. They are characterized by broad eligibility criteria and large sample sizes, which can lead to an unmanageable number of participants, increasing the risk of bias and affecting the integrity of the trial. We describe the development of a sampling strategy tool and its use in the PREPARE trial to circumvent the challenge of unmanageable work flow. Methods Given the broad eligibility criteria and high fracture volume at participating clinical sites in the PREPARE trial, a pragmatic sampling strategy was needed. Using data from PREPARE, descriptive statistics were used to describe the use of the sampling strategy across clinical sites. A Chi-square test was performed to explore whether use of the sampling strategy was associated with a reduction in the number of missed eligible patients. Results 7 of 20 clinical sites (35%) elected to adopt a sampling strategy. There were 1539 patients excluded due to the use of the sampling strategy, which represents 30% of all excluded patients and 20% of all patients screened for participation. Use of the sampling strategy was associated with lower odds of missed eligible patients (297/4545 (6.5%) versus 341/3200 (10.7%) p < 0.001). Conclusions Implementing a sampling strategy in the PREPARE trial has helped to limit the number of missed eligible patients. This sampling strategy represents a simple, easy to use tool for managing work flow at clinical sites and maintaining the integrity of a large trial.