BackgroundMulti-centre studies generally cost more than single-centre studies because of larger sample sizes and the need for multiple ethical approvals. Multi-centre studies include clinical trials, clinical quality registries, observational studies and implementation studies. We examined the costs of two large Australian multi-centre studies in obtaining ethical and site-specific approvals.MethodsWe collected data on staff time spent on approvals and expressed the overall cost as a percent of the total budget.ResultsThe total costs of gaining approval were 38 % of the budget for a study of 50 centres (mean cost AUD $6960 per site) and 2 % for a study of 11 centres (mean cost AUD $2300 per site). Seventy-five and 90 % of time was spent on repeated tasks, respectively, and many time-consuming tasks, such as reformatting documents, did nothing to improve the study design or participant safety.ConclusionsImprovements have been made to the ethical approval application system, but more gains could be made without increasing risks of harm to research participants. We propose that ethical review bodies and individual sites publish statistics on how long they take to process approvals which could then be nationally benchmarked.

Background Older people living in residential aged care homes experience frequent emergency transfers to hospital. These events are associated with risks of hospital acquired complications and invasive treatments or interventions. Evidence suggests that some hospital transfers may be unnecessary or avoidable. The Early Detection of Deterioration in Elderly residents (EDDIE) program is a multi-component intervention aimed at reducing unnecessary hospital admissions from residential aged care homes by empowering nursing and care staff to detect and manage early signs of resident deterioration. This study aims to implement and evaluate the program in a multi-site randomised study in Queensland, Australia. Methods A stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial will be conducted at 12 residential aged care homes over 58 weeks. The program has four components: education and training, decision support tools, diagnostic equipment, and implementation facilitation with clinical systems support. The integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework will be used to guide the program implementation and process evaluation. The primary outcome measure will be the number of hospital bed days used by residents, with secondary outcomes assessing emergency department transfer rates, admission rates, length of stay, family awareness and experience, staff self-efficacy and costs of both implementation and health service use. A process evaluation will assess the extent and fidelity of program implementation, mechanisms of impact and the contextual barriers and enablers. Discussion The intervention is expected to improve outcomes by reducing unnecessary hospital transfers. Fewer hospital transfers and admissions will release resources for other patients with potentially greater needs. Residential aged care home staff might benefit from feelings of empowerment in their ability to proactively manage early signs of resident deterioration. The process evaluation will be useful for supporting wider implementation of this intervention and other similar initiatives. Trial registration The trial is prospectively registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12620000507987, registered 23/04/2020).

Background Hospitalisation rates for older people are increasing, with end-of-life care becoming a more medicalised experience. Innovative approaches are warranted to support early identification of the end-of-life phase, communicate prognosis, provide care consistent with people’s preferences, and improve the use of healthcare resources. The Intervention for Appropriate Care and Treatment (InterACT) trial aimed to increase appropriate care and treatment decisions for older people at the end of life, through implementation of a prospective feedback loop. This paper reports on the care review outcomes. Methods A stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial was conducted in three large acute hospitals in Queensland, Australia between May 2020 and June 2021. The trial identified older people nearing the end of life using two validated tools for detecting deterioration and short-term death. Admitting clinical teams were provided with details of patients identified as at-risk with the goal of increasing awareness that end of life was approaching to facilitate appropriate patient centred care and avoid non-beneficial treatment. We examined the time between when the patient was identified as ‘at-risk’ and three outcomes: clinician-led care review discussions, review of care directive measures and palliative care referrals. These were considered useful indicators of appropriate care at the end of life. Results In two hospitals there was a reduction in the review of care directive measures during the intervention compared with usual care at 21 days (reduced probability of − 0.08; 95% CI: − 0.12 to − 0.04 and − 0.14; 95% CI: − 0.21 to − 0.06). In one hospital there was a large reduction in clinician-led care review discussions at 21 days during the intervention (reduced probability of − 0.20; 95% CI: − 0.28 to − 0.13). There was little change in palliative care referrals in any hospital, with average probability differences at 21 days of − 0.01, 0.02 and 0.04. Discussion The results are disappointing as an intervention designed to improve care of hospitalised older people appeared to have the opposite effect on care review outcomes. The reasons for this may be a combination of the intervention design and health system challenges due to the pandemic that highlight the complexity of providing more appropriate care at the end of life. Trial registration Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12619000675123 (registered 6 May 2019).

Background: Hospitalisation rates for the older population have been increasing with end-of-life care becoming a more medicalised and costly experience. There is evidence that some of these patients received non-beneficial treatment during their final hospitalisation with a third of the non-beneficial treatment duration spent in intensive care units. This study aims to increase appropriate care and treatment decisions and pathways for older patients at the end of life in Australia. This study will implement and evaluate a prospective feedback loop and tailored clinical response intervention at three hospitals in Queensland, Australia.