Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOostendorp, Linda
dc.contributor.authorWhite, Nicola
dc.contributor.authorHarries, Priscilla
dc.contributor.authorYardley, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorTomlinson, Christopher
dc.contributor.authorRicciardi, Federico
dc.contributor.authorStone, Patrick
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T12:26:47Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T12:26:47Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025265
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/10814
dc.descriptionStone, Patrick/0000-0002-5765-9047; White, Nicola/0000-0002-7438-0072en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000471144900194en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 30833321en_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction Clinicians often struggle to recognise when palliative care patients are imminently dying (last 72 hours of life). A previous study identified the factors that expert palliative care doctors (with demonstrated prognostic skills) had used, to form a judgement about which patients were imminently dying. This protocol describes a study to evaluate whether an online training resource showing how experts weighted the importance of various symptoms and signs can teach medical students to formulate survival estimates for palliative care patients that are more similar to the experts' estimates. Methods and analysis This online double-blind randomised controlled trial will recruit at least 128 students in the penultimate or final year of medical school in the UK. Participants are asked to review three series of vignettes describing patients referred to palliative care and provide an estimate about the probability (0%-100%) that each patient will die within 72 hours. After the first series, students randomised to the intervention arm are given access to an online training resource. All participants are asked to complete a second series of vignettes. After 2 weeks, all participants are asked to complete a third series. The primary outcome will be the probability of death estimates (0%-100%) provided by students in the intervention and control arms for the second series of vignettes. Secondary outcomes include the maintenance effect at 2-week follow-up, weighting of individual symptoms and signs, and level of expertise (discrimination and consistency). Ethics and dissemination Approval has been obtained from the UCL Research Ethics Committee (8675/002) and local approvals will be obtained as appropriate. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals using an open access format and presented at academic conferences. We will also publicise our findings on the Marie Curie website.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipMarie Curie I-CAN-CARE Programme [MCCC-FPO-16-U]; Marie Curie Chair's grantEuropean Union (EU) [MCCC-509537]en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work is supported by the Marie Curie I-CAN-CARE Programme grant (MCCC-FPO-16-U). Professor Stone is supported by the Marie Curie Chair's grant (MCCC-509537). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherBmj Publishing Groupen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025265en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.titleProtocol for the ORaClES study: an online randomised controlled trial to improve clinical estimates of survival using a training resource for medical studentsen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentOMÜen_US
dc.identifier.volume9en_US
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.relation.journalBmj Openen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record