Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

A feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of a paramedic-administered breathlessness management intervention for acute-on-chronic breathlessness (BREATHE)

Matthew Northgraves, Judith Cohen, Victoria Allgar, David Currow, Simon Hart, Kelly Hird, Andrew Hodge, Miriam Johnson, Suzanne Mason, Flavia Swan, Ann Hutchinson
ERJ Open Research 2021 7: 00955-2020; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00955-2020
Matthew Northgraves
1Hull Health Trials Unit, University of Hull, Hull, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matthew Northgraves
  • For correspondence: matthew.northgraves@hyms.ac.uk
Judith Cohen
1Hull Health Trials Unit, University of Hull, Hull, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Victoria Allgar
2Hull York Medical School / Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Currow
3Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Simon Hart
4Respiratory Research Group, Hull York Medical School, Cottingham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Simon Hart
Kelly Hird
5Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Wakefield, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Hodge
5Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Wakefield, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Miriam Johnson
6Wolfson Palliative Care Research Group, Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Suzanne Mason
7CURE group, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Flavia Swan
6Wolfson Palliative Care Research Group, Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ann Hutchinson
6Wolfson Palliative Care Research Group, Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Chronic breathlessness, persistent and disabling despite optimal treatment of underlying causes, is a prevalent and frightening symptom and is associated with many emergency presentations and admission to hospital. Breathlessness management techniques used by paramedics may reduce the need for conveyance to hospital. The Breathlessness RElief AT HomE study (BREATHE) aims to explore the feasibility of conducting a definitive cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) for people with acute-on-chronic breathlessness who have called an ambulance, to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a paramedic-administered non-pharmacological breathlessness intervention.

The trial is a mixed-methods feasibility cRCT. Eight paramedics will be randomised 1:1 to deliver either the BREATHE intervention in addition to usual care or usual care alone at call-outs for acute-on-chronic breathlessness. Sixty participants will be recruited to provide access to routine data relating to the index call-out with optional follow-up questionnaires at 14 days, 1 month and 6 months. An in-depth interview will be conducted with a subgroup. Feasibility outcomes relating to recruitment, data quality (especially candidate primary outcomes), and intervention acceptability and fidelity will be collected as well as providing data to estimate a sample size for a definitive trial.

Yorkshire and The Humber–Sheffield Research Ethics Committee approved the trial protocol (19/YH/0314). The study results will inform progression to, or not, and design of a main trial according to predetermined stop-go criteria. Findings will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Abstract

Acute-on-chronic breathlessness initiates many emergency presentations. The BREATHE protocol describes a feasibility, cluster randomised controlled trial of a paramedic breathlessness management intervention. https://bit.ly/2LZg72w

Introduction

Chronic breathlessness, persistent and disabling despite treatment of underlying causes [1], is a prevalent and often frightening feature in cardiorespiratory disease(s). It is more common in older adults [2] with widespread impacts for patients, family carers and health systems [1–3]. Acute worsening of chronic breathlessness (acute-on-chronic breathlessness) is mostly triggered by physical and/or emotional exertion [4]. Tailored non-pharmacological interventions are effective [5] and include breathing retraining, relaxation and anxiety management techniques, pacing and prioritisation [6], and cool facial airflow, for example, from a hand-held, battery-operated fan [7].

Severe episodes of acute-on-chronic breathlessness may be caused by a worsening/complication of the underlying disease, or when distress perpetuates and magnifies the symptom [8]. Acute-on-chronic breathlessness often triggers emergency use of health services [9]. However, approximately a third of those attending the emergency department (ED) because of acute-on-chronic breathlessness do not need hospital admission, and some ED attendances might be preventable [9]. Estimates of breathlessness as a primary reason for adult ED presentations range between 2.7% and 9% [10–13]. In one UK study, acute-on-chronic breathlessness was a reason for ED conveyance by ambulance in 20% of attendances [9]. The presence and intensity of breathlessness on ED arrival predicts hospital admission [14] and return presentations [15].

For many, the ED is necessary. For others, particularly those with advanced disease where palliation is the priority, the ED is less likely to be the optimal place for care if community-based care is working effectively [16]. People with recurrent acute-on-chronic breathlessness may have anxiety playing a significant role, and for whom targeted community-based management plans may reduce the need for ED attendances [17].

The American Thoracic Society (ATS) recommends a dual approach to breathlessness management [18]. Initial management should be given by first responders, using evidence-based non-pharmacological breathlessness interventions. In addition, patients and carers should receive education and training in appropriate self-management techniques to reduce the need for external help. These techniques should be reinforced at every breathlessness encounter [18]. For some, an acute worsening of breathlessness can become a “teachable moment” [19]. Carers may also learn techniques by observing skilled paramedics [20] in this teachable moment. With this approach, more people with acute-on-chronic breathlessness might be managed safely in the community or, if hospital admission is needed, have their breathlessness brought under control more quickly.

Study aim and objectives

The Breathlessness RElief AT HomE study (BREATHE) aims to define the feasibility and desirability of conducting a definitive cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) for people with acute-on-chronic breathlessness to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a paramedic-administered, non-pharmacological breathlessness intervention.

Recruitment and retention rates

The feasibility of recruiting the required number of paramedic-participants and patient-participants needed for a definitive trial within a reasonable trial timeline will be assessed. This will include the acceptability to be randomised within the paramedic-participants and the feasibility of consenting the patient-participants within the time constraints of clinical priorities during an acute call-out.

Intervention

The acceptability, adherence and fidelity, and safety of the BREATHE intervention will be assessed.

Data quality

The quality of data collected during the paramedic call-out in terms of amount and pattern of missing data will be assessed.

Outcomes

The most clinically relevant primary outcome for the definitive trial will be determined by assessing data completion of candidate primary outcomes, qualitative interview data relating to patient views on relevance and acceptability, and the variability around baseline measures. Using the variability values for primary outcome finally chosen, a sample size estimation for a definitive trial will be made.

Implementation issues

Any issues that could impact the implementation of the intervention will be identified, and this information will be used to inform the development of the definitive trial. This will include the development of training materials for paramedics and subsequent implementation into clinical practice.

Methods and analysis

Design

BREATHE is a mixed-methods feasibility cRCT with an embedded normalisation process theory-based (NPT) study. Paramedics, who will act as the cluster unit, will be randomised 1:1 to deliver either the BREATHE intervention plus usual care or usual care only during call-out to patients experiencing acute-on-chronic breathlessness.

This feasibility trial is community-based, with paramedics recruited from ambulance stations within one regional ambulance service. The first paramedic-participants were randomised in January 2020, with the first patient-participant recruited in February 2020.

The trial procedures for patient-participants are outlined in the study flowchart (figure 1) and schedule of events (table 1).

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

BREATHE Study flowchart.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Schedule of events for patient-participants

Study population

Paramedic-participants will be recruited from ambulance stations in one geographical region through advertisement and will be willing to undergo training in study measures, processes and the BREATHE intervention as required. All paramedics in the service are trained in the clinical assessment of the acutely unwell patient, with expertise in making hospital conveyance decisions either immediately or at the end of their visit in accordance with nationally agreed Joint Royal College Ambulance Liaison Committee (JRCALC) guidelines on initial assessment and oxygen use [21].

Eligible patients will be in their normal home environment receiving a 999 ambulance response from participating paramedics because of breathlessness. They will: have a self-reported diagnosis of a cardiorespiratory disease (including intra-thoracic malignancy); experience chronic breathlessness (defined as short of breath most days in the last 3 months or longer); and be able to give retrospective consent at the end of the call-out. Patients needing immediate life-saving intervention/transfer to the ED in the paramedic's clinical judgement are ineligible. They will also be excluded if they are currently enrolled on the trial or have previously participated. Carers present at call-out of any patient-participants consenting to be approached by the study team will be invited to take part in an interview.

Recruitment and consent

Paramedic-participants

The first eight paramedics to confirm a willingness to participate having read the paramedic-participant information sheet (PIS) will be invited to attend study initiation training. In the event of paramedic withdrawal prior to the training session, a paramedic from the waiting list will be invited. At the beginning of the training session an opportunity to ask any questions will be provided prior to being consented into the trial. Those randomised to BREATHE intervention plus usual care will also receive intervention training.

Patient-participants

Patient-participants will be identified and screened by participating paramedic-participants during the call-out. A two-step process will be adopted to patient-participant recruitment. From the beginning of the call-out, all paramedics will start recording the numerical rating scale (NRS) values of breathlessness severity. Paramedics randomised to deliver the BREATHE intervention will make an initial assessment of eligibility on arrival and deliver the intervention to those considered appropriate. At the end of the visit, whether staying at home, or being transferred, patients will be screened for eligibility, given the patient PIS and invited to participate. If willing, immediate written or witnessed verbal retrospective consent will be taken to use routinely collected clinical data from the index visit (Day 0), including the NRS measures, and details of any further call-outs in the subsequent 48 h.

Patient-participants can opt to be contacted about participation in further follow-up. Those agreeing to contact will be phoned by a member of the research team to discuss the purpose and processes of the follow-up and have the follow-up interview/questionnaires arranged on Day 14 (±7 days). In the event of admission to hospital at the initial visit, this would occur at the first opportunity after discharge home (maximum by Day 21). The patient PIS will be given to the patient-participant (and carer-participant if present) at the time of the visit and reviewed together to allow time to ask further questions before consent is taken.

Randomisation and blinding

Following consent, paramedics will be randomly allocated (1:1, random permuted blocks) using a commercial web-based randomisation system (REDCap Cloud) to BREATHE intervention plus usual care or usual care only.

Blinding is not possible for patient or paramedic-participants, or for members of the research team providing intervention training, as data will be collected at interview about intervention adherence and fidelity, and it is likely that patient-participants will indicate their allocation. The researcher conducting interviews will collect follow-up questionnaire data before conducting the interview in order to maximise the chances of remaining blinded to allocation until that point. After the initial follow-up visit, the researcher will note their guess of the allocation to check if blinding is possible to take forward into the full trial. The researcher collecting follow-up data but not interviewing participants will remain blinded to allocation. Researchers involved in the analysis of the quantitative data will be blinded to allocation.

Intervention and comparator

This study does not interfere with routine clinical decision-making, which will be conducted according to the JRCALC guidelines [21]. All clinical decisions regarding place of care will be taken according to the paramedic usual practice; highly experienced professionals who make decisions regarding conveyance daily.

Training

All paramedic-participants will receive a 1-h face-to-face study initiation training on consent and research procedures. This will be delivered by both clinical and non-clinical members of the research team and will include NRS training. The NRS breathlessness severity rating [22] (0=no breathlessness now; 10=worst possible breathlessness now) will form part of clinical assessment for all patients calling with acute-on-chronic breathlessness, irrespective of the trial. This is in line with recent calls to measure breathlessness severity as routine clinical practice. Paramedic-participants randomised to intervention only will receive face-to-face BREATHE intervention training delivered by clinicians on the research team.

Intervention

The BREATHE intervention is reported in accordance with the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist [23]. The intervention (table 2) was developed based on components of evidence-based non-pharmacological breathlessness interventions [24] and the findings of in-depth interviews with respiratory and emergency clinicians. It includes: 1) face-to-face advice (positioning, breathing techniques, panic management, fan); 2) a laminated leaflet; and 3) a breathlessness management booklet to keep and refer to later. This booklet contains information to help the patient and carer self-manage breathlessness and information on local support services. Elements of the intervention used during the call-out will be recorded to capture fidelity of delivery.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

BREATHE intervention and usual care

The BREATHE intervention has adapted everyday paramedic (first responders) practice aiming to ease acute-on-chronic breathlessness more quickly and, where the paramedic deems appropriate, prevent avoidable ED attendances in people living with chronic breathlessness. Following training, paramedic-participants allocated to intervention will use the intervention (or elements of it according to the clinical situation) during all call-outs for acute-on-chronic breathlessness irrespective of whether the patient consents to data collection.

Comparator: usual care

The paramedic-participants will deliver usual care according to national guidelines including initial history, baseline vital signs and tailored examination (chest auscultation, peak flow readings, 12-lead ECG).

Outcomes and assessments

For BREATHE, the primary end-point is the end of the index paramedic call-out. If the patient-participant stays at home, this will be at the point the paramedic leaves the house. If the patient is conveyed to the ED, this will be at any point up until the paramedic leaves the patient in the ED according to their clinical judgement.

Feasibility outcomes

The primary feasibility outcomes being assessed relate to recruitment. These are paramedic-participant and patient-participant recruitment and attrition overall, paramedics’ willingness to be randomised, patient recruitment per paramedic and consent for Day 0 data use, and for follow-up data provision.

The following secondary feasibility outcomes will be assessed:

  • Data quality: completeness of routinely collected data and of patient and proxy reported outcome measures.

  • Intervention: fidelity and adherence of the components delivered by the paramedics will be collected during the call-out. Acceptability will be assessed during patient and paramedic interviews. Whether the intervention continued to be used by the patient following the initial visit will be collected at 14 days, 1 month and 6 months.

Potential definitive trial primary outcomes

1) Improvement in breathlessness intensity at end of paramedic visit. NRS intensity every 2 min till decision to transfer to ED or decision to keep at home. The 0–10 NRS is a validated measure of breathlessness intensity [22], is highly correlated with Visual Analogue Scores, is more repeatable [33] and can be provided by a proxy reporter [34]. It can be used in routine clinical practice symptom assessment.

2) Conveyance to ED (from routinely collected data). The intra-cluster coefficient and sample size calculation for the candidate primary outcomes will be completed.

Clinical measures

Routinely collected clinical and service delivery data include pulse, respiratory rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2) with air, SpO2 with oxygen and working impression.

Health service utilisation

This includes healthcare resource use, both primary and secondary care, use of emergency services and self-reported use of community support services.

Health status

The SF-36 (Short Form 36) will be administered to patient-participants from which the SF-6D will be derived. The SF-6D is a validated health status measurement tool widely used in health economic evaluations [35].

Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) dyspnoea domain

This includes measurement of mastery of breathlessness [36] and is recommended in addition to a unidimensional tool such as the NRS [37].

Sample size

As a feasibility study, a formal sample size calculation has not been performed. Sixty patient-participants will be recruited over 6 months, 30 in each group, providing sufficient data to answer our feasibility and desirability questions [38]. Eight paramedic-participants allows for a 20% dropout rate, with the aim of including at least six paramedic-participants each treating 10 patient-participants, considered sufficient for calculating the intra-cluster coefficient.

Embedded NPT study

A mixed-methods approach will be used to conduct an embedded NPT [39] informed evaluation to explore barriers and enablers within implementing practice change domains: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. Semi-structured interviews will be held with a purposive sample of patient-participants (n=20) (including carer-participants where present). At the end of patient-participant recruitment, all paramedic-participants will be invited to participate in semi-structured interviews/focus groups (to explore views on study procedures/measures and issues regarding the implementation of the BREATHE intervention) and complete a NoMAD survey asking their opinion about whether and how the intervention could become part of routine clinical practice.

Data management

The main study database will be developed by Hull Health Trials Unit (HHTU), using the commercial electronic data capture system, REDCap Cloud. The system uses validation and verification features which will be used to monitor study data quality and completeness. A study monitoring plan will be developed by HHTU who will monitor the study.

Data analysis

The trial will be reported in accordance with the CONSORT 2010 statement extension to pilot and feasibility trials [40].

Descriptive statistics will be reported for the feasibility outcomes: paramedic recruitment rates by ambulance station, patient-participant recruitment rate by paramedic, intervention uptake, quality of data collection, intervention delivery and fidelity.

Baseline data and summary for candidate primary and secondary outcomes are summarised overall and by trial arm both by randomisation and separately for participants providing data to the primary end-point. Data will inform a potential definitive study in terms of patient/carer self-reported needs: NRS breathlessness intensity, clinical measures assessed by paramedics, health service utilisation questionnaire, SF-6D and mastery of breathlessness (CRQ). Variability in candidate primary measures will be calculated and a sample size (power calculation) for the definitive trial will be estimated for each. Adverse events will be summarised descriptively.

Missing data will be described but not imputed. No statistical comparisons between treatment groups will be undertaken on baseline or follow-up data as the trial is not designed to test effectiveness.

The quality of data collection for the SF-6D (derived from the SF-36) and health service utilisation information will be reported descriptively; however, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) will not be calculated.

Interview data will be analysed using framework analysis with reference to NPT [39] to determine acceptability and feasibility of a definitive trial and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Interview/focus group data will be analysed using NPT as a deductive framework whilst allowing for the inductive identification of themes.

NoMAD survey data will be presented using descriptive statistics.

Stop–go criteria

Stop–go criteria (table 3) will be used to assess the key feasibility objectives of recruitment and intervention adherence as to inform whether a main trial is possible and whether the design or other issues needs modification in order to conduct it successfully. Remediable barriers and their solutions will be identified from the NPT study. Process data will be used to describe interpreted timelines to identify “fixable”, “manageable” and “insurmountable” challenges to site opening, training, data collection and intervention fidelity with regard to both the future main trial and clinical implementation in the event of a positive trial.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Stop–go criteria

Ethics and dissemination

Regulatory approvals and trial oversight

The trial protocol has been reviewed and approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber–Sheffield Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 19/YH/0314). The University of Hull is the study sponsor, and the HHTU is supporting trial delivery. A Trial Management Group has been convened to oversee trial delivery and operations. An independent Trial Steering Committee will provide overall supervision for the project on behalf of the Project Sponsor and Project Funder.

Safety considerations and adverse event reporting

Adverse event reporting is defined in the full study protocol. In the emergency clinical context, full safety reporting of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) will be limited to events that occur during the call-out visit. Because of the inherent limitation in collecting AE and SAE outcomes, proxy-safety data relating to the number and outcome of further ambulance call-outs in the 48-h period after the index visit will be collected using routinely collected data. In addition, the study will collect health resource utilisation information at the 14-day, 30-days and 6-month follow-up time points.

Dissemination

The study results will be disseminated to the appropriate stakeholders through presentations, conferences and peer-reviewed journals according to the BREATHE publication and dissemination policy.

Discussion

Providing it is found that delivering the BREATHE intervention is acceptable, feasible and desirable, the results will inform the number of paramedic clusters required, most appropriate primary outcome and the structure of a future definitive cluster randomised controlled trial in breathlessness patients.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the contributions of Jane Shewan, Fiona Bell, Richard Pilbery, Elisha Miller and the participating paramedics from Yorkshire Ambulance Service. Susan Griffin (University of York, York, UK), Joanne Reeve (University of Hull, Hull, UK) and Pat Hatfield (PPI representative) for their input as co-applicants and members of the TMG. Finally, we thank Anne English (Dove House Hospice, Hull, UK) for her assistance in delivery of the paramedic training sessions.

Footnotes

  • This study is registered at www.isrctn.com with identifier number ISRCTN80330546. The main results paper will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal at study completion. It is intended that individual participant data that underlie the results reported in final results papers will be made available for sharing for research purposes after de-identification. Data will not be shared until after completion of the final study report to the funder but will then be available with no end date. Final anonymised clinical trial datasets and metadata will be produced in accordance with participant consent, and stored in an appropriate format to enable discoverability and sharing in the University of Hull's data repository HYDRA. Publications will include data availability statements.

  • Protocol version: Based on protocol version 2.0 (23 September 2019).

  • Authors contributions: A. Hutchinson, V. Allgar, S. Hart, A. Hodge, M. Johnson, S. Mason and F. Swan are coapplicants on the grant application. M. Northgraves, J. Cohen, V. Allgar, D. Currow, S. Hart, K. Hird, A. Hodge, M. Johnson, S. Mason, F. Swan and A. Hutchinson assisted in development of the protocol and implementation of the study. M. Northgraves, A. Hutchinson, M. Johnson and J. Cohen drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Northgraves has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: J. Cohen reports grants from the NIHR during the conduct of the study.

  • Conflict of interest: V. Allgar has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: D. Currow reports he is an unpaid advisory board member for Helsinn Pharmaceuticals. He is a paid consultant and receives payment for intellectual property with Mayne Pharma and is a consultant with Specialised Therapeutics Australia Pty. Ltd.

  • Conflict of interest: S. Hart reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Chiesi UK; and grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, all outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: K. Hird has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: A. Hodge has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Johnson has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: S. Mason has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: F. Swan has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: A. Hutchinson has nothing to disclose.

  • Support statement: This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit Programme (grant reference number PB-PG-0817-20009). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Received December 18, 2020.
  • Accepted January 7, 2021.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2021
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Johnson MJ,
    2. Yorke J,
    3. Hansen-Flaschen J, et al.
    Towards an expert consensus to delineate a clinical syndrome of chronic breathlessness. Eur Respir J 2017; 49: 1602277. doi:10.1183/13993003.02277-2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Johnson MJ,
    2. Currow DC,
    3. Booth S
    . Prevalence and assessment of breathlessness in the clinical setting. Expert Rev Respir Med 2014; 8: 151–161. doi:10.1586/17476348.2014.879530
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Hutchinson A,
    2. Barclay-Klingle N,
    3. Galvin K, et al.
    Living with breathlessness: a systematic literature review and qualitative synthesis. Eur Respir J 2018; 51: 1701477. doi:10.1183/13993003.01477-2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Simon ST,
    2. Higginson IJ,
    3. Benalia H, et al.
    Episodes of breathlessness: types and patterns – a qualitative study exploring experiences of patients with advanced diseases. Palliat Med 2013; 27: 524–532. doi:10.1177/0269216313480255
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Brighton LJ,
    2. Miller S,
    3. Farquhar M, et al.
    Holistic services for people with advanced disease and chronic breathlessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax 2019; 74: 270–281. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-211589
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Spathis A,
    2. Booth S,
    3. Moffat C, et al.
    The Breathing, Thinking, Functioning clinical model: a proposal to facilitate evidence-based breathlessness management in chronic respiratory disease. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med 2017; 27: 27. doi:10.1038/s41533-017-0024-z
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Luckett T,
    2. Phillips J,
    3. Johnson MJ, et al.
    Contributions of a hand-held fan to self-management of chronic breathlessness. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1700262. doi:10.1183/13993003.00262-2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Hutchinson A,
    2. Johnson MJ,
    3. Currow D
    . Acute-on-chronic breathlessness: recognition and response. J Pain Symptom Manage 2019; 57: e4–e5. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.01.012
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Hutchinson A,
    2. Pickering A,
    3. Williams P, et al.
    Breathlessness and presentation to the emergency department: a survey and clinical record review. BMC Pulm Med 2017; 17: 53. doi:10.1186/s12890-017-0396-4
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Niska R,
    2. Bhuiya F,
    3. Xu J
    . National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2007 emergency department summary. Natl Health Stat Report 2010; 26: 1–31.
    OpenUrl
    1. Fedullo AJ,
    2. Swinburne AJ,
    3. McGuire-Dunn C
    . Complaints of breathlessness in the emergency department. The experience at a community hospital. N Y State J Med 1986; 86: 4–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Langlo NM,
    2. Orvik AB,
    3. Dale J, et al.
    The acute sick and injured patients: an overview of the emergency department patient population at a Norwegian University Hospital Emergency Department. Eur J Emerg Med 2014; 21: 175–180. doi:10.1097/MEJ.0b013e3283629c18
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Kelly AM,
    2. Keijzers G,
    3. Klim S, et al.
    An observational study of dyspnea in emergency departments: the Asia, Australia, and New Zealand Dyspnea in Emergency Departments Study (AANZDEM). Acad Emerg Med 2017; 24: 328–336. doi:10.1111/acem.13118
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Saracino A,
    2. Weiland TJ,
    3. Jolly B, et al.
    Verbal dyspnoea score predicts emergency department departure status in patients with shortness of breath. Emerg Med Australas 2010; 22: 21–29.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Nunez S,
    2. Hexdall A,
    3. Aguirre-Jaime A
    . Unscheduled returns to the emergency department: an outcome of medical errors? Qual Saf Health Care 2006; 15: 102–108. doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.016618
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Jelinek GA,
    2. Boughey M,
    3. Marck CH, et al.
    “Better pathways of care”: suggested improvements to the emergency department management of people with advanced cancer. J Palliat Care 2014; 30: 83–89. doi:10.1177/082585971403000203
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Leppin AL,
    2. Gionfriddo MR,
    3. Kessler M, et al.
    Preventing 30-day hospital readmissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 1095–1107. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1608
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Mularski RA,
    2. Reinke LF,
    3. Carrieri-Kohlman V, et al.
    An official American Thoracic Society workshop report: assessment and palliative management of dyspnea crisis. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2013; 10: S98–S106. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201306-169ST
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Lawson PJ,
    2. Flocke SA
    . Teachable moments for health behavior change: a concept analysis. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 76: 25–30. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Hutchinson A
    . What influences the presentation of patients with chronic breathlessness to the Emergency Department? A mixed methods study. PhD thesis, University of Hull and University of York, 2016.
  19. ↵
    1. JRCALC, Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee and Association of Ambulance Chief Executives
    . UK Ambulance Services Clinical Practice Guidelines. Bridgwater, Class Professional Publishing, 2016.
  20. ↵
    1. Gift AG,
    2. Narsavage G
    . Validity of the numeric rating scale as a measure of dyspnea. Am J Crit Care 1998; 7: 200–204. doi:10.4037/ajcc1998.7.3.200
    OpenUrlAbstract
  21. ↵
    1. Hoffmann TC,
    2. Glasziou PP,
    3. Boutron I, et al.
    Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014; 348: g1687. doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Swan F
    . A preliminary investigation of the hand-held fan and the Calming Hand for the management of chronic refractory breathlessness in patients with advanced malignant and non-malignant diseases. PhD thesis, University of Hull and University of York, 2016.
    1. Farquhar MC,
    2. Prevost AT,
    3. McCrone P, et al.
    The clinical and cost effectiveness of a Breathlessness Intervention Service for patients with advanced non-malignant disease and their informal carers: mixed findings of a mixed method randomised controlled trial. Trials 2016; 17: 185. doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1304-6
    OpenUrl
    1. Higginson IJ,
    2. Bausewein C,
    3. Reilly CC, et al.
    An integrated palliative and respiratory care service for patients with advanced disease and refractory breathlessness: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 2014; 2: 979–987. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70226-7
    OpenUrl
    1. Farquhar MC,
    2. Prevost AT,
    3. McCrone P, et al.
    Is a specialist breathlessness service more effective and cost-effective for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care? Findings of a mixed-method randomised controlled trial. BMC Med 2014; 12: 194. doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0194-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Johnson MJ,
    2. Kanaan M,
    3. Richardson G, et al.
    A randomised controlled trial of three or one breathing technique training sessions for breathlessness in people with malignant lung disease. BMC Med 2015; 13: 213. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0453-x
    OpenUrl
    1. Tiep BL,
    2. Burns M,
    3. Kao D, et al.
    Pursed lips breathing training using ear oximetry. Chest 1986; 90: 218–221. doi:10.1378/chest.90.2.218
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Galbraith S,
    2. Fagan P,
    3. Perkins P, et al.
    Does the use of a handheld fan improve chronic dyspnea? A randomized, controlled, crossover trial. J Pain Symptom Manage 2010; 39: 831–838. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.09.024
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Johnson MJ,
    2. Booth S,
    3. Currow DC, et al.
    A mixed-methods, randomized, controlled feasibility trial to inform the design of a Phase III trial to test the effect of the handheld fan on physical activity and carer anxiety in patients with refractory breathlessness. J Pain Symptom Manage 2016; 51: 807–815. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.11.026
    OpenUrl
    1. Bausewein C,
    2. Booth S,
    3. Gysels M, et al.
    Effectiveness of a hand-held fan for breathlessness: a randomised phase II trial. BMC Palliat Care 2010; 9: 22. doi:10.1186/1472-684X-9-22
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Wilcock A,
    2. Crosby V,
    3. Clarke D, et al.
    Repeatability of breathlessness measurements in cancer patients. Thorax 1999; 54: 375.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Simon ST,
    2. Altfelder N,
    3. Alt-Epping B, et al.
    Is breathlessness what the professional says it is? Analysis of patient and professionals’ assessments from a German nationwide register. Support Care Cancer 2014; 22: 1825–1832. doi:10.1007/s00520-014-2131-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Walters SJ,
    2. Brazier JE
    . What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 4. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Schunemann HJ,
    2. Goldstein R,
    3. Mador MJ, et al.
    A randomised trial to evaluate the self-administered standardised chronic respiratory questionnaire. Eur Respir J 2005; 25: 31–40. doi:10.1183/09031936.04.00029704
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Dorman S,
    2. Jolley C,
    3. Abernethy A, et al.
    Researching breathlessness in palliative care: consensus statement of the National Cancer Research Institute Palliative Care Breathlessness Subgroup. Palliat Med 2009; 23: 213–227. doi:10.1177/0269216309102520
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Teare MD,
    2. Dimairo M,
    3. Shephard N, et al.
    Sample size requirements to estimate key design parameters from external pilot randomised controlled trials: a simulation study. Trials 2014; 15: 264. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-264
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. McEvoy R,
    2. Ballini L,
    3. Maltoni S, et al.
    A qualitative systematic review of studies using the normalization process theory to research implementation processes. Implement Sci 2014; 9: 2. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-2
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Eldridge SM,
    2. Chan CL,
    3. Campbell MJ, et al.
    CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2016; 2: 64. doi:10.1186/s40814-016-0105-8
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 7 Issue 1 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 7 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of a paramedic-administered breathlessness management intervention for acute-on-chronic breathlessness (BREATHE)
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
A feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of a paramedic-administered breathlessness management intervention for acute-on-chronic breathlessness (BREATHE)
Matthew Northgraves, Judith Cohen, Victoria Allgar, David Currow, Simon Hart, Kelly Hird, Andrew Hodge, Miriam Johnson, Suzanne Mason, Flavia Swan, Ann Hutchinson
ERJ Open Research Jan 2021, 7 (1) 00955-2020; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00955-2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of a paramedic-administered breathlessness management intervention for acute-on-chronic breathlessness (BREATHE)
Matthew Northgraves, Judith Cohen, Victoria Allgar, David Currow, Simon Hart, Kelly Hird, Andrew Hodge, Miriam Johnson, Suzanne Mason, Flavia Swan, Ann Hutchinson
ERJ Open Research Jan 2021, 7 (1) 00955-2020; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00955-2020
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Study aim and objectives
    • Methods and analysis
    • Ethics and dissemination
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • ATLAS trial design
  • Eradication of early MRSA infection in cystic fibrosis
  • AROMA
Show more Study protocols

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society