ASPIRED-Q
Research type
Research Study
Full title
A Qualitative Study to Explore the Acceptability of an Accelerated Syncope Strategy to Patients and Staff Involved in the ASPIRED Trial (ASPIREDQ)
IRAS ID
318232
Contact name
Matthew Reid
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Edinburgh Napier University
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 6 months, days
Research summary
The BHF funded ASPIRED study aims to determine whether immediate, enhanced (14-day) remote electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring decreases the number of syncope episodes (sudden loss of consciousness also known as blackout or fainting) at one year compared to standard care monitoring in these acute unexplained syncope patients.
The qualitative study proposed provides the opportunity to explore syncope patient’s concerns, worries, expectations and wishes and to explore how these interact with patients’ acceptability of the accelerated syncope strategy proposed.
This embedded qualitative study will also give us the opportunity to explore health professionals’ concerns, thought processes and decision making when treating patients presenting to the ED with syncope.
Lay summary of study results: Syncope is a temporary loss of consciousness followed by a quick recovery. There are many causes of syncope however it is not always possible to identify the reason for it (undiagnosed syncope). This may require further investigation to rule out any serious causes e.g. heart issues. This study interviewed patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) with the aim of evaluating the acceptability of 14-day remote monitoring offered to those being discharged from an emergency department following undiagnosed syncope.
We identified three overarching themes: experience(s) of syncope(s), the acute care journey, and acceptability of the intervention. Patients all experienced syncope very differently. Once in hospital, HCPs prioritised listening to the patient and valued access to a syncope pathway to aid decision making. Long waits for follow-up monitoring negatively influenced discharge decisions. Both the patients and HCPs liked the 14-day monitoring. Patients found it easy to use and non-obtrusive. However, some had trouble with the battery, seeing the colour of flashing lights on the device and difficulty understanding the instruction manual terminology. HCPs believed that the device would enhance decision-making and improve patient experience. However, they worried about future over use and emphasised the need for a protocol to manage practice.REC name
East Midlands - Leicester Central Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
22/EM/0212
Date of REC Opinion
6 Sep 2022
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion