Qualitative study of PROFOUND
Research type
Research Study
Full title
A qualitative study of service variations and staff and patient views on the best periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) service
IRAS ID
326929
Contact name
Clifford Shelton
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Lancaster University
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 5 months, 30 days
Research summary
This study in part of a large project that will investigate the care for people with a periprosthetic femoral fracture (hereafter, PPFF), a break in the bone next to an existing hip or knee replacement. Hospital stays are often long for PPFF patients, with high costs, and poor outcomes. Differences exist within and between hospitals in how care is provided for people with PPFF, with only limited data available to guide practice. There is also uncertainty over which service model(s) are best.
A different study within our project (Workpackage 1, IRAS 323767) is analysing the variation in PPFF management and outcomes between hospitals in how these patients are managed and their outcomes, using four existing databases. Our study (Workpackage 2) is a qualitative study that seeks to explain and understand these variations in terms of factors such as clinical decision-making, teamwork, communication, skillset, resource availability, attitudes to competency. It will seek opinions on how to reduce unwarranted variation and to improve care quality. It will give a voice to patients and clinicians, and ensure that the findings of the project overall are grounded in their experiences.
Six case study sites will be selected in England for ‘maximum variation’ (e.g geographical and demographic variations, access to specialised services, and service models). Case studies will consist of in-person visits, interviews with staff, patients and carers, and review of documents such as protocols, guidelines, and policies. The study will explore the justifications, benefits and drawbacks of different service models and document the challenges and compromises faced by patients and carers. This will address the current lack of knowledge about how PPFF services work and how patients are best managed. Together with the results of Workpackage 1, the findings from this study will inform the development of recommendations on future practice (Workpackage 3).
REC name
North West - Haydock Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
24/NW/0150
Date of REC Opinion
2 Jul 2024
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion