Category / Post-award

BUCRU – Seminar presenting Breaking News!

 

BREAKING  NEWS…

We would like to invite you to an afternoon seminar by one of our Visiting Faculty, Professor Mike Wee, presenting some exciting new research findings to come out of a recently completed Research for Patient Benefit funded study comparing two methods of pain relief during labour (abstract and biography below).  This paper was just voted best paper of the conference at the Obstetric Anaesthetists Association Annual Conference in Liverpool and was featured recently in the Bournemouth Echo http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9770928.Pain_relief_in_labour__study_at_Poole_hospital_makes_important_discovery/

The seminar is scheduled for Thursday 19th July 2-3pm in BG10 Bournemouth House (after the HSC end of term lunch and next door for your convenience).

We hope you can make it and look forward to seeing you then.

BUCRU

Website: http://microsites.bournemouth.ac.uk/bucru/

Administrator: +44 (0)1202 961939 / wardl@bournemouth.ac.uk

Title: The IDvIP Trial: A two-centre double blind randomised controlled trial comparing i.m. diamorphine and i.m. pethidine for labour analgesia

Research team and affiliations: MYK Wee, JP Tuckey,* P Thomas,† S Burnard,* D Jackson.

Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Poole, UK, *Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK, Bournemouth University Clinical Research Unit, Bournemouth, UK.

Abstract:

Background: Intramuscular pethidine, the commonest parenteral opioid analgesic used in obstetrics and more recently diamorphine usage has increased in the UK.  The maternal, fetal and neonatal side effects are well known for pethidine but there are no sufficiently powered large RCTs comparing pethidine with diamorphine. The aim of this trial is to address this.

Methods: After ethical approval, informed consent was obtained from 484 women randomised to receive either 7.5mg diamorphine i.m. or 150mg pethidine i.m. for labour analgesia. The sample size calculation derived from a small RCT giving 90% power (at the 5% significance level) is based upon the maternal primary outcome measure of pain relief at 60mins and the neonatal primary outcome measures of Apgar Score of <7 at 1min and neonatal resuscitation. Secondary outcome measures include verbal pain intensity at 60mins and over 3hrs post-analgesia, pain relief over first 3hrs, maternal oxygen saturation, sedation, nausea and vomiting and maternal satisfaction with analgesia. Fetal and neonatal secondary outcomes include CTG trace, meconium staining, UApH, UVpH, time of delivery to first breath, Apgar Score at 5mins, naloxone use, neonatal oxygen saturations, sedation and feeding behaviour for the first 2hrs after delivery.

Results: Reported using CONSORT guidelines. At 60mins post-administration and over a 3hr period, diamorphine is better at reducing pain scores than pethidine (p<0.001). There were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding Apgar Scores of <7 at 1min and the need for neonatal resuscitation.  The time between first dose administered and delivery is on average 82mins longer with the diamorphine group compared to pethidine (p<0.001). The vast majority of women experienced moderate to severe pain at all times. Women receiving diamorphine were more satisfied with their analgesia. There were no statistically significant differences in maternal sedation, nausea and vomiting or oxygen saturations over the 3hr period. There were no statistically significant differences in the fetal and neonatal outcomes including feeding behaviour between the two groups within 2hrs of birth but neonates in the pethidine group were more likely to be moderately or severely sedated at delivery.

Discussion: Intramuscular 7.5mg diamorphine gives significantly better analgesia than 150mg pethidine but prolongs delivery by approx. 82mins.  Women given diamorphine are more likely to be satisfied with their analgesia.  The mechanism for the prolongation of delivery time in the diamorphine group should be investigated further.

Acknowledgement: This research was funded by the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit Programme (PB-PG-0407-13170).

References

1. Tuckey JP, Prout RE, Wee MYK. Prescribing intramuscular opioids for labour analgesia in consultant-led maternity units: a survey of UK practice. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 2008, 17(1):3-8.

2. Fairlie FM, Marshall L, Walker JJ et al. Intramuscular opioids for maternal pain relief for labour: a randomised controlled trial comparing pethidine with diamorphine. British  Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1999; 106(11): 1181 -1187.

Biography of speaker:

Michael Wee is a consultant anaesthetist from Poole Hospital and Royal Bournemouth Hospitals.  He has a special interest in obstetric anaesthesia and is the lead obstetric anaesthetist at Poole Hospital.  He is chair of the Research and Innovations Group at Poole Hospital and is a Board member of the Western Comprehensive Local Research Network.  He was awarded a visiting professorship at Bournemouth University in 2009.  He is a referee for several medical journals.  His research interests include patient information, safety in anaesthesia, maternal analgesia and simulation in epidural anaesthesia.  He is a co-supervisor of a PhD student at BU and chief investigator of the MObs study investigating early warning scores in obstetrics.

The R & KE Operations Team Are Moving!

 Space at Talbot Campus is scarce, so to make room for more student focused activities the R & KE Operations Team will be moving to Melbury House at the end of July.

We are confirming availability of hotdesks in each school to ensure members of the team will continue to be as accessible to Talbot Campus colleagues as possible, we are also incorporating hotdesks in our office in Melbury House which colleagues will be welcome to use.

The move itself will take place between Thursday 26th and Monday 30th July. Access to the team will be limited during this time, so please bear this in mind if you have any pending application deadlines or project needs and make provisions for support in advance where possible.

Many thanks,

The R & KE Operations Team

 

 

 

The EU Pod is launched!

In response to feedback from across schools, the R & KE Operations team has been restructured to include a dedicated EU Pod headed up by Paul Lynch.

The pod will assume the post-award management of all current EU projects together with the pre-award management of  future EU applications across all schools and professional services.

 

So, if you’re interested in EU funding but don’t know how to get started with your application contact a member of the EU Pod:

Paul Lynch – Senior R & KE Officer (EU)

Alexandra Peirce – R & KE Officer (EU)

 

 

Ethics and Conduct and Governance….OH MY!!

Similar to Lions and Tigers and Bears, these nasty words often send a chill down the spine of researchers across the globe!

“More roadblocks to delay my research?!” 

“Hinder-full, not helpful!” 

“Once you think you’ve ticked all the boxes, read all the policy/procedure and signed your life away, SMACK – the conduct officer hits you with a new hurdle!”

Sound familiar?  These are just a few examples of the misconception towards my full-time job.  Hello, my name is Julia Hastings Taylor and I am the University’s Research Development Officer responsible for ethics and conduct.  Prior to joining BU I received my Masters in International Political Economy from LSE and before moving across the pond, I worked for the US Intelligence Community tracking down drug lords in SW Asia, Europe, and Africa.  Drug traffickers—as opposed to university researchers—tend to not concern themselves with ethics or conduct, so I’m pleased to be part of an organization that takes compliance seriously!

My first mission—as impossible as it may seem—is to change the way researchers view ethics and conduct (and me, for that matter).  I’m not the Big Bad Wolf and I don’t plan to ‘blow your research down’; on the contrary, I am here to support you, and strengthen the University’s research governance structure.  Leave the scary ethics maze to me – I know the way and I will point you in the right direction.  Struggling to understand and/or comply with funder regulations – don’t fret, it’s my job to ensure all regulations are clear and we have an easy-to-follow framework for compliance!  I plan to streamline processes and procedures, outline ‘best practices’ in both ethics and conduct and ensure that the University’s policies are not only robust but also flexible

While we’re on the topic, here are a few of my thoughts: while I wouldn’t consider myself to be a ‘tree hugger,’ I am sensible…so come on folks…this is 2012…let’s move away from printing off reams and reams of forms to fill in and sign when we can simply create online forms with digital signatures.  I like processes to be efficient, straightforward and simple and that’s what I hope to bring to the University’s ethics and conduct role.  As the next handful of months will bring change—and we all know how much everyone loves change—please give me your feedback and suggestions for improvements, and be honest about your views on research ethics and conduct; I’d like for this process to be as inclusive as possible, but I can only knock on so many doors, invite you to so many meetings/forums and ask so many questions.

So, if you happen to see me lurking around your School in the coming months, please don’t assume I’m the secret police looking for my next victim….I’m probably lost and simply trying to find the loo!

Murphy’s Law – Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

The good news is that some changes to a project are commonly accepted by many sponsors and funders, providing that they don’t breach a signed contract and, most importantly, are communicated in good time. Last minute notifications can damage your and the University’s reputation, and compromise your project.

Most changes will fall under one of the following categories:  contracts, staffing, expenditure and budgets. Below you will find a list of common changes you should anticipate and communicate to your project and Research & Knowledge Transfer Operations (RKE Ops) teams as soon as they occur:

  • A project team member (Administrator, Researcher Assistant, PI, Co-I or external consultant) stops working on the project, leaves the university, is off on long term sick leave or on maternity leave;
  • A new team member joins the project;
  • The sponsor or funder asks or grants an extension to the current contract;
  • A collaborative project lead partner asks for reports or other kind of information not covered on the main contract or not requested by the sponsor or funder;
  • The sponsor or funder objects to you publishing a piece of work, and you notice that Intellectual Property issues haven’t been covered in the main contract;
  • If a contract is terminated for any reason before the end date;
  • If there are delays of any sort, for example, submission of reports, delivery of services or consultancy  work;
  • You need to spend time or money on some item or service which hasn’t been budgeted for;
  • You notice that the sponsor or funder has been inappropriately invoiced, or not invoiced  at all;
  • Your know that there have been changes to the claims schedule;
  • Your project is completed before the planned end date.

 These are only some examples of common changes that may affect your research or enterprise project and you will probably encounter many others.  Make sure you maintain good communication with your project team and seek advice from the Research & Knowledge Transfer Operations team (RKE Ops) as soon as something unexpected happens. Anything that can go wrong in a project generally does go wrong sooner or later. However, it can be put right if anticipated and properly dealt with.