Shared decision-making is widely advocated in policy and practice, but how it is to be applied in a high-stakes clinical decision such as major lower limb amputation due to chronic limb-threatening ischaemia or diabetic foot is unclear. The aim of this study was to explore the communication, consent, risk prediction and decision-making process in relation to major lower limb amputation.

A qualitative study (done as part of a broader mixed-methods study) using semi-structured interviews. Interview transcriptions were analysed using thematic analysis.

Vascular centres in three large National Health Service hospitals in Wales and England, UK, between 1 October 2020 and 30 September 2022.

A purposive sample of 18 patients for whom major lower limb amputation was considered as a treatment option/carried out, with interviews conducted before or within 4 months of amputation and 4–6 months after amputation. A further purposive sample of 20 healthcare professionals (including eight surgeons) involved in supporting or conducting major lower limb amputation decision-making.

Five major categories were identified that highlighted the challenges of ensuring shared decision-making associated with major lower limb amputation: (i) patients’ limited understanding, (ii) variable patient attitudes to decision-making, (iii) healthcare professionals’ perceived challenges to sharing decision-making, (iv) surgeons’ paternalism and (v) patients’ and healthcare professionals’ decisional regret/possible consequences of challenges.

Amputation is a life-changing decision for both patients and healthcare professionals, with huge consequences. Despite being considered the gold standard, our findings highlight several challenges to effective shared decision-making for major lower limb amputation. Shared decision-making training for healthcare professionals is paramount if these limitations are to be addressed and patients are to feel confident in being adequately informed about the treatment decisions that they make.

NCT04903756.

To integrate the quantitative and qualitative data collected as part of the PEACH (Procalcitonin: Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients) study, which evaluated whether procalcitonin (PCT) testing should be used to guide antibiotic prescribing and safely reduce antibiotic use among patients admitted to acute UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals.

Triangulation to integrate quantitative and qualitative data.

Four data sources in 148 NHS hospitals in England and Wales including data from 6089 patients.

A triangulation protocol was used to integrate three quantitative data sources (survey, organisation-level data and patient-level data: data sources 1, 2 and 3) and one qualitative data source (clinician interviews: data source 4) collected as part of the PEACH study. Analysis of data sources initially took place independently, and then, key findings for each data source were added to a matrix. A series of interactive discussion meetings took place with quantitative, qualitative and clinical researchers, together with patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives, to group the key findings and produce seven statements relating to the study objectives. Each statement and the key findings related to that statement were considered alongside an assessment of whether there was agreement, partial agreement, dissonance or silence across all four data sources (convergence coding). The matrix was then interpreted to produce a narrative for each statement.

To explore whether PCT testing safely reduced antibiotic use during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Seven statements were produced relating to the PEACH study objective. There was agreement across all four data sources for our first key statement, ‘During the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing’. The second statement was related to this key statement, ‘During the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing safely reduced antibiotic prescribing’. Partial agreement was found between data sources 3 (quantitative patient-level data) and 4 (qualitative clinician interviews). There were no data regarding safety from data sources 1 or 2 (quantitative survey and organisational-level data) to contribute to this statement. For statements three and four, ‘PCT was not used as a central factor influencing antibiotic prescribing’, and ‘PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing in the emergency department (ED)/acute medical unit (AMU),’ there was agreement between data source 2 (organisational-level data) and data source 4 (interviews with clinicians). The remaining two data sources (survey and patient-level data) contributed no data on this statement. For statement five, ‘PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing in the intensive care unit (ICU)’, there was disagreement between data sources 2 and 3 (organisational-level data and patient-level data) and data source 4 (clinician interviews). Data source 1 (survey) did not provide data on this statement. We therefore assigned dissonance to this statement. For statement six, ‘There were many barriers to implementing PCT testing during the first wave of COVID-19’, there was partial agreement between data source 1 (survey) and data source 4 (clinician interviews) and no data provided by the two remaining data sources (organisational-level data and patient-level data). For statement seven, ‘Local PCT guidelines/protocols were perceived to be valuable’, only data source 4 (clinician interviews) provided data. The clinicians expressed that guidelines were valuable, but as there was no data from the other three data sources, we assigned silence to this statement.

There was agreement between all four data sources on our key finding ‘during the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing’. Data, methodological and investigator triangulation, and a transparent triangulation protocol give validity to this finding.

ISRCTN66682918.