Negotiating research in the Emergency Department: a qualitative study of staff experience of the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Trial CAst versus SPlint (DRAFT3-CASP) RCT for distal radius fractures

Aims We sought to explore staff experience of conducting an orthopaedic trauma randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the Emergency Department (ED). The Distal Radius Acute Fracture Trial: CAst versus SPlint (DRAFT3-CASP) RCT explores the effectiveness of two treatment pathways for patients with a fracture of the distal radius that does not require manipulation. These are, a plaster cast which is removed four to six weeks later in a fracture clinic, and discharge from emergency care with a wrist splint that patients remove themselves. Methods A total of 20 multidisciplinary staff recruiting to the DRAFT3-CASP RCT from 14 NHS trusts across England took part in a telephone/online qualitative interview. Interviews were informed by Heideggerian Phenomenology and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results The findings highlight the struggle to undertake research in emergency settings through the overarching theme ‘negotiating research’. Staff identified three enablers of research: 1) fitting within clinical practice; 2) finding meaning; and 3) being supported. The fast pace of work and high service demand in emergency care prevented clinical staff from fully engaging with the study. Research delivery staff were vital and supported screening, recruitment, and data collection. Finding meaning in the research question by linking it to patient benefit helped staff to maintain enthusiasm despite the challenges encountered. Conclusion Negotiating research in the ED is challenging. Protected time is essential for clinical staff to undertake research training and recruitment. Research delivery teams with research expertise are vital for successful recruitment. Increased investment in research delivery staff can ensure patients are given the opportunity to take part in research studies and can promote enthusiasm for research. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2026;7(5):667–673.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bone & Joint Open
Published
2026-05-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.75.bjo-2025-0374.r1
Primary Topic
Health Policy Implementation Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Negotiating research in the Emergency Department: a qualitative study of staff experience of the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Trial CAst versus SPlint (DRAFT3-CASP) RCT for distal radius fractures

Bone & Joint Open
Health Policy Implementation Science
article

Negotiating research in the Emergency Department: a qualitative study of staff experience of the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Trial CAst versus SPlint (DRAFT3-CASP) RCT for distal radius fractures

article en

Abstract

Aims We sought to explore staff experience of conducting an orthopaedic trauma randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the Emergency Department (ED). The Distal Radius Acute Fracture Trial: CAst versus SPlint (DRAFT3-CASP) RCT explores the effectiveness of two treatment pathways for patients with a fracture of the distal radius that does not require manipulation. These are, a plaster cast which is removed four to six weeks later in a fracture clinic, and discharge from emergency care with a wrist splint that patients remove themselves. Methods A total of 20 multidisciplinary staff recruiting to the DRAFT3-CASP RCT from 14 NHS trusts across England took part in a telephone/online qualitative interview. Interviews were informed by Heideggerian Phenomenology and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results The findings highlight the struggle to undertake research in emergency settings through the overarching theme ‘negotiating research’. Staff identified three enablers of research: 1) fitting within clinical practice; 2) finding meaning; and 3) being supported. The fast pace of work and high service demand in emergency care prevented clinical staff from fully engaging with the study. Research delivery staff were vital and supported screening, recruitment, and data collection. Finding meaning in the research question by linking it to patient benefit helped staff to maintain enthusiasm despite the challenges encountered. Conclusion Negotiating research in the ED is challenging. Protected time is essential for clinical staff to undertake research training and recruitment. Research delivery teams with research expertise are vital for successful recruitment. Increased investment in research delivery staff can ensure patients are given the opportunity to take part in research studies and can promote enthusiasm for research. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2026;7(5):667–673.

Bone & Joint OpenVol. 7(5)
John Radcliffe Hospital (GB), University of Oxford (GB), Partners In Care (US), Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Health Policy Implementation Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.