6 results on '"Potter, Shelley"'
Search Results
2. Biological and synthetic mesh assisted breast reconstruction procedures: Joint guidelines from the Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.
- Author
-
Whisker, Lisa, Barber, Matthew, Egbeare, Donna, Gandhi, Ashu, Gilmour, Adam, Harvey, James, Martin, Lee, Tillett, Rachel, and Potter, Shelley
- Subjects
BREAST surgery ,MAMMAPLASTY ,SURGEONS ,PLASTICS ,AESTHETICS ,DECISION making - Abstract
These guidelines have been produced with the involvement of the Association of Breast Surgery and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Recommendations have been derived after a review of published data regarding the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM), biological and synthetic mesh in breast reconstruction. The guidelines represent a consensus opinion on the optimal management of patients having biological or synthetic mesh assisted breast reconstruction informed by peer-review publications. The Guidelines should be used to inform clinical decision making. Ultimately, members of the MDT remain responsible for the treatment of patients under their care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire.
- Author
-
Mylvaganam, Senthurun, Whisker, Lisa J., Blazeby, Jane M., Potter, Shelley, Holcombe, Christopher, Conroy, Elizabeth, Williamson, Paula R., Barnes, Nicola L.P., Cutress, Ramsey I., Gardiner, Matthew D., Jain, Abhilash, Skillman, Joanna M., and Thrush, Steven
- Subjects
BREAST surgery ,SURGICAL meshes ,PATIENT selection ,MAMMAPLASTY ,SURGERY - Abstract
Introduction The introduction of biological and synthetic meshes has revolutionised the practice of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) but evidence for effectiveness is lacking. The iBRA (implant Breast Reconstruction evAluation) study is a national trainee-led project that aims to explore the practice and outcomes of IBBR to inform the design of a future trial. We report the results of the iBRA National Practice Questionnaire (NPQ) which aimed to comprehensively describe the provision and practice of IBBR across the UK. Methods A questionnaire investigating local practice and service provision of IBBR developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and variation between centres and overall provision of care examined. Results 81 units within 79 NHS-hospitals completed the questionnaire. Units offered a range of reconstructive techniques, with IBBR accounting for 70% (IQR:50–80%) of participating units' immediate procedures. Units on average were staffed by 2.5 breast surgeons (IQR:2.0–3.0) and 2.0 plastic surgeons (IQR:1.0–3.0) performing 35 IBBR cases per year (IQR:20-50). Variation was demonstrated in the provision of novel different techniques for IBBR especially the use of biological (n = 62) and synthetic (n = 25) meshes and in patient selection for these procedures. Conclusions The iBRA-NPQ has demonstrated marked variation in the provision and practice of IBBR in the UK. The prospective audit phase of the iBRA study will determine the safety and effectiveness of different approaches to IBBR and allow evidence-based best practice to be explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Exploring methods the for selection and integration of stakeholder views in the development of core outcome sets: a case study in reconstructive breast surgery.
- Author
-
Potter, Shelley, Brookes, Sara T., Holcombe, Christopher, Ward, Joseph A., and Blazeby, Jane M.
- Subjects
- *
BREAST surgery , *PLASTIC surgery , *TRANSPLANTATION of organs, tissues, etc. , *STAKEHOLDERS , *PLASTIC surgeons - Abstract
Background: The development and use of core outcome sets (COSs) in trials may improve data synthesis and reduce outcome reporting bias. The selection of outcomes in COSs is informed by views of key stakeholders, yet little is known about the role and influence of different stakeholders' views during COS development. We report an exploratory case study examining how stakeholder selection and incorporation of stakeholders' views may influence the selection of outcomes for a COS in reconstructive breast surgery (RBS). We also make recommendations for future considerations. Methods: Key stakeholder groups and subgroups were identified from the literature and expert opinion by the COS management group. They included health care professionals, subdivided by profession (breast and plastic surgeons, specialist nurses and psychologists) and patients, subdivided according to type of surgery received, timing of reconstruction, time since surgery and patient age. All participated in a survey in which they were asked to prioritise outcomes. Outcomes were prioritised using a 9-point scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (extremely important). The proportion of (1) all participants, ignoring stakeholder group (single heterogeneous panel analysis), (2) 'professional' and 'patient' groups separately (two heterogeneous panels), ignoring prespecified subgroups and (3) each participant subgroup separately (multiple homogeneous panel analysis) rating each item 'extremely important' was summarised and compared to explore how selection and integration of stakeholder views may influence outcome prioritisation. Results: There were many overlaps between items rated as most important by all groups. Specific stakeholders, however, prioritised specific concerns and a broader range of outcomes were prioritised when the subgroups were considered separately. For example, two additional outcomes were prioritised when patient and professional groups were considered separately and eight additional outcomes were identified when the views of the individual subgroups were explored. In general, patient subgroups preferentially valued additional clinical outcomes, including unplanned surgery, whereas professional subgroups prioritised additional psychosocial issues including body image. Conclusion: Stakeholder groups value different outcomes. Selection of groups, therefore, is important. Our recommendations for robust and transparent stakeholder selection and integration of stakeholder views may aid future COS developers in the design and conduct of their studies and improve the validity and value of future COS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. Exploring information provision in reconstructive breast surgery: A qualitative study.
- Author
-
Potter, Shelley, Mills, Nicola, Cawthorn, Simon, Wilson, Sherif, and Blazeby, Jane
- Subjects
BREAST surgery ,PLASTIC surgery ,MEDICAL decision making ,MEDICAL personnel ,HEALTH outcome assessment - Abstract
Objective Women considering reconstructive breast surgery (RBS) require adequate information to make informed treatment decisions. This study explored patients' and health professionals' (HPs) perceptions of the adequacy of information provided for decision-making in RBS. Methods Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patients who had undergone RBS and HPs providing specialist care explored participants' experiences of information provision prior to RBS. Results Professionals reported providing standardised verbal, written and photographic information about the process and outcomes of surgery. Women, by contrast, reported varying levels of information provision. Some felt fully-informed but others perceived they had received insufficient information about available treatment options or possible outcomes of surgery to make an informed decision. Conclusions Women need adequate information to make informed decisions about RBS and current practice may not meet women's needs. Minimum agreed standards of information provision, especially about alternative types of reconstruction, are recommended to improve decision-making in RBS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study.
- Author
-
Potter, Shelley, Mills, Nicola, Cawthorn, Simon J., Donovan, Jenny, and Blazeby, Jane M.
- Subjects
- *
SURGEONS , *CLINICAL trials , *SURGERY , *THERAPEUTICS , *MEDICINE - Abstract
Background: Well-designed randomised clinical trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence to inform decision-making and should be the default option for evaluating surgical procedures. Such trials can be challenging, and surgeons' preferences may influence whether trials are initiated and successfully conducted and their results accepted. Preferences are particularly problematic when surgeons' views play a key role in procedure selection and patient eligibility. The bases of such preferences have rarely been explored. Our aim in this qualitative study was to investigate surgeons' preferences regarding the feasibility of surgical RCTs and their understanding of study design issues using breast reconstruction surgery as a case study. Methods: Semistructured qualitative interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 35 professionals practicing at 15 centres across the United Kingdom. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparative techniques. Sampling, data collection and analysis were conducted concurrently and iteratively until data saturation was achieved. Results: Surgeons often struggle with the concept of equipoise. We found that if surgeons did not feel 'in equipoise', they did not accept randomisation as a method of treatment allocation. The underlying reasons for limited equipoise were limited appreciation of the methodological weaknesses of data derived from nonrandomised studies and little understanding of pragmatic trial design. Their belief in the value of RCTs for generating high-quality data to change or inform practice was not widely held. Conclusion: There is a need to help surgeons understand evidence, equipoise and bias. Current National Institute of Health Research/Medical Research Council investment into education and infrastructure for RCTs, combined with strong leadership, may begin to address these issues or more specific interventions may be required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2014
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.