Search

Contains fulltext : 288037.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: The effects that therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have on immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are not yet fully known. Therefore, we sought to determine whether COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody responses were altered in patients with IBD on commonly used immunosuppressive drugs. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective, case-control study (VIP), we recruited adults with IBD treated with one of six different immunosuppressive treatment regimens (thiopurines, infliximab, a thiopurine plus infliximab, ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib) and healthy control participants from nine centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older and had received two doses of COVID-19 vaccines (either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [Oxford-AstraZeneca], BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech], or mRNA1273 [Moderna]) 6-12 weeks apart (according to scheduling adopted in the UK). We measured antibody responses 53-92 days after a second vaccine dose using the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. The primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody concentrations in participants without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, adjusted by age and vaccine type, and was analysed by use of multivariable linear regression models. This study is registered in the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN13495664, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between May 31 and Nov 24, 2021, we recruited 483 participants, including patients with IBD being treated with thiopurines (n=78), infliximab (n=63), a thiopurine plus infliximab (n=72), ustekinumab (n=57), vedolizumab (n=62), or tofacitinib (n=30), and 121 healthy controls. We included 370 participants without evidence of previous infection in our primary analysis. Geometric mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody concentrations were significantly lower in patients treated with infliximab (156·8 U/mL [geometric SD 5·7]; p

Inflammatory bowel disease is characterised by significant interindividual heterogeneity. With a wider selection of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions available and in advanced developmental stages, a priority for the coming decade is to determine accurate methods of predicting treatment response and disease course. Precision medicine strategies will allow tailoring of preventative and therapeutic decisions to individual patient needs. In this review, we consider the future of precision medicine in inflammatory bowel disease. We discuss the critical need to extend from research focussed on short-term symptomatic response, to integrative multi-omic systems biology strategies to identify and validate biomarkers that underpin precision approaches. Crucially, the international community has collective responsibility to provide well-phenotyped and curated, longitudinal datasets for scientific discovery and validation. Research must also study broader aspects of the immune response including components of the extracellular matrix to better understand biological pathways initiating and perpetuating tissue fibrosis and longer-term disease complications.

Contains fulltext : 288038.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody responses are reduced in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) taking anti-TNF or tofacitinib after two vaccine doses. We sought to assess whether immunosuppressive treatments were associated with reduced antibody and T-cell responses in patients with IBD after a third vaccine dose. METHODS: VIP was a multicentre, prospective, case-control study done in nine centres in the UK. We recruited immunosuppressed patients with IBD and non-immunosuppressed healthy individuals. All participants were aged 18 years or older. The healthy control group had no diagnosis of IBD and no current treatment with systemic immunosuppressive therapy for any other indication. The immunosuppressed patients with IBD had an established diagnosis of Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, or unclassified IBD using standard definitions of IBD, and were receiving established treatment with one of six immunosuppressive regimens for at least 12 weeks at the time of first dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. All participants had to have received three doses of an approved COVID-19 vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody binding and T-cell responses were measured in all participant groups. The primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1 receptor binding domain [RBD]) antibody concentration 28-49 days after the third vaccine dose, adjusted by age, homologous versus heterologous vaccine schedule, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was assessed in all participants with available data. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2021, and March 29, 2022, 352 participants were included in the study (thiopurine n=65, infliximab n=46, thiopurine plus infliximab combination therapy n=49, ustekinumab n=44, vedolizumab n=50, tofacitinib n=26, and healthy controls n=72). Geometric mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD antibody concentrations increased in all groups following a third vaccine dose, but were significantly lower in patients treated with infliximab (2736·8 U/mL [geometric SD 4·3]; p

Contains fulltext : 291657.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Anti-TNF drugs, such as infliximab, are associated with attenuated antibody responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We aimed to determine how the anti-TNF drug infliximab and the anti-integrin drug vedolizumab affect vaccine-induced neutralising antibodies against highly transmissible omicron (B.1.1.529) BA.1, and BA.4 and BA.5 (hereafter BA.4/5) SARS-CoV-2 variants, which possess the ability to evade host immunity and, together with emerging sublineages, are now the dominating variants causing current waves of infection. METHODS: CLARITY IBD is a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study investigating the effect of infliximab and vedolizumab on SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Patients aged 5 years and older with a diagnosis of IBD and being treated with infliximab or vedolizumab for 6 weeks or longer were recruited from infusion units at 92 hospitals in the UK. In this analysis, we included participants who had received uninterrupted biological therapy since recruitment and without a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and omicron subvariants BA.1 and BA.4/5 after three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We constructed Cox proportional hazards models to investigate the risk of breakthrough infection in relation to neutralising antibody titres. The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN45176516, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 22 and Dec 23, 2020, 7224 patients with IBD were recruited to the CLARITY IBD study, of whom 1288 had no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection after three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and were established on either infliximab (n=871) or vedolizumab (n=417) and included in this study (median age was 46·1 years [IQR 33·6-58·2], 610 [47·4%] were female, 671 [52·1%] were male, 1209 [93·9%] were White, and 46 [3·6%] were Asian). After three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, 50% neutralising titres (NT50s) were significantly lower in patients treated with infliximab than in those treated with vedolizumab, against wild-type (geometric mean 2062 [95% CI 1720-2473] vs 3440 [2939-4026]; p

Contains fulltext : 291656.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Background: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with anti-TNF therapy exhibit attenuated humoral immune responses to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. The gut microbiota and its functional metabolic output, which are perturbed in IBD, play an important role in shaping host immune responses. We explored whether the gut microbiota and metabolome could explain variation in anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination responses in immunosuppressed IBD patients. Methods: Faecal and serum samples were prospectively collected from infliximab-treated patients with IBD in the CLARITY-IBD study undergoing vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Antibody responses were measured following two doses of either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine. Patients were classified as having responses above or below the geometric mean of the wider CLARITY-IBD cohort. 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and bile acid profiling with ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS) were performed on faecal samples. Univariate, multivariable and correlation analyses were performed to determine gut microbial and metabolomic predictors of response to vaccination. Findings: Forty-three infliximab-treated patients with IBD were recruited (30 Crohn's disease, 12 ulcerative colitis, 1 IBD-unclassified; 26 with concomitant thiopurine therapy). Eight patients had evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Seventeen patients (39.5%) had a serological response below the geometric mean. Gut microbiota diversity was lower in below average responders (p = 0.037). Bilophila abundance was associated with better serological response, while Streptococcus was associated with poorer response. The faecal metabolome was distinct between above and below average responders (OPLS-DA R2X 0.25, R2Y 0.26, Q2 0.15; CV-ANOVA p = 0.038). Trimethylamine, isobutyrate and omega-muricholic acid were associated with better response, while succinate, phenylalanine, taurolithocholate and taurodeoxycholate were associated with poorer response. Interpretation: Our data suggest that there is an association between the gut microbiota and variable serological response to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in immunocompromised patients. Microbial metabolites including trimethylamine may be important in mitigating anti-TNF-induced attenuation of the immune response. Funding: JLA is the recipient of an NIHR Academic Clinical Lectureship (CL-2019-21-502), funded by Imperial College London and The Joyce and Norman Freed Charitable Trust. BHM is the recipient of an NIHR Academic Clinical Lectureship (CL-2019-21-002). The Division of Digestive Diseases at Imperial College London receives financial and infrastructure support from the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London. Metabolomics studies were performed at the MRC-NIHR National Phenome Centre at Imperial College London; this work was supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) (grant number MC_PC_12025) and infrastructure support was provided by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The NIHR Exeter Clinical Research Facility is a partnership between the University of Exeter Medical School College of Medicine and Health, and Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust. This project is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Exeter Clinical Research Facility. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Summary Background There is a paucity of evidence to support safe and effective management of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify alterations to established conventional evidence-based management of acute severe ulcerative colitis during the early COVID-19 pandemic, the effect on outcomes, and any associations with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. Methods The PROTECT-ASUC study was a multicentre, observational, case-control study in 60 acute secondary care hospitals throughout the UK. We included adults (≥18 years) with either ulcerative colitis or inflammatory bowel disease unclassified, who presented with acute severe ulcerative colitis and fulfilled the Truelove and Witts criteria. Cases and controls were identified as either admitted or managed in emergency ambulatory care settings between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic period cohort), or between Jan 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019 (historical control cohort), respectively. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or colectomy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04411784 . Findings We included 782 patients (398 in the pandemic period cohort and 384 in the historical control cohort) who met the Truelove and Witts criteria for acute severe ulcerative colitis. The proportion of patients receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or surgery was higher during the pandemic period than in the historical period (217 [55%] of 393 patients vs 159 [42%] of 380 patients; p=0·00024) and the time to rescue therapy was shorter in the pandemic cohort than in the historical cohort (p=0·0026). This difference was driven by a greater use of rescue and primary induction therapies with biologicals, ciclosporin, or tofacitinib in the COVID-19 pandemic period cohort than in the historical control period cohort (177 [46%] of 387 patients in the COVID-19 cohort vs 134 [36%] of 373 patients in the historical cohort; p=0·0064). During the pandemic, more patients received ambulatory (outpatient) intravenous steroids (51 [13%] of 385 patients vs 19 [5%] of 360 patients; p=0·00023). Fewer patients received thiopurines (29 [7%] of 398 patients vs 46 [12%] of 384; p=0·029) and 5-aminosalicylic acids (67 [17%] of 398 patients vs 98 [26%] of 384; p=0·0037) during the pandemic than in the historical control period. Colectomy rates were similar between the pandemic and historical control groups (64 [16%] of 389 vs 50 [13%] of 375; p=0·26); however, laparoscopic surgery was less frequently performed during the pandemic period (34 [53%] of 64] vs 38 [76%] of 50; p=0·018). Five (2%) of 253 patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during hospital treatment. Two (2%) of 103 patients re-tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the 3-month follow-up were positive 5 days and 12 days, respectively, after discharge from index admission. Both recovered without serious outcomes. Interpretation The COVID-19 pandemic altered practice patterns of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons in the management of acute severe ulcerative colitis but was associated with similar outcomes to a historical cohort. Despite continued use of high-dose corticosteroids and biologicals, the incidence of COVID-19 within 3 months was low and not associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Funding None.

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with anti-TNF therapy exhibit attenuated humoral immune responses to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. The gut microbiota and its functional metabolic output, which are perturbed in IBD, play an important role in shaping host immune responses. We explored whether the gut microbiota and metabolome could explain variation in anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination responses in immunosuppressed IBD patients. Faecal and serum samples were prospectively collected from infliximab-treated patients with IBD in the CLARITY-IBD study undergoing vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Antibody responses were measured following two doses of either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine. Patients were classified as having responses above or below the geometric mean of the wider CLARITY-IBD cohort. 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and bile acid profiling with ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS) were performed on faecal samples. Univariate, multivariable and correlation analyses were performed to determine gut microbial and metabolomic predictors of response to vaccination. Forty-three infliximab-treated patients with IBD were recruited (30 Crohn’s disease, 12 ulcerative colitis, 1 IBD-unclassified; 26 with concomitant thiopurine therapy). Eight patients had evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Seventeen patients (39.5%) had a serological response below the geometric mean. Gut microbiota diversity was lower in below average responders (p = 0.021). Bilophila abundance was associated with better serological response, while Streptococcus was associated with poorer response. The faecal metabolome was distinct between above and below average responders (OPLS-DA R2X 0.25, R2Y 0.26, Q2 0.15; CV-ANOVA p = 0.038). Trimethylamine was associated with better response, while succinate, phenylalanine and the bile acids taurolithocholate and taurodeoxycholate were associated with poorer response. Our data suggest that there is an association between the gut microbiota and variable serological response to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in immunocompromised patients. Microbial metabolites including trimethylamine may be important in mitigating anti-TNF-induced attenuation of the immune response.

We report SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced immunity and risk of breakthrough infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with infliximab, a commonly used anti-TNF drug and those treated with vedolizumab, a gut-specific antibody targeting integrin a4b7 that does not impact systemic immunity. In infliximab-treated patients, the magnitude of anti-SARS-CoV2 antibodies was reduced 4-6-fold. One fifth of both infliximab- and vedolizumab-treated patients did not mount a T cell response. Antibody half-life was shorter in infliximab-treated patients. Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred more frequently in infliximab-treated patients and the risk was predicted by the level of antibody response after second vaccine dose. Overall, recipients of two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine had higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations, higher seroconversion rates, shorter antibody half-life and less breakthrough infections compared to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine recipients. Irrespective of biologic treatment, higher, more sustained antibody levels were observed in patients with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination. Patients treated with anti-TNF therapy should be offered third vaccine doses.

To inform healthcare policy for immunosuppressed patients there is a need to define SARS-CoV-2 vaccine responses. Here we report SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced antibody and T cell responses in patients treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF), a commonly used biologic in inflammatory diseases, compared to patients treated with vedolizumab, a gut-specific antibody targeting integrin a4b7 that does not impair systemic immunity. In anti-TNF recipients, the magnitude of anti-SARS-CoV2 antibodies was reduced five-fold, and rapidly decayed towards the seroconversion threshold by 14 weeks after second dose of vaccine. In contrast, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were sustained up to 16 weeks in vedolizumab-treated patients. Anti-SARS-CoV2 antibody decay was not observed in vaccinated patients previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. T cell responses were absent in one-fifth of anti-TNF and vedolizumab-treated patients after a second dose of either vaccine. Our data have important implications for anti-TNF recipients, including the need for vaccine prioritization, booster doses, and social distancing strategies.

Background Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) traditionally requires inpatient hospital management for intravenous therapies and/or colectomy. Patients with ASUC can deteriorate rapidly and hence require close monitoring of vital signs correlated with clinical, biochemical and radiological investigations. Traditionally, patients are admitted to hospital to facilitate endoscopic assessment, exclude concomitant infective complications, monitor response to first-line corticosteroid treatment and determine the need for and timing of rescue therapy and/or colectomy. Ambulatory care pathways, which utilise outpatient monitoring and drug delivery, have been shown to deliver safe and effective treatment for conditions which have historically mandated hospitalisation e.g. pulmonary embolus. To date there are a paucity of data regarding the use of ambulatory pathways in ASUC cohorts. We used data from PROTECT, a UK multicentre observational COVID-19 i (IBD) study, to report the extent, safety and effectiveness of ASUC ambulatory pathways. Methods Adults (≥ 18 years old) meeting Truelove and Witts criteria between 01/01/2019- 01/06/2019 and 01/03/2020–30/06/2020 were recruited to PROTECT (Figure 1). We utilised demographic, disease phenotype, treatment outcomes and 3-month follow-up data. Primary outcome was rate of rescue therapy and/or colectomy. Secondary outcomes included corticosteroid response, response to rescue therapy, colectomy, mortality and hospital readmission within 3-months. We compared outcomes in 3 cohorts: i) patients treated entirely in inpatient setting; ambulatory patients subdivided into ii) patients hospitalised and subsequently discharged to ambulatory care; iii) patients managed as ambulatory from diagnosis . Results 38%(23/60) participating hospitals used ambulatory pathways. Of 770 eligible patients, 700(91%) patients received entirely inpatient care, 55(7%) patients were discharged to ambulatory pathways and 15(2%) patients were managed as ambulatory from diagnosis. The rate of rescue therapy and/or colectomy (49%[339/696] vs 41%[22/54] vs 67%[10/15], respectively, p=0.18) (figure 2) and secondary outcomes were similar among all three cohorts. After 3-months follow up from the index ASUC diagnosis there was no significant difference in either rate of UC flare, readmission to hospital with UC flare or colectomy between the cohorts. Conclusion In the largest description of ambulatory ASUC care to date, we report an emerging practice which challenges treatment paradigms. Our data suggest ambulatory ASUC treatment may be safe and effective in selected patients but further studies exploring clinical and cost effectiveness as well as patient and physician acceptability are needed.

Background In 2013 the Junior Doctor Service Improvement Board (JDSIB) was created to support multi-disciplinary staff in Quality Improvement Projects (QIP) across Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust. In 2018–2019 the JDSIB introduced four co-chair roles from varying specialities. This unique advantage provides valuable perspectives and crucial trust-wide links. Aims Identifying and supporting opportunities for meaningful, sustainable improvement. Methods JDSIB’s rebranding using distinct logos and colour scheme improved visibility and recognisability and thus engagement. Despite staff identifying areas for improvement across the Trust, there was a perceived notion that the culture was not receptive to change. To tackle this, JDSIB held regular events to showcase QIP ideas in the presence of senior key leaders such as the medical director, CEO, and the audit team. These forums discussed solutions to roadblocks and provided a dedicated space to listen to, and inspire new projects. Cross-team collaboration with the audit team proved crucial in combining resources, expertise and preventing duplicated effort. Results JDSIB was deemed ‘inspirational’ by management and ‘very useful’ by colleagues. JDSIB linked motivated individuals and supported colleagues in implementing QIPs, but most importantly emphasised that investigating roadblocks can lead to sustainable solutions. Challenges ranged from co-ordinating rota commitments with events, to influencing senior staff involvement. Conclusion Employing a senior solely dedicated to QI and leadership would be a useful resource. The strong emphasis on junior doctors to become more engaged, provides opportunities for organisations to nurture their trainees for future leadership roles. Trust wide engagement is by no means an easy feat, yet slowly changing micro-cultures is the start to embracing wider change. The JDSIB are dedicated to encourage improvement and support healthcare professionals to create meaningful change.

Objective The objective of this study is an attempt to measure the performance in terms of comparing results with a large internationally recognized database used as a benchmark. Design Cross-sectional (prospectively collected data analysed and compared retrospectively). Setting Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan. Participants, interventions and main outcome measures From January 2006 to December 2010, information of the 2198 CABGs performed at Aga Khan University Hospital (AKU) was collected prospectively. This included patient characteristics and specific intra- and post-operative outcomes and compared with findings from the American Society of Thoracic Surgeons' National Cardiac Database (STS-NCD). Results There were more male patients in the AKU cohort and more diabetics. In AKU, more cases involved three or more grafts (85 vs. 78%), and in both groups, an internal mammary artery graft was used over 90% of the time. The overall 30-day mortality was 2.7% at AKU, compared with 1.5% in the STS-NCD data. AKU had a lower incidence of permanent stroke (0.5 vs. 1.2%), prolonged ventilation (10.5 vs. 11.0%), deep sternal wound infection (0.2 vs. 0.4%) and reoperation (4.0 vs. 4.7%). It had more cases of renal failure (5.4 vs. 3.6%). Readmission rates within 30 days were also less in AKU (3.9 vs. 9.1%). Conclusions The outcomes of this study compare very favourably with the benchmark (STS). This demonstrates that high level of quality care can be achieved in this part of the world.

Clinical handover has been identified as a "major preventable cause of harm" by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP). Whilst working at a London teaching hospital from August 2013, we noted substandard weekend handover of medical patients. The existing pro forma was filled incompletely by day doctors so it was difficult for weekend colleagues to identify unwell patients, with inherent safety implications. Furthermore, on-call medical staff noted that poor accessibility of vital information in patients' files was affecting acute clinical management. We audited the pro formas over a six week period (n=83) and the Friday ward round (WR) entries for medical inpatients over two weekends (n=84) against the RCP's handover guidance. The results showed poor documentation of several important details on the pro formas, for example, ceiling of care (4%) and past medical history (PMH) (23%). Problem lists were specified on 62% of the WR entries. We designed new handover pro formas and 'Friday WR sheets' to provide prompts for this information and used Medical Meetings and emails to explain the project's aims. Re-audit demonstrated significant improvement in all parameters; for instance, PMH increased to 52% on the pro formas. Only 10% of Friday WR entries used our sheet. However, when used, outcomes were much better, for example, problem list documentation increased to 100%. In conclusion, our interventions improved the provision of crucial information needed to prioritise and manage patients over the weekend. Future work should further highlight the importance of safe handover to all doctors to induce a shift in culture and optimise patient care.

Background: In most areas of medical research, the label of ‘quality’ is associated with well-accepted standards. Whilst its interpretation in the field of medical education is contentious, there is agreement on the key elements required when reporting novel teaching strategies. We set out to assess if these features had been fulfilled by poster presentations at a major international medical education conference. Methods: Such posters were analysed in four key areas: reporting of theoretical underpinning, explanation of instructional design methods, descriptions of the resources needed for introduction, and the offering of materials to support dissemination. Results: Three hundred and twelve posters were reviewed with 170 suitable for analysis. Forty-one percent described their methods of instruction or innovation design. Thirty-three percent gave details of equipment, and 29% of studies described resources that may be required for delivering such an intervention. Further resources to support dissemination of their innovation were offered by 36%. Twenty-three percent described the theoretical underpinning or conceptual frameworks upon which their work was based. Conclusions: These findings suggest that posters presenting educational innovation are currently limited in what they offer to educators. Presenters should seek to enhance their reporting of these crucial aspects by employing existing published guidance, and organising committees may wish to consider explicitly requesting such information at the time of initial submission. Keywords: patient safety; non-technical skills; human factors; adverse events (Published: 19 February 2013) Citation: Med Educ Online 2013, 18 : 20498 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/meo.v18i0.20498

Anecdotal evidence suggested that the management of patients with eye complaints in the Emergency Department (ED) at King's College Hospital, London was suboptimal. Acute ophthalmology is often poorly covered at undergraduate level in the United Kingdom which can affect patient safety. Furthermore, it was notoriously difficult to obtain specialist advice within working hours. Contact lens (CL) wearers are prone to Pseudomonas conjunctivitis which requires certain antibiotics and mismanagement of this has led to sight-threatening consequences locally. Junior doctor surveys suggested under-confidence in managing eye problems and initial audit showed that eye assessments are frequently incomplete during ED clerkings. For example, CL status and visual acuity were documented in 63% and 77% of cases respectively; however, these were increased when a dedicated pro forma was used. To address these multiple issues, a new ‘eye examination pro forma’ was created, along with integrated clinical guidelines based on local expert practice. This would prompt staff to elicit key information to help guide management. A new referral pathway was also introduced to facilitate access to ophthalmology services. On re-auditing seven months later, the new pro forma was completed for only 28% of patients, though this was associated with a higher rate of documentation of all parameters. The referral pathways worked efficiently and patients with red flag features were identified and managed more appropriately than before. We learnt that it is important that someone personally drives the innovations from the outset, otherwise prolonged change is difficult. Secondly, junior doctors may not be proficient with slit lamp use, for instance, so targeted teaching is required, not simply new pathways. Full engagement with the pro forma and effective patient management should then improve simultaneously. Specific teaching is now being implemented and permanent staff have been recruited to oversee the project. We plan to re-audit in November 2014.