Search

Introduction The introduction of novel surgical techniques and procedures remains poorly regulated and standardised. Although the learning curve associated with invasive procedures is a critical part of innovation, it is currently inconsistently defined, measured and reported. This study aims to develop a core data set that can be applied in all studies describing or measuring the learning curve in novel invasive procedures.Methods A core data set will be developed using methods adapted from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. The study will involve three phases: (1) Identification of a comprehensive list of data items through (a) an umbrella review of existing systematic reviews on the learning curve in surgery and (b) qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. (2) Key stakeholders (eg, clinical innovators, clinicians, patients, methodologists, statisticians, journal editors and governance representatives) will complete a Delphi survey to score the importance of each data item, generating a shortened list. (3) Consensus meeting(s) with stakeholders to discuss and agree on the final core data set.Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by an Institutional Ethics Committee at the University of Bristol (ref: 111362). Participants will complete written informed consent to participate. Dissemination strategies include scientific meeting presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications, patient engagement events, use of social media platforms, workshops and other events.

Introduction Neoadjuvant systemic anticancer therapy (neoSACT) is increasingly used in the treatment of early breast cancer. Response to therapy is prognostic and allows locoregional and adjuvant systemic treatments to be tailored to minimise morbidity and optimise oncological outcomes and quality of life. Accurate information about locoregional treatments following neoSACT is vital to allow the translation of downstaging benefits into practice and facilitate meaningful interpretation of oncological outcomes, particularly locoregional recurrence. Reporting of locoregional treatments in neoSACT studies, however, is currently poor. The development of a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidelines is one strategy by which this may be improved.Methods and analysis A COS for reporting locoregional treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) in neoSACT trials will be developed in accordance with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently.The project will have three phases: (1) generation of a long list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items from a systematic review of published neoSACT studies and interviews with key stakeholders. Identified items and domains will be categorised and formatted into Delphi consensus questionnaire items. (2) At least two rounds of an international online Delphi survey in which at least 250 key stakeholders (surgeons/oncologists/radiologists/pathologists/trialists/methodologists) will score the importance of reporting each outcome. (3) A consensus meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree the final COS and reporting guidance.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for the consensus process will be obtained from the Queen’s University Belfast Faculty Ethics Committee. The COS/reporting guidelines will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination materials will be produced in collaboration with our steering group and patient advocates so the results can be shared widely.Registration The study has been prospectively registered on the COMET website (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2854).

BackgroundImproving shared decision-making (SDM) for patients has become a health policy priority in many countries. Achieving high-quality SDM is particularly important for approximately 313 million surgical treatment decisions patients make globally every year. Large-scale monitoring of surgical patients’ experience of SDM in real time is needed to identify the failings of SDM before surgery is performed. We developed a novel approach to automating real-time data collection using an electronic measurement system to address this. Examining usability will facilitate its optimization and wider implementation to inform interventions aimed at improving SDM. ObjectiveThis study examined the usability of an electronic real-time measurement system to monitor surgical patients’ experience of SDM. We aimed to evaluate the metrics and indicators relevant to system effectiveness, system efficiency, and user satisfaction. MethodsWe performed a mixed methods usability evaluation using multiple participant cohorts. The measurement system was implemented in a large UK hospital to measure patients’ experience of SDM electronically before surgery using 2 validated measures (CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9). Quantitative data (collected between April 1 and December 31, 2021) provided measurement system metrics to assess system effectiveness and efficiency. We included adult patients booked for urgent and elective surgery across 7 specialties and excluded patients without the capacity to consent for medical procedures, those without access to an internet-enabled device, and those undergoing emergency or endoscopic procedures. Additional groups of service users (group 1: public members who had not engaged with the system; group 2: a subset of patients who completed the measurement system) completed user-testing sessions and semistructured interviews to assess system effectiveness and user satisfaction. We conducted quantitative data analysis using descriptive statistics and calculated the task completion rate and survey response rate (system effectiveness) as well as the task completion time, task efficiency, and relative efficiency (system efficiency). Qualitative thematic analysis identified indicators of and barriers to good usability (user satisfaction). ResultsA total of 2254 completed surveys were returned to the measurement system. A total of 25 service users (group 1: n=9; group 2: n=16) participated in user-testing sessions and interviews. The task completion rate was high (169/171, 98.8%) and the survey response rate was good (2254/5794, 38.9%). The median task completion time was 3 (IQR 2-13) minutes, suggesting good system efficiency and effectiveness. The qualitative findings emphasized good user satisfaction. The identified themes suggested that the measurement system is acceptable, easy to use, and easy to access. Service users identified potential barriers and solutions to acceptability and ease of access. ConclusionsA mixed methods evaluation of an electronic measurement system for automated, real-time monitoring of patients’ experience of SDM showed that usability among patients was high. Future pilot work will optimize the system for wider implementation to ultimately inform intervention development to improve SDM. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079155

Background: Cancer is treated using multiple modalities (e.g. surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapies) and is frequently associated with adverse events that affect treatment delivery and quality of life. Regular adverse event reporting could improve care and safety through timely detection and management. Information technology provides a feasible monitoring model, but applied research is needed. This research programme developed and evaluated an electronic system, called eRAPID, for cancer patients to remotely self-report adverse events. Objectives: The objectives were to address the following research questions: is it feasible to collect adverse event data from patients’ homes and in clinics during cancer treatment? Can eRAPID be implemented in different hospitals and treatment settings? Will oncology health-care professionals review eRAPID reports for decision-making? When added to usual care, will the eRAPID intervention (i.e. self-reporting with tailored advice) lead to clinical benefits (e.g. better adverse event control, improved patient safety and experiences)? Will eRAPID be cost-effective? Design: Five mixed-methods work packages were conducted, incorporating co-design with patients and health-care professionals: work package 1 – development and implementation of the electronic platform across hospital centres; work package 2 – development of patient-reported adverse event items and advice (systematic and scoping reviews, patient interviews, Delphi exercise); work package 3 – mapping health-care professionals and care pathways; work package 4 – feasibility pilot studies to assess patient and clinician acceptability; and work package 5 – a single-centre randomised controlled trial of systemic treatment with a full health economic assessment. Setting: The setting was three UK cancer centres (in Leeds, Manchester and Bristol). Participants: The intervention was developed and evaluated with patients and clinicians. The systemic randomised controlled trial included 508 participants who were starting treatment for breast, colorectal or gynaecological cancer and 55 health-care professionals. The radiotherapy feasibility pilot recruited 167 patients undergoing treatment for pelvic cancers. The surgical feasibility pilot included 40 gastrointestinal cancer patients. Intervention: eRAPID is an online system that allows patients to complete adverse event/symptom reports from home or hospital. The system provides immediate severity-graded advice based on clinical algorithms to guide self-management or hospital contact. Adverse event data are transferred to electronic patient records for review by clinical teams. Patients complete an online symptom report every week and whenever they experience symptoms. Main outcome measures: In systemic treatment, the primary outcome was Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General, Physical Well-Being score assessed at 6, 12 and 18 weeks (primary end point). Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness assessed through the comparison of health-care costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Patient self-efficacy was measured (using the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Diseases 6-item Scale). The radiotherapy pilot studied feasibility (recruitment and attrition rates) and selection of outcome measures. The surgical pilot examined symptom report completeness, system actions, barriers to using eRAPID and technical performance. Results: eRAPID was successfully developed and introduced across the treatments and centres. The systemic randomised controlled trial found no statistically significant effect of eRAPID on the primary end point at 18 weeks. There was a significant effect at 6 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 2.05; p = 0.028) and 12 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 1.98; p = 0.0395). No between-arm differences were found for admissions or calls/visits to acute oncology or chemotherapy delivery. Health economic analyses over 18 weeks indicated no statistically significant difference between the cost of the eRAPID information technology system and the cost of usual care (£12.28, 95% confidence interval –£1240.91 to £1167.69; p > 0.05). Mean differences were small, with eRAPID having a 55% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Patient self-efficacy was greater in the intervention arm (0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.83; p = 0.0073). Qualitative interviews indicated that many participants found eRAPID useful for support and guidance. Patient adherence to adverse-event symptom reporting was good (median compliance 72.2%). In the radiotherapy pilot, high levels of consent (73.2%) and low attrition rates (10%) were observed. Patient quality-of-life outcomes indicated a potential intervention benefit in chemoradiotherapy arms. In the surgical pilot, 40 out of 91 approached patients (44%) consented. Symptom report completion rates were high. Across the studies, clinician intervention engagement was varied. Both patient and staff feedback on the value of eRAPID was positive. Limitations: The randomised controlled trial methodology led to small numbers of patients simultaneously using the intervention, thus reducing overall clinician exposure to and engagement with eRAPID. Furthermore, staff saw patients across both arms, introducing a contamination bias and potentially reducing the intervention effect. The health economic results were limited by numbers of missing data (e.g. for use of resources and EuroQol-5 Dimensions). Conclusions: This research provides evidence that online symptom monitoring with inbuilt patient advice is acceptable to patients and clinical teams. Evidence of patient benefit was found, particularly during the early phases of treatment and in relation to self-efficacy. The findings will help improve the intervention and guide future trial designs. Future work: Definitive trials in radiotherapy and surgical settings are suggested. Future research during systemic treatments could study self-report online interventions to replace elements of traditional follow-up care in the curative setting. Further research during modern targeted treatments (e.g. immunotherapy and small-molecule oral therapy) and in metastatic disease is recommended. Trial registration: The systemic randomised controlled trial is registered as ISRCTN88520246. The radiotherapy trial is registered as ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02747264. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Protocols are an essential document for conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, the completeness of the information provided is often inadequate. To help improve the content of trial protocols, an international group of stakeholders published the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) Initiative in 2013. Presently, there is increasing use of cohorts and routinely collected data (RCD) for RCTs because these data have the potential to improve efficiencies by facilitating recruitment, simplifying, and reducing the cost of data collection. Reporting guidelines have been shown to improve the quality of reporting, but there is currently no specific SPIRIT guidance on protocols for trials conducted using cohorts and RCD. This protocol outlines steps for developing SPIRIT-ROUTINE, which aims to address this gap by extending the SPIRIT guidance to protocols for trials conducted using cohorts and RCD. Methods: The development of the SPIRIT-ROUTINE extension comprises five stages. Stage 1 consists of a project launch and a meeting to finalise the membership of the steering group and scope of the extension. In Stage 2, a rapid review will be performed to identify possible modifications to the original SPIRIT 2013 checklist. Other key reporting guidelines will be reviewed to identify areas where additional items may be needed, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for trials conducted using cohorts and RCD (CONSORT-ROUTINE). Stage 3 will involve an online Delphi exercise, consisting of two rounds and involving key international stakeholders to gather feedback on the preliminary checklist items. In Stage 4, a consensus meeting of the SPIRIT-ROUTINE steering group will finalise the items to include in the extension. Stage 5 will involve the publication preparation and dissemination of the final checklist. Conclusion: The SPIRIT-ROUTINE extension will contribute to improving design of trials using cohorts and RCD and transparency of reporting.

Introduction Surgery to remove the gallbladder (laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)) is the standard treatment for symptomatic gallbladder disease. One potential complication of gallbladder disease is that gallstones can pass into the common bile duct (CBD) where they may remain dormant, pass spontaneously into the bowel or cause problems such as obstructive jaundice or pancreatitis. Patients requiring LC are assessed preoperatively for their risk of CBD stones using liver function tests and imaging. If the risk is high, guidelines recommend further investigation and treatment. Further investigation of patients at low or moderate risk of CBD stones is not standardised, and the practice of imaging the CBD using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in these patients varies across the UK. The consequences of these decisions may lead to overtreatment or undertreatment of patients.Methods and analysis We are conducting a UK multicentre, pragmatic, open, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot phase to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of preoperative imaging with MRCP versus expectant management (ie, no preoperative imaging) in adult patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease undergoing urgent or elective LC who are at low or moderate risk of CBD stones. We aim to recruit 13 680 patients over 48 months. The primary outcome is any hospital admission within 18 months of randomisation for a complication of gallstones. This includes complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the treatment of gallstones and complications of LC. This will be determined using routine data sources, for example, National Health Service Digital Hospital Episode Statistics for participants in England. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness and patient-reported quality of life, with participants followed up for a median of 18 months.Ethics and dissemination This study received approval from Yorkshire & The Humber – South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration number ISRCTN10378861.

Background: Outcome heterogeneity, selective reporting, and choosing outcomes that do not reflect needs and priorities of stakeholders, limit the examination of health intervention effects, particularly in late phase trials. Core outcome sets (COS) are a proposed solution to these issues. A COS is an agreed-upon, standardised set of outcomes that should be measured and reported as a minimum in all trials in a specific area of health or healthcare. COS are intended to increase standardisation of outcome measurement and reporting to better enable comparisons between, and synthesis of findings of trials in a particular health area. Methods: This study will examine late phase trials, published between October 2019 and March 2020 (inclusive), in the following five medical journals: New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine. Trials will be examined to determine if they refer to a COS, and whether they use a COS. Trialists for each identified trial will subsequently be contacted to complete an online survey examining trialists’ awareness of, and decisions to search for and use a COS. Discussion: This study will provide important information on uptake of COS by later phase trialists in major medical journals, and the views of these trialists on COS use in trials. These findings will inform approaches to increasing awareness and uptake of COS in future health trials.

Objectives Little is known about how innovative surgical procedures are introduced and discussed with patients. This qualitative study aimed to explore perspectives on information provision and consent prior to innovative surgical procedures.Design Qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.Participants 42 interviews were conducted (26 surgeons and 16 governance representatives).Setting Surgeons and governance representatives recruited from various surgical specialties and National Health Service (NHS) Trusts across England, UK.Results Participants stated that if a procedure was innovative, patients should be provided with additional information extending beyond that given during routine surgical consultations. However, difficulty defining innovation had implications for whether patients were informed about novel components of surgery and how the procedure was introduced (ie, as part of a research study, trust approval or in routine clinical practice). Furthermore, data suggest surgeons found it difficult to establish what information is essential and how much detail is sufficient, and governance surrounding written and verbal information provision differed between NHS Trusts. Generally, surgeons believed patients held a view that ‘new’ was best and reported that managing these expectations could be difficult, particularly if patient views aligned with their own.Conclusions This study highlights the challenges of information provision and obtaining informed consent in the context of innovative surgery, including establishing if and how a procedure is truly innovative, determining the key information to discuss with patients, ensuring information provision is objective and balanced, and managing patient expectations and preferences. This suggests that surgeons may require support and training to discuss novel procedures with patients. Further work should capture consultations where new procedures are discussed with patients and patients’ views of these information exchanges.

Background: Localised oesophageal cancer can be curatively treated with surgery (oesophagectomy) but the procedure is complex with a risk of complications, negative effects on quality of life and a recovery period of 6–9 months. Minimal-access surgery may accelerate recovery. Objectives: The ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study aimed to establish the feasibility of, and methodology for, a definitive trial comparing minimally invasive and open surgery for oesophagectomy. Objectives were to quantify the number of eligible patients in a pilot trial; develop surgical manuals as the basis for quality assurance; standardise pathological processing; establish a method to blind patients to their allocation in the first week post surgery; identify measures of postsurgical outcome of importance to patients and clinicians; and establish the main cost differences between the surgical approaches. Design: Pilot parallel three-arm randomised controlled trial nested within feasibility work. Setting: Two UK NHS departments of upper gastrointestinal surgery. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with histopathological evidence of oesophageal or oesophagogastric junctional adenocarcinoma, squamous cell cancer or high-grade dysplasia, referred for oesophagectomy or oesophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. Interventions: Oesophagectomy, with patients randomised to open surgery, a hybrid open chest and minimally invasive abdomen or totally minimally invasive access. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome measure for the pilot trial was the number of patients recruited per month, with the main trial considered feasible if at least 2.5 patients per month were recruited. Results: During 21 months of recruitment, 263 patients were assessed for eligibility; of these, 135 (51%) were found to be eligible and 104 (77%) agreed to participate, an average of five patients per month. In total, 41 patients were allocated to open surgery, 43 to the hybrid procedure and 20 to totally minimally invasive surgery. Recruitment is continuing, allowing a seamless transition into the definitive trial. Consequently, the database is unlocked at the time of writing and data presented here are for patients recruited by 31 August 2014. Random allocation achieved a good balance between the arms of the study, which, as a high proportion of patients underwent their allocated surgery (69/79, 87%), ensured a fair comparison between the interventions. Dressing patients with large bandages, covering all possible incisions, was successful in keeping patients blind while pain was assessed during the first week post surgery. Postsurgical length of stay and risk of adverse events were within the typical range for this group of patients, with one death occurring within 30 days among 76 patients. There were good completion rates for the assessment of pain at 6 days post surgery (88%) and of the patient-reported outcomes at 6 weeks post randomisation (74%). Conclusions: Rapid recruitment to the pilot trial and the successful refinement of methodology indicated the feasibility of a definitive trial comparing different approaches to oesophagectomy. Although we have shown a full trial of open compared with minimally invasive oesophagectomy to be feasible, this is necessarily based on our findings from the two clinical centres that we could include in this small preliminary study. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59036820. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Multiple studies are evaluating how to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Interventions are wide ranging and include vaccines, prophylactic drugs, public health safety measures, and behavioural interventions. Heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported is leading to research waste and inefficiency, slowing worldwide identification and implementation of effective methods to prevent infection. A core outcome set (COS) for studies of interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has recently been developed, identifying infection as a critical outcome to measure. This paper examines how SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes are measured in registered COVID-19 prevention trials and considers how this can be improved. Methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify and review SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes in prevention trials, including the rationale for choice of outcome measurement. We included phase 3 and 4 trials of COVID-19 prevention interventions. Early phase trials and studies relating to the transmission, treatment or management of COVID-19 were excluded. Results: We identified 430 entries in the register, of which 199 unique prevention trials were included across eight settings and 12 intervention types. Fifteen (8%) trials did not include any SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes. The remaining 184 (92%) studies included a total of 268 SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes, of which 32 (17%) did not specify how infection would be measured. Testing (i.e. formal diagnostic test) as a standalone method for determining infection was used in 57 (31%) trials, whereas defining infection by symptoms alone was used in 16 (9%) trials. All other trials (n=79, 43%) included multiple infection outcomes, defined in different ways. Discussion: There is considerable variation in how SARS-CoV-2 infection is measured within and across different interventions and settings. Furthermore, few studies report the rationale for outcome selection and measurement. Better transparency and standardisation of SARS-CoV-2 infection measurement is needed for the findings from prevention trials to inform decision-making.