How doctors record breaking bad news in ovarian cancer

Revealing the diagnosis of cancer to patients is a key event in their cancer journey. At present, there are no minimal legal recommendations for documenting such consultations. We reviewed the Hospital records of 359 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer in the Mersey Area between 1992 and 1994. We identified the following factors: age, hospital, postcode, surgeon, stage of disease and survival. These were compared to information recorded at the time of the interview such as person present, descriptive words used, prognosis, further treatment and emotional response. In 11.6%, there was no information recorded in the notes. The diagnosis was recorded in 304 (94.7%), prognosis in 66 (20.6%) and collusion with relatives in 33 (10.3%). A total of 42 separate words/phrases were identified relating to diagnosis; cancer was recorded in 60 (19.6%). Collusion was three times as common in the patients over 65 years (17.9 vs 5.7%, P=0.001). There was a reduction in the number of diagnostic words recorded in the patients over 65 years (90.3 vs 98.3%, P=0.002) and by type of surgeon (P=0.001). Information was often poorly recorded in the notes. We have shown that the quality of information varies according to patient age, surgeon and specialty

INVESTIGATE-I (INVasive Evaluation before Surgical Treatment of Incontinence Gives Added Therapeutic Effect?): study protocol for a mixed methods study to assess the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial of the clinical utility of invasive urodynamic testing

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Urinary incontinence is an important health problem to the individual sufferer and to health services. Stress and stress predominant mixed urinary incontinence are increasingly managed by surgery due to advances in surgical techniques. Despite the lack of evidence for its clinical utility, most clinicians undertake invasive urodynamic testing (IUT) to confirm a functional diagnosis of urodynamic stress incontinence before offering surgery for this condition. IUT is expensive, embarrassing and uncomfortable for women and carries a small risk. Recent systematic reviews have confirmed the lack of high quality evidence of effectiveness.</p> <p>The aim of this pilot study is to test the feasibility of a future definitive randomised control trial that would address whether IUT alters treatment decisions and treatment outcome in these women and would test its clinical and cost effectiveness.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>This is a mixed methods pragmatic multicentre feasibility pilot study with four components:-</p> <p>(a) A multicentre, external pilot randomised trial comparing basic clinical assessment with non-invasive tests and IUT. The outcome measures are rates of recruitment, randomisation and data completion. Data will be used to estimate sample size necessary for the definitive trial.</p> <p>(b) Qualitative interviews of a purposively sampled sub-set of women eligible for the pilot trial will explore willingness to participate, be randomised and their overall trial experience.</p> <p>(c) A national survey of clinicians to determine their views of IUT in this context, the main outcome being their willingness to randomise patients into the definitive trial.</p> <p>(d) Qualitative interviews of a purposively sampled group of these clinicians will explore whether and how they use IUT to inform their decisions.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The pilot trial will provide evidence of feasibility and acceptability and therefore inform the decision whether to proceed to the definitive trial. Results will inform the design and conduct of the definitive trial and ensure its effectiveness in achieving its research aim.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN71327395">ISRCTN71327395</a> assigned 7^thJune 2010.</p

Stepped-wedge randomised trial of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in adults with chronic constipation: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is an established treatment for external full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, its clinical efficacy in patients with internal prolapse is uncertain due to the lack of high-quality evidence. METHODS: An individual level, stepped-wedge randomised trial has been designed to allow observer-blinded data comparisons between patients awaiting LVMR with those who have undergone surgery. Adults with symptomatic internal rectal prolapse, unresponsive to prior conservative management, will be eligible to participate. They will be randomised to three arms with different delays before surgery (0, 12 and 24 weeks). Efficacy outcome data will be collected at equally stepped time points (12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks). The primary objective is to determine clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls with reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) at 24 weeks serving as the primary outcome. Secondary objectives are to determine: (1) the clinical effectiveness of LVMR to 48 weeks to a maximum of 72 weeks; (2) pre-operative determinants of outcome; (3) relevant health economics for LVMR; (4) qualitative evaluation of patient and health professional experience of LVMR and (5) 30-day morbidity and mortality rates. DISCUSSION: An individual-level, stepped-wedge, randomised trial serves the purpose of providing an untreated comparison for the active treatment group, while at the same time allowing the waiting-listed participants an opportunity to obtain the intervention at a later date. In keeping with the basic ethical tenets of this design, the average waiting time for LVMR (12 weeks) will be shorter than that for routine services (24 weeks)

A systematic review of outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse: a call to action to develop a core outcome set

INTRODUCTION: We assessed outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse and explored the relationships between outcome reporting quality with journal impact factor, year of publication, and methodological quality. METHODS: We searched the bibliographical databases from inception to October 2017. Two researchers independently selected studies and assessed study characteristics, methodological quality (Jadad criteria; range 1-5), and outcome reporting quality Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Cleft Palate (MOMENT) criteria; range 1-6], and extracted relevant data. We used a multivariate linear regression to assess associations between outcome reporting quality and other variables. RESULTS: Eighty publications reporting data from 10,924 participants were included. Seventeen different surgical interventions were evaluated. One hundred different outcomes and 112 outcome measures were reported. Outcomes were inconsistently reported across trials; for example, 43 trials reported anatomical treatment success rates (12 outcome measures), 25 trials reported quality of life (15 outcome measures) and eight trials reported postoperative pain (seven outcome measures). Multivariate linear regression demonstrated a relationship between outcome reporting quality with methodological quality (β = 0.412; P = 0.018). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality with impact factor (β = 0.078; P = 0.306), year of publication (β = 0.149; P = 0.295), study size (β = 0.008; P = 0.961) and commercial funding (β = -0.013; P = 0.918). CONCLUSIONS: Anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse trials report many different outcomes and outcome measures and often neglect to report important safety outcomes. Developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set will help address these issues