Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process : surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals

Objective In 2014/2015, The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement (RIE) became the first journals to routinely include patients and the public in the peer review process of journal articles. This survey explores the perspectives and early experiences of these reviewers. Design A cross-sectional survey. Setting and participants Patient and public reviewers for The BMJ and RIE who have been invited to review. Results The response rate was 69% (157/227) for those who had previously reviewed and 31% (67/217) for those who had not yet reviewed. Reviewers described being motivated to review by the opportunity to include the patient voice in the research process, influence the quality of the biomedical literature and ensure it meets the needs of patients. Of the 157 who had reviewed, 127 (81%) would recommend being a reviewer to other patients and carers. 144 (92%) thought more journals should adopt patient and public review. Few reviewers (16/224, 7%) reported concerns about doing open review. Annual acknowledgement on the journals’ websites was welcomed as was free access to journal information. Participants were keen to have access to more online resources and training to improve their reviewing skills. Suggestions on how to improve the reviewing experience included: allowing more time to review; better and more frequent communication; a more user-friendly process; improving guidance on how to review including videos; improving the matching of papers to reviewers’ experience; providing more varied sample reviews and brief feedback on the usefulness of reviews; developing a sense of community among reviewers; and publicising of the contribution that patient and public review brings. Conclusions Patient and public reviewers shared practical ideas to improve the reviewing experience and these will be reviewed to enhance the guidance and support given to them

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: protocol for a realist review (EQUALISE).

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare organisations recognise the moral imperative to address inequalities in health outcomes but often lack an understanding of which types of interventions are likely to reduce them. This realist review will examine the existing evidence on the types of interventions or aspects of routine care in general practice that are likely to decrease or increase health inequalities (ie, inequality-generating interventions) across cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our realist review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages. We will start by developing an initial programme theory based on existing theories and discussions with stakeholders. To navigate the large volume of literature, we will access the primary studies through the identification of published systematic reviews of interventions delivered in general practice across the four key conditions. We will examine the primary studies included within each systematic review to identify those reporting on inequalities across PROGRESS-Plus categories. We will collect data on a range of clinical outcomes including prevention, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. The data will be synthesised using a realist logic of analysis. The findings will be a description and explanation of the general practice interventions which are likely to increase or decrease inequalities across the major conditions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required because this study does not include any primary research. The findings will be integrated into a series of guiding principles and a toolkit for healthcare organisations to reduce health inequalities. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and user-friendly summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020217871

Abstracts from the NIHR INVOLVE Conference 2017

n/

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing health inequalities through general practice : a realist review and action framework

Background Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities. Objectives We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice. Design Realist review. Main outcome measures Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria. Review methods Realist review based on Pawson’s five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence. Results Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; intersectional to account for the fact that people’s experience is affected by many of their characteristics; flexible to meet patients’ different needs and preferences; inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships. Limitations The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care. Conclusions Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred. Future work Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice. Study registration This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information

Global overview of the management of acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (CHOLECOVID study)

Background: This study provides a global overview of the management of patients with acute cholecystitis during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: CHOLECOVID is an international, multicentre, observational comparative study of patients admitted to hospital with acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on management were collected for a 2-month study interval coincident with the WHO declaration of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and compared with an equivalent pre-pandemic time interval. Mediation analysis examined the influence of SARS-COV-2 infection on 30-day mortality. Results: This study collected data on 9783 patients with acute cholecystitis admitted to 247 hospitals across the world. The pandemic was associated with reduced availability of surgical workforce and operating facilities globally, a significant shift to worse severity of disease, and increased use of conservative management. There was a reduction (both absolute and proportionate) in the number of patients undergoing cholecystectomy from 3095 patients (56.2 per cent) pre-pandemic to 1998 patients (46.2 per cent) during the pandemic but there was no difference in 30-day all-cause mortality after cholecystectomy comparing the pre-pandemic interval with the pandemic (13 patients (0.4 per cent) pre-pandemic to 13 patients (0.6 per cent) pandemic; P = 0.355). In mediation analysis, an admission with acute cholecystitis during the pandemic was associated with a non-significant increased risk of death (OR 1.29, 95 per cent c.i. 0.93 to 1.79, P = 0.121). Conclusion: CHOLECOVID provides a unique overview of the treatment of patients with cholecystitis across the globe during the first months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The study highlights the need for system resilience in retention of elective surgical activity. Cholecystectomy was associated with a low risk of mortality and deferral of treatment results in an increase in avoidable morbidity that represents the non-COVID cost of this pandemic

Safety of hospital discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery

Background Ileus is common after colorectal surgery and is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications. Identifying features of normal bowel recovery and the appropriateness for hospital discharge is challenging. This study explored the safety of hospital discharge before the return of bowel function. Methods A prospective, multicentre cohort study was undertaken across an international collaborative network. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The main outcome of interest was readmission to hospital within 30 days of surgery. The impact of discharge timing according to the return of bowel function was explored using multivariable regression analysis. Other outcomes were postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery, measured using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Results A total of 3288 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 301 (9 center dot 2 per cent) were discharged before the return of bowel function. The median duration of hospital stay for patients discharged before and after return of bowel function was 5 (i.q.r. 4-7) and 7 (6-8) days respectively (P < 0 center dot 001). There were no significant differences in rates of readmission between these groups (6 center dot 6 versus 8 center dot 0 per cent; P = 0 center dot 499), and this remained the case after multivariable adjustment for baseline differences (odds ratio 0 center dot 90, 95 per cent c.i. 0 center dot 55 to 1 center dot 46; P = 0 center dot 659). Rates of postoperative complications were also similar in those discharged before versus after return of bowel function (minor: 34 center dot 7 versus 39 center dot 5 per cent; major 3 center dot 3 versus 3 center dot 4 per cent; P = 0 center dot 110). Conclusion Discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery appears to be safe in appropriately selected patients

Safety of hospital discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery

Background: Ileus is common after colorectal surgery and is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications. Identifying features of normal bowel recovery and the appropriateness for hospital discharge is challenging. This study explored the safety of hospital discharge before the return of bowel function.Methods: A prospective, multicentre cohort study was undertaken across an international collaborative network. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The main outcome of interest was readmission to hospital within 30 days of surgery. The impact of discharge timing according to the return of bowel function was explored using multivariable regression analysis. Other outcomes were postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery, measured using the Clavien-Dindo classification system.Results: A total of 3288 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 301 (9.2 per cent) were discharged before the return of bowel function. The median duration of hospital stay for patients discharged before and after return of bowel function was 5 (i.q.r. 4-7) and 7 (6-8) days respectively (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of readmission between these groups (6.6 versus 8.0 per cent; P = 0.499), and this remained the case after multivariable adjustment for baseline differences (odds ratio 0.90, 95 per cent c.i. 0.55 to 1.46; P = 0.659). Rates of postoperative complications were also similar in those discharged before versus after return of bowel function (minor: 34.7 versus 39.5 per cent; major 3.3 versus 3.4 per cent; P = 0.110).Conclusion: Discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery appears to be safe in appropriately selected patients

Timing of nasogastric tube insertion and the risk of postoperative pneumonia: an international, prospective cohort study

Aim: Aspiration is a common cause of pneumonia in patients with postoperative ileus. Insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) is often performed, but this can be distressing. The aim of this study was to determine whether the timing of NGT insertion after surgery (before versus after vomiting) was associated with reduced rates of pneumonia in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Method: This was a preplanned secondary analysis of a multicentre, prospective cohort study. Patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery between January 2018 and April 2018 were eligible. Those receiving a NGT were divided into three groups, based on the timing of the insertion: routine NGT (inserted at the time of surgery), prophylactic NGT (inserted after surgery but before vomiting) and reactive NGT (inserted after surgery and after vomiting). The primary outcome was the development of pneumonia within 30 days of surgery, which was compared between the prophylactic and reactive NGT groups using multivariable regression analysis. Results: A total of 4715 patients were included in the analysis and 1536 (32.6%) received a NGT. These were classified as routine in 926 (60.3%), reactive in 461 (30.0%) and prophylactic in 149 (9.7%). Two hundred patients (4.2%) developed pneumonia (no NGT 2.7%; routine NGT 5.2%; reactive NGT 10.6%; prophylactic NGT 11.4%). After adjustment for confounding factors, no significant difference in pneumonia rates was detected between the prophylactic and reactive NGT groups (odds ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.56–1.87, P = 0.932). Conclusion: In patients who required the insertion of a NGT after surgery, prophylactic insertion was not associated with fewer cases of pneumonia within 30 days of surgery compared with reactive insertion