A one-year cost–utility analysis of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus resuscitative thoracotomy with aortic cross-clamping for non-compressible torso haemorrhage

Introduction Major trauma is a leading cause of death and disability in young adults, especially from massive non- compressible torso haemorrhage. The standard technique to control distal haemorrhage and maximise central perfusion is resuscitative thoracotomy with aortic cross-clamping (RTACC). More recently, the minimally invasive technique of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been developed to similarly limit distal haemor- rhage without the morbidity of thoracotomy; cost–utility studies on this intervention, however, are still lacking. The aim of this study was to perform a one-year cost–utility analysis of REBOA as an intervention for patients with major traumatic non-compressible abdominal haemorrhage, compared to RTACC within the U.K.’s National Health Service. Methods A retrospective analysis of the outcomes following REBOA and RTACC was conducted based on the published literature of survival and complication rates after intervention. Utility was obtained from studies that used the EQ- 5D index and from self-conducted surveys. Costs were calculated using 2016/2017 National Health Service tariff data and supplemented from further literature. A cost–utility analysis was then conducted. Results A total of 12 studies for REBOA and 20 studies for RTACC were included. The mean injury severity scores for RTACC and REBOA were 34 and 39, and mean probability of death was 9.7 and 54%, respectively. The incremental cost- effectiveness ratio of REBOA when compared to RTACC was £44,617.44 per quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, by exceeding the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness’s willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/quality-adjusted life year, suggests that this intervention is not cost-effective in comparison to RTACC. However, REBOA yielded a 157% improvement in utility with a comparatively small cost increase of 31.5%. Conclusion Although REBOA has not been found to be cost-effective when compared to RTACC, ultimately, clinical experience and expertise should be the main factor in driving the decision over which intervention to prioritise in the emergency context

A patient satisfaction survey investigating pre- and post-operative information provision in lower limb surgery

Background Planned lower limb surgery is common, with over 90,000 hip replacements, 95,000 knee replacements and 15,000 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions performed in the UK each year. These procedures are primarily indicated to treat osteoarthritis, sporting injuries and trauma. Patient satisfaction is an important element of healthcare provision, which is usually measured by functional outcomes but influenced by other factors. Few studies have assessed patients’ views on the information given to them pertaining surgery and patients are infrequently consulted when designing leaflets and information packs, which can lead to confusion during the recovery period and poor long-term outcomes. Furthermore, previous studies have not directly asked patients what resources they would prefer, or which format would suit them best. This project aimed to assess if patients were satisfied with the information they received around their operations and to identify potential improvements. Methods Set in a National Health Service (NHS) run major trauma centre in the West Midlands, a multiple choice and free-text answer survey was administered to patients who used the orthopaedic service over the course of 1 month. Surveys were designed in Qualtrics and administered face-to-face on paper. Thematic content analysis was performed on the results. Results Eighty patients completed the survey, of which 88.8% of patients were satisfied with the information they received. Discussions with surgeons were the most useful resource and 53% of patients requested more internet resources. Post-operative patients were statistically more likely to be dissatisfied with information provision than pre-operative patients. Over 20% of the study population requested more information on post-operative pain and recovery timelines. Conclusions Although patients were satisfied in general, areas for change were identified. Suggested resources took the form of webpages and mobile platforms. These resources could contain educational videos, patient experience blogs or interactive recovery timelines, to be of benefit to patients. These suggestions may enable NHS Trusts to “get into the digital age”, however, more research on patient satisfaction around information provision and the impact it has on recovery and decision making is needed

Abstracts of the 3rd Annual Graduate Entry Research in Medicine Conference

This book contains the abstracts of the papers presented at The 3rd Annual Graduate Entry Research in Medicine Conference (GERMCON 2020) Organized by Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick in collaboration with Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Wales, UK held on 12–18 October 2020. This was especially important for Graduate Entry Medical (GEM) students, who have less opportunity and time to engage in research due to their accelerated medical degree. Conference Title: 3rd Annual Graduate Entry Research in Medicine ConferenceConference Acronym: GERMCON 2020Conference Date: 12–18 October 2020Conference Location: Online (Virtual Mode)Conference Organizer: Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, UKCo-organizer: Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Wales, UK Other Abstract Book of GERMCON: Abstracts of the 4th Annual Graduate Entry Research in Medicine Conferenc