Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation

Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures—for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential.The Balliol Colloquium has been supported by Ethicon UK with unrestricted educational grants and by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. The Balliol Colloquium was administratively and financially supported by the Nuffield Department of Surgery at the University of Oxford and the Department of Surgery at McGill University. JAC holds a Medical Research Council UK special training fellowship. The University of Aberdeen’s Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Offi ce of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. IB is supported by a grant from the Société Française de Rhumatologie and Lavoisier Program (Ministère des Aff aires Etrangères et Européennes). PLE is a DPhil Candidate in Evidence-Based Health Care at Oxford University

Implementation of computerised physician order entry (CPOE) and picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) in the NHS: quantitative before and after study

Objective To assess the impact of components of the national programme for information technology (NPfIT) on measures of clinical and operational efficiency

Practical multimodal care for cancer cachexia

Purpose of reviewCancer cachexia is common and reduces function, treatment tolerability and quality of life. Given its multifaceted pathophysiology a multimodal approach to cachexia management is advocated for, but can be difficult to realise in practice. We use a case-based approach to highlight practical approaches to the multimodal management of cachexia for patients across the cancer trajectory.Recent findingsFour cases with lung cancer spanning surgical resection, radical chemoradiotherapy, palliative chemotherapy and no anticancer treatment are presented. We propose multimodal care approaches that incorporate nutritional support, exercise, and anti-inflammatory agents, on a background of personalized oncology care and family-centred education. Collectively, the cases reveal that multimodal care is part of everyone's remit, often focuses on supported self-management, and demands buy-in from the patient and their family. Once operationalized, multimodal care approaches can be tested pragmatically, including alongside emerging pharmacological cachexia treatments.SummaryWe demonstrate that multimodal care for cancer cachexia can be achieved using simple treatments and without a dedicated team of specialists. The sharing of advice between health professionals can help build collective confidence and expertise, moving towards a position in which every team member feels they can contribute towards multimodal care

What should be included in case report forms? Development and application of novel methods to inform surgical study design:a mixed methods case study in parastomal hernia prevention

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and application of methods to optimise the design of case report forms (CRFs) for clinical studies evaluating surgical procedures, illustrated with an example of abdominal stoma formation. DESIGN: (1) Literature reviews, to identify reported variations in surgical components of stoma formation, were supplemented by (2) intraoperative qualitative research (observations, videos and interviews), to identify unreported variations used in practice to generate (3) a ‘long list’ of items, which were rationalised using (4) consensus methods, providing a pragmatic list of CRF items to be captured in the Cohort study to Investigate the Prevention of parastomal HERnias (CIPHER) study. SETTING: Two secondary care surgical centres in England. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing stoma formation, surgeons undertaking stoma formation and stoma nurses. OUTCOME MEASURES: Successful identification of key CRF items to be captured in the CIPHER study. RESULTS: 59 data items relating to stoma formation were identified and categorised within six themes: (1) surgical approach to stoma formation; (2) trephine formation; (3) reinforcing the stoma trephine with mesh; (4) use of the stoma as a specimen extraction site; (5) closure of other wounds during the procedure; and (6) spouting the stoma. CONCLUSIONS: This study used multimodal data collection to understand and capture the technical variations in stoma formation and design bespoke CRFs for a multicentre cohort study. The CIPHER study will use the CRFs to examine associations between the technical variations in stoma formation and risks of developing a parastomal hernia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17573805

A Core Outcome Set for the Benefits and Adverse Events of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery:the BARIACT project

BackgroundBariatric and metabolic surgery is used as a treatment for patients with severe and complex obesity. However, there is a need to improve outcome selection and reporting in bariatric surgery trials. A Core Outcome Set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a specific condition, may achieve this. Here, we present the development of a COS for BARIAtric and metabolic surgery Clinical Trials-the BARIACT Study.Methods and findingsOutcomes identified from systematic reviews and patient interviews informed a questionnaire survey. Patients and health professionals were surveyed three times and asked to rate the importance of each item on a 1-9 scale. Delphi methods provided anonymised feedback to participants. Items not meeting predefined criteria were discarded between rounds. Remaining items were discussed at consensus meetings, held separately with patients and professionals, where the COS was agreed. Data sources identified 2,990 outcomes, which were used to develop a 130-item questionnaire. Round 1 response rates were moderate but subsequently improved to above 75% for other rounds. After rounds 2 and 3, 81 and 14 items were discarded, respectively, leaving 35 items for discussion at consensus meetings. The final COS included nine items: "weight," "diabetes status," "cardiovascular risk," "overall quality of life (QOL)," "mortality," "technical complications of the specific operation," "any re-operation/re-intervention," "dysphagia/regurgitation," and "micronutrient status." The main limitation of this study was that it was based in the United Kingdom only.ConclusionsThe COS is recommended to be used as a minimum in all trials of bariatric and metabolic surgery. Adoption of the COS will improve data synthesis and the value of research data. Future work will establish methods for the measurement of the outcomes in the COS

Multiple triangulation and collaborative research using qualitative methods to explore decision making in pre-hospital emergency care.

BACKGROUND: Paramedics make important and increasingly complex decisions at scene about patient care. Patient safety implications of influences on decision making in the pre-hospital setting were previously under-researched. Cutting edge perspectives advocate exploring the whole system rather than individual influences on patient safety. Ethnography (the study of people and cultures) has been acknowledged as a suitable method for identifying health care issues as they occur within the natural context. In this paper we compare multiple methods used in a multi-site, qualitative study that aimed to identify system influences on decision making. METHODS: The study was conducted in three NHS Ambulance Trusts in England and involved researchers from each Trust working alongside academic researchers. Exploratory interviews with key informants e.g. managers (n = 16) and document review provided contextual information. Between October 2012 and July 2013 researchers observed 34 paramedic shifts and ten paramedics provided additional accounts via audio-recorded 'digital diaries' (155 events). Three staff focus groups (total n = 21) and three service user focus groups (total n = 23) explored a range of experiences and perceptions. Data collection and analysis was carried out by academic and ambulance service researchers as well as service users. Workshops were held at each site to elicit feedback on the findings and facilitate prioritisation of issues identified. RESULTS: The use of a multi-method qualitative approach allowed cross-validation of important issues for ambulance service staff and service users. A key factor in successful implementation of the study was establishing good working relationships with academic and ambulance service teams. Enrolling at least one research lead at each site facilitated the recruitment process as well as study progress. Active involvement with the study allowed ambulance service researchers and service users to gain a better understanding of the research process. Feedback workshops allowed stakeholders to discuss and prioritise findings as well as identify new research areas. CONCLUSION: Combining multiple qualitative methods with a collaborative research approach can facilitate exploration of system influences on patient safety in under-researched settings. The paper highlights empirical issues, strengths and limitations for this approach. Feedback workshops were effective for verifying findings and prioritising areas for future intervention and research