Revising a laparoscopic appendicectomy set to reduce reliance on disposable surgical instruments: supporting the transition to sustainable surgical practice.

INTRODUCTION: After excluding anaesthetic gases, around one-third of carbon emissions from surgical procedures are from consumables. This sustainable quality improvement project revised the laparoscopic appendicectomy surgical set at a large teaching hospital, with the aim of reducing unnecessary usage of disposable laparoscopic ports and surgical instruments. METHODS: A prospective audit of 25 consecutive laparoscopic appendicectomies (5% of annual appendicectomies performed at the Trust) was conducted to assess use of disposable instruments. The financial and environmental costs of the five most commonly used disposable instruments were calculated and annual cost of current practice determined. A revised surgical set was created to include additional reusable instruments and new reusable ports. A reaudit of disposable surgical instrument usage was conducted and the financial and environmental impact of the new set compared with the results from the initial audit. RESULTS: A total of 109 disposable instruments were opened in 25 appendicectomies, costing an estimated £49,656 and 692kg CO2 equivalent (CO2e) annually. Following rollout of the revised appendicectomy set, there was a significant reduction in disposable instrument usage (median four versus one instruments per case, p<0.00001). The revised set is predicted to reduce annual disposable instrument usage from 2,180 to 705 instruments (68% reduction), saving £219,452 and 3.02 tonnes CO2e over the estimated seven-year lifecycle of the reusable instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Updating a laparoscopic appendicectomy set to include additional/new reusable instruments can lead to a marked reduction in disposable surgical instrument usage. This results in significant projected financial and CO2e savings.

Identifying people requiring special care dentistry: A scoping review.

AIMS: This scoping review aimed to document tools designed to identify persons requiring special care dentistry (SCD) and to provide a better understanding of the factors that justify adaptation in the provision of care. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was applied. An electronic search was performed in April 2021 using Pubmed and Embase. Additional tools were sought using hand searches and informal professional networking. RESULTS: Ten tools were identified that either predict the complexity of dental management or that retrospectively judge the complexity of care, of which two are as yet unpublished. Some had been developed for a specific population (e.g., patients with Alzheimer's disease, with learning disability, elderly persons) whilst others were applicable for any population (case mix tools). Factors considered included the patient's medical history, ability to cooperate, physical and cognitive autonomy, communication skills, anxiety, need for sedation, oral risk factors, ability to consent and the administrative burden for the dentist. CONCLUSION: Identifying persons requiring SCD is possible by looking at various factors that influence the provision of dental care. There may be need for adaptation of tools to local circumstances and to the intended usage of the tool at a health services, systems or policy level.

Quality-adjusted life years for digital cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (Sleepio): a secondary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Insomnia is common, and difficulty with daytime functioning is a core symptom. Studies show cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) improves functioning, but evidence is needed on its value for money. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), capturing length and quality of life, provide a standard metric by which to judge whether a treatment is worth its cost. Studies have found QALY gains with therapist-delivered and therapist-guided CBT, but most have not reached statistical significance. Estimates of QALY gains with fully automated digital CBT (dCBT) for insomnia are lacking. AIM: To assess whether dCBT (Sleepio) for insomnia is associated with gains in QALYs compared with a sleep hygiene education control. DESIGN & SETTING: A secondary analysis of a large effectiveness trial of 1711 participants from the UK, US, and Australia. METHOD: EQ-5D scores, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE's) preferred measure of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), were predicted (mapped) from the 10-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-10) Global Health scores and used to determine QALYs from baseline to 24 weeks (controlled), and to 48 weeks (uncontrolled). RESULTS: At week 24, QALYs were significantly higher for the dCBT group, with mean QALYs 0.375 and 0.362 in the dCBT and control groups, respectively. The mean difference was 0.014 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.008 to 0.019), and this difference was maintained over the 48-week study period (0.026, 95% CI = 0.016 to 0.036). The difference of 0.026 QALYs is equivalent to 9.5 days in perfect health. CONCLUSION: Sleepio is associated with statistically significant gains in QALYs over time compared with control. Findings may be used to power future studies and inform cost-effectiveness analyses of automated dCBT for insomnia scaled to a population level.

History of the British Cardiovascular Society.

In 2022, the British Cardiovascular Society celebrates the centenary of its foundation. Starting out as a small group of government-appointed physicians interested in heart disease, the Cardiac Club has grown and adapted to represent all those working in cardiovascular care and research. The historical stages of the organisation's development are outlined, alongside major innovations in science and technology providing context for a rapidly changing medical world. Only a small part of the history of cardiology in Britain is told, with greater emphasis on describing the broader need for services, skilled workforce, healthcare policy and continuing education. Above all, the history of the British Cardiovascular Society is a story of people and places. The people are those with vision, attitude and leadership to improve the care of communities across the world. The places are those that enabled conversation, innovation and freedom to bring about change. It is hard to believe the remarkable progress in diagnosis, prevention and treatment of heart disease over 100 years, but a thriving modern Society must be the greatest legacy of its founders.

Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making.

INTRODUCTION: High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable evidence on the comparative efficacy of new medicines. However, non-randomised studies (NRS) are increasingly recognised as a source of insights into the real-world performance of novel therapeutic products, particularly when traditional RCTs are impractical or lack generalisability. This means there is a growing need for synthesising evidence from RCTs and NRS in healthcare decision making, particularly given recent developments such as innovative study designs, digital technologies and linked databases across countries. Crucially, however, no formal framework exists to guide the integration of these data types. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: To address this gap, we used a mixed methods approach (review of existing guidance, methodological papers, Delphi survey) to develop guidance for researchers and healthcare decision-makers on when and how to best combine evidence from NRS and RCTs to improve transparency and build confidence in the resulting summary effect estimates. RESULTS: Our framework comprises seven steps on guiding the integration and interpretation of evidence from NRS and RCTs and we offer recommendations on the most appropriate statistical approaches based on three main analytical scenarios in healthcare decision making (specifically, 'high-bar evidence' when RCTs are the preferred source of evidence, 'medium,' and 'low' when NRS is the main source of inference). CONCLUSION: Our framework augments existing guidance on assessing the quality of NRS and their compatibility with RCTs for evidence synthesis, while also highlighting potential challenges in implementing it. This manuscript received endorsement from the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

Reintroduction of elective cardiac interventions in the era of COVID-19: the Barts experience.

BACKGROUND: The response to COVID-19 has required cancellation of all but the most urgent procedures; there is therefore a need for the reintroduction of a safe elective pathway. METHODS: This was a study of a pilot pathway performed at Barts Heart Centre for the admission of patients requiring elective coronary and structural procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic (April-June 2020). All patients on coronary and structural waiting lists were screened for procedural indications, urgency and adverse features for COVID-19 prognosis and discussed at dedicated multidisciplinary teams. Dedicated admission pathways involving preadmission isolation, additional consent, COVID-19 PCR testing and dedicated clean areas were used. RESULTS: 143 patients (101 coronary and 42 structural) underwent procedures (coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, transcatheter aortic valve intervention and MitralClip) during the study period. The average age was 68.2; 74% were male; and over 93% had one or more moderate COVID-19 risk factors. All patients were COVID-19 PCR negative on admission with (8.1%) COVID-19 antibody positive (swab negative). All procedures were performed successfully with low rates of procedural complications (9.8%). At 2-week follow-up, no patients had symptoms or confirmed COVID-19 infection with significant improvements in quality if life and symptoms. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that patients undergoing coronary and structural procedures can be safely admitted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with no patients contracting COVID-19 during their admission. Reassuringly, patients reflective of typical practice, that is, those at moderate or higher risk, were treated successfully. This pilot provides important information applicable to other settings, specialties and areas to reintroduce services safely.

Sexism experienced by consultant cardiologists in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: The aims were to compare the frequency with which male and female cardiologists experience sexism and to explore the types of sexism experienced in cardiology. METHODS: A validated questionnaire measuring experiences of sexism and sexual harassment was distributed online to 890 UK consultant cardiologists between March and May 2018. χ2 tests and pairwise comparisons with a Bonferroni correction for multiple analyses compared the experiences of male and female cardiologists. RESULTS: 174 cardiologists completed the survey (24% female; 76% male). The survey showed that 61.9% of female cardiologists have experienced discrimination of any kind, mostly related to gender and parenting, compared with 19.7% of male cardiologists. 35.7% of female cardiologists experienced unwanted sexual comments, attention or advances from a superior or colleague, compared with 6.1% of male cardiologists. Sexual harassment affected the professional confidence of female cardiologists more than it affected the confidence of male cardiologists (42.9% vs 3.0%), including confidence with colleagues (38% vs 10.6%) and patients (23.9% vs 4.6%). 33.3% of female cardiologists felt that sexism hampered opportunities for professional advancement, compared with 2.3% of male cardiologists. CONCLUSION: Female cardiologists in the UK experience more sexism and sexual harassment than male cardiologists. Sexism impacts the career progression and professional confidence of female cardiologists more, including their confidence when working with patients and colleagues. Future research is urgently needed to test interventions against sexism in cardiology and to protect the welfare of female cardiologists at work.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines development principles and processes.

Clinical guidelines are developed by professional societies and also, in England, by an independent non-departmental public body, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Similarities and differences between these guidelines should be viewed in the context of different objectives, responsibilities and roles of guideline developers. This review describes the NICE clinical guidelines development principles and processes with the aim to provide the reader an informed perspective on the recommendations made. NICE clinical guidelines are developed by an appointed independent advisory committee comprising healthcare professionals as well as lay members, supported by a professional team comprising project managers, information specialists, systematic reviewers and health economists. Furthermore, registered stakeholders comprising organisations that have an interest in the guideline topic, or represent people whose practice or care may be directly affected by the guideline, are consulted on the draft scope and draft guidelines. NICE selects a limited number of high impact questions to be answered by the review of evidence, rather than cover a certain topic exhaustively as the clinical guidelines developed by professional societies may do. NICE clinical guidelines recommendations reflect both the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of interventions.

Nursing workload, nurse staffing methodologies and tools: A systematic scoping review and discussion.

BACKGROUND: The importance of nurse staffing levels in acute hospital wards is widely recognised but evidence for tools to determine staffing requirements although extensive, has been reported to be weak. Building on a review of reviews undertaken in 2014, we set out to give an overview of the major approaches to assessing nurse staffing requirements and identify recent evidence in order to address unanswered questions including the accuracy and effectiveness of tools. METHODS: We undertook a systematic scoping review. Searches of Medline, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL were used to identify recent primary research, which was reviewed in the context of conclusions from existing reviews. RESULTS: The published literature is extensive and describes a variety of uses for tools including establishment setting, daily deployment and retrospective review. There are a variety of approaches including professional judgement, simple volume-based methods (such as patient-to-nurse ratios), patient prototype/classification and timed-task approaches. Tools generally attempt to match staffing to a mean average demand or time requirement despite evidence of skewed demand distributions. The largest group of recent studies reported the evaluation of (mainly new) tools and systems, but provides little evidence of impacts on patient care and none on costs. Benefits of staffing levels set using the tools appear to be linked to increased staffing with no evidence of tools providing a more efficient or effective use of a given staff resource. Although there is evidence that staffing assessments made using tools may correlate with other assessments, different systems lead to dramatically different estimates of staffing requirements. While it is evident that there are many sources of variation in demand, the extent to which systems can deliver staffing levels to meet such demand is unclear. The assumption that staffing to meet average need is the optimal response to varying demand is untested and may be incorrect. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the importance of the question and the large volume of publication evidence about nurse staffing methods remains highly limited. There is no evidence to support the choice of any particular tool. Future research should focus on learning more about the use of existing tools rather than simply developing new ones. Priority research questions include how best to use tools to identify the required staffing level to meet varying patient need and the costs and consequences of using tools. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Decades of research on tools to determine nurse staffing requirements is largely uninformative. Little is known about the costs or consequences of widely used tools.

Tell me if there is a problem: safety in early general practice training.

In contrast to other comparable countries, trainees commencing general practice in Australia can see patients without being required to contact their supervisor. To understand how patient safety in early training is managed a qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews was used. A lead medical educator from each of the nine Australian Regional Training Organisations (RTOs) was interviewed. Transcriptions of interviews were analysed to identify themes. RTOs do not mandate a period of direct observation of trainees and the use of safety checklists for supervision is variable and not monitored. The oversight of training practices by RTOs mirrors that of trainees by supervisors. The onus falls on those being supervised to identify the need for assistance. Despite this, lead medical educators still consider the commencement of general practice training to be safe. Other factors found potentially to impact on safety include the variability of training practices and supervision; the complex RTO-practice relationship; quota-driven selection of doctors into general practice; and the negative impact on education of the funding model. Patient safety may be improved by a period of direct observation of potential trainees prior to the commencement of general practice training and the use of checklists to encourage supervision of high risk activities.

The economic evidence for advance care planning: Systematic review of evidence.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning is a process of discussion and review concerning future care in the event of losing capacity. Aimed at improving the appropriateness and quality of care, it is also often considered a means of making better use of healthcare resources at the end of life. AIM: To review and summarise economic evidence on advance care planning. DESIGN: A systematic review of the academic literature. DATA SOURCES: We searched for English language, peer-reviewed journal articles, 1990-2014, using relevant research databases: PubMed, ProQuest, CINAHL Plus with Full Text; EconLit, PsycINFO, SocINDEX with Full Text and International Bibliography of the Social Sciences. Empirical studies using statistical methods in which advance care planning and costs are variables were included. RESULTS: There are no published cost-effectiveness studies. Included studies focus on healthcare savings, usually associated with reduced demand for hospital care. Advance care planning appears to be associated with healthcare savings for some people in some circumstances, such as people living with dementia in the community, people in nursing homes or in areas with high end-of-life care spending. There is no evidence that advance care planning is likely to be more expensive. CONCLUSION: There is need for clearer articulation of the likely mechanisms by which advance care planning can lead to reduced care costs or improved cost-effectiveness, particularly for people who retain capacity. There is also a need to consider wider costs, including the costs of advance care planning facilitation or interventions and the costs of substitute health, social and informal care. Economic outcomes need to be considered in the context of quality benefits.