Phenogrouping heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction using electronic health record data.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction includes a heterogenous group of patients. Reclassification into distinct phenogroups to enable targeted interventions is a priority. This study aimed to identify distinct phenogroups, and compare phenogroup characteristics and outcomes, from electronic health record data. METHODS: 2,187 patients admitted to five UK hospitals with a diagnosis of HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 40% were identified from the NIHR Health Informatics Collaborative database. Partition-based, model-based, and density-based machine learning clustering techniques were applied. Cox Proportional Hazards and Fine-Gray competing risks models were used to compare outcomes (all-cause mortality and hospitalisation for HF) across phenogroups. RESULTS: Three phenogroups were identified: (1) Younger, predominantly female patients with high prevalence of cardiometabolic and coronary disease; (2) More frail patients, with higher rates of lung disease and atrial fibrillation; (3) Patients characterised by systemic inflammation and high rates of diabetes and renal dysfunction. Survival profiles were distinct, with an increasing risk of all-cause mortality from phenogroups 1 to 3 (p < 0.001). Phenogroup membership significantly improved survival prediction compared to conventional factors. Phenogroups were not predictive of hospitalisation for HF. CONCLUSIONS: Applying unsupervised machine learning to routinely collected electronic health record data identified phenogroups with distinct clinical characteristics and unique survival profiles.

The Relationship Between Cardiac Troponin in People Hospitalised for Exacerbation of COPD and Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) and COPD Readmissions.

Background: No single biomarker currently risk stratifies chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients at the time of an exacerbation, though previous studies have suggested that patients with elevated troponin at exacerbation have worse outcomes. This study evaluated the relationship between peak cardiac troponin and subsequent major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including all-cause mortality and COPD hospital readmission, among patients admitted with COPD exacerbation. Methods: Data from five cross-regional hospitals in England were analysed using the National Institute of Health Research Health Informatics Collaborative (NIHR-HIC) acute coronary syndrome database (2008-2017). People hospitalised with a COPD exacerbation were included, and peak troponin levels were standardised relative to the 99th percentile (upper limit of normal). We used Cox Proportional Hazard models adjusting for age, sex, laboratory results and clinical risk factors, and implemented logarithmic transformation (base-10 logarithm). The primary outcome was risk of MACE within 90 days from peak troponin measurement. Secondary outcome was risk of COPD readmission within 90 days from peak troponin measurement. Results: There were 2487 patients included. Of these, 377 (15.2%) patients had a MACE event and 203 (8.2%) were readmitted within 90 days from peak troponin measurement. A total of 1107 (44.5%) patients had an elevated troponin level. Of 1107 patients with elevated troponin at exacerbation, 256 (22.8%) had a MACE event and 101 (9.0%) a COPD readmission within 90 days from peak troponin measurement. Patients with troponin above the upper limit of normal had a higher risk of MACE (adjusted HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.75-2.77) and COPD hospital readmission (adjusted HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02-1.83) when compared with patients without elevated troponin. Conclusion: An elevated troponin level at the time of COPD exacerbation may be a useful tool for predicting MACE in COPD patients. The relationship between degree of troponin elevation and risk of future events is complex and requires further investigation.

Video Recording Patients for Direct Care Purposes: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of International Empirical Studies and UK Professional Guidance.

BACKGROUND: Video recordings of patients may offer advantages to supplement patient assessment and clinical decision-making. However, little is known about the practice of video recording patients for direct care purposes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to synthesize empirical studies published internationally to explore the extent to which video recording patients is acceptable and effective in supporting direct care and, for the United Kingdom, to summarize the relevant guidance of professional and regulatory bodies. METHODS: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and HMIC) were searched from 2012 to 2022. Eligible studies evaluated an intervention involving video recording of adult patients (≥18 years) to support diagnosis, care, or treatment. All study designs and countries of publication were included. Websites of UK professional and regulatory bodies were searched to identify relevant guidance. The acceptability of video recording patients was evaluated using study recruitment and retention rates and a framework synthesis of patients' and clinical staff's perspectives based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability by Sekhon. Clinically relevant measures of impact were extracted and tabulated according to the study design. The framework approach was used to synthesize the reported ethico-legal considerations, and recommendations of professional and regulatory bodies were extracted and tabulated. RESULTS: Of the 14,221 abstracts screened, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 13 guidance documents were retrieved, of which 7 were retained for review. The views of patients and clinical staff (16 studies) were predominantly positive, although concerns were expressed about privacy, technical considerations, and integrating video recording into clinical workflows; some patients were anxious about their physical appearance. The mean recruitment rate was 68.2% (SD 22.5%; range 34.2%-100%; 12 studies), and the mean retention rate was 73.3% (SD 28.6%; range 16.7%-100%; 17 studies). Regarding effectiveness (10 studies), patients and clinical staff considered video recordings to be valuable in supporting assessment, care, and treatment; in promoting patient engagement; and in enhancing communication and recall of information. Observational studies (n=5) favored video recording, but randomized controlled trials (n=5) did not demonstrate that video recording was superior to the controls. UK guidelines are consistent in their recommendations around consent, privacy, and storage of recordings but lack detailed guidance on how to operationalize these recommendations in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Video recording patients for direct care purposes appears to be acceptable, despite concerns about privacy, technical considerations, and how to incorporate recording into clinical workflows. Methodological quality prevents firm conclusions from being drawn; therefore, pragmatic trials (particularly in older adult care and the movement disorders field) should evaluate the impact of video recording on diagnosis, treatment monitoring, patient-clinician communication, and patient safety. Professional and regulatory documents should signpost to practical guidance on the implementation of video recording in routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022331825: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=331825.

Perceptions of Quality of Care Among Users of a Web-Based Patient Portal: Cross-sectional Survey Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Web-based patient portals enable patients access to, and interaction with, their personal electronic health records. However, little is known about the impact of patient portals on quality of care. Users of patient portals can contribute important insights toward addressing this knowledge gap. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe perceived changes in the quality of care among users of a web-based patient portal and to identify the characteristics of patients who perceive the greatest benefit of portal use. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey study was conducted to understand patients' experiences with the Care Information Exchange (CIE) portal. Patient sociodemographic data were collected, including age, sex, ethnicity, educational level, health status, geographic location, motivation to self-manage, and digital health literacy (measured by the eHealth Literacy Scale). Patients with experience using CIE, who specified both age and sex, were included in these analyses. Relevant survey items (closed-ended questions) were mapped to the Institute of Medicine's 6 domains of quality of care. Users' responses were examined to understand their perceptions of how portal use has changed the overall quality of their care, different aspects of care related to the 6 domains of care quality, and patient's satisfaction with care. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to identify patient characteristics associated with perceived improvements in overall care quality and greater satisfaction with care. RESULTS: Of 445 CIE users, 38.7% (n=172) reported that the overall quality of their care was better; 3.2% (n=14) said their care was worse. In the patient centeredness domain, 61.2% (273/445) of patients felt more in control of their health care, and 53.9% (240/445) felt able to play a greater role in decision-making. Regarding timeliness, 40.2% (179/445) of patients reported they could access appointments, diagnoses, and treatment more quickly. Approximately 30% of CIE users reported better care related to the domains of effectiveness (123/445, 27.6%), safety (138/445, 31%), and efficiency (174/445, 28.6%). Regarding equity, patients self-reporting higher digital health literacy (odds ratio 2.40, 95% CI 1.07-5.42; P=.03) and those belonging to ethnic minority groups (odds ratio 2.27, 95% CI 1.26-3.73; P<.005) were more likely to perceive improvements in care quality. Across ethnic groups, Asian and British Asian patients perceived the greatest benefits. Increased frequency of CIE use also predicted perceived better care quality and greater satisfaction with care. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of CIE users perceived better care quality and greater satisfaction with care, although many portal users reported no change. The most favorable perceived improvements related to the domain of patient centeredness. With national policy directed toward addressing health disparities, patient portals could be valuable in improving care quality for ethnic minority groups. Future research should test the causal relationship between patient portal use and care quality.

Patients' Willingness and Ability to Identify and Respond to Errors in Their Personal Health Records: Mixed Methods Analysis of Cross-sectional Survey Data.

BACKGROUND: Errors in electronic health records are known to contribute to patient safety incidents; however, systems for checking the accuracy of patient records are almost nonexistent. Personal health records (PHRs) enabling patient access to and interaction with the clinical records offer a valuable opportunity for patients to actively participate in error surveillance. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate patients' willingness and ability to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a web-based questionnaire. Patient sociodemographic data were collected, including age, sex, ethnicity, educational level, health status, geographical location, motivation to self-manage, and digital health literacy (measured using the eHealth Literacy Scale tool). Patients with experience of using the Care Information Exchange (CIE) portal, who specified both age and sex, were included in these analyses. The patients' responses to 4 relevant survey items (closed-ended questions, some with space for free-text comments) were examined to understand their willingness and ability to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify patients' characteristics that predict the ability to understand information in the CIE and willingness to respond to errors in their records. The framework method was used to derive themes from patients' free-text responses. RESULTS: Of 445 patients, 181 (40.7%) "definitely" understood the CIE information and approximately half (220/445, 49.4%) understood the CIE information "to some extent." Patients with high digital health literacy (eHealth Literacy Scale score ≥26) were more confident in their ability to understand their records compared with patients with low digital health literacy (odds ratio [OR] 7.85, 95% CI 3.04-20.29; P<.001). Information-related barriers (medical terminology and lack of medical guidance or contextual information) and system-related barriers (functionality or usability and information communicated or displayed poorly) were described. Of 445 patients, 79 (17.8%) had noticed errors in their PHRs, which were related to patient demographic details, diagnoses, medical history, results, medications, letters or correspondence, and appointments. Most patients (272/445, 61.1%) wanted to be able to flag up errors to their health professionals for correction; 20.4% (91/445) of the patients were willing to correct errors themselves. Native English speakers were more likely to be willing to flag up errors to health professionals (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.11-10.78; P=.03) or correct errors themselves (OR 5.65, 95% CI 1.33-24.03; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients were able and willing to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs. However, some barriers persist that disproportionately affect the underserved groups. Further development of PHR systems, including incorporating channels for patient feedback on the accuracy of their records, should address the needs of nonnative English speakers and patients with lower digital health literacy.

The self-management abilities test (SMAT): a tool to identify the self-management abilities of adults with bronchiectasis.

Bronchiectasis is an increasingly common chronic respiratory disease which requires a high level of patient engagement in self-management. Whilst the need for self-management has been recognised, the knowledge and skills needed to do so- and the extent to which patients possess these-has not been well-specified. On one hand, understanding the gaps in people's knowledge and skills can enable better targeting of self-management supports. On the other, clarity about what they do know can increase patients' confidence to self-manage. This study aims to develop an assessment of patients' ability to self-manage effectively, through a consensus-building process with patients, clinicians and policymakers. The study employs a modified, online three-round Delphi to solicit the opinions of patients, clinicians, and policymakers (N = 30) with experience of bronchiectasis. The first round seeks consensus on the content domains for an assessment of bronchiectasis self-management ability. Subsequent rounds propose and refine multiple-choice assessment items to address the agreed domains. A group of ten clinicians, ten patients and ten policymakers provide both qualitative and quantitative feedback. Consensus is determined using content validity ratios. Qualitative feedback is analysed using the summative content analysis method. Overarching domains are General Health Knowledge, Bronchiectasis-Specific Knowledge, Symptom Management, Communication, and Addressing Deterioration, each with two sub-domains. A final assessment tool of 20 items contains two items addressing each sub-domain. This study establishes that there is broad consensus about the knowledge and skills required to self-manage bronchiectasis effectively, across stakeholder groups. The output of the study is an assessment tool that can be used by patients and their healthcare providers to guide the provision of self-management education, opportunities, and support.

Determinants of Use of the Care Information Exchange Portal: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Sharing electronic health records with patients has been shown to improve patient safety and quality of care. Patient portals represent a convenient tool to enhance patient access to their own health care data. However, the success of portals will only be possible through sustained adoption by its end users: the patients. A better understanding of the characteristics of users and nonusers is critical for understanding which groups remain excluded from using such tools. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the determinants of the use of the Care Information Exchange, a shared patient portal program in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a web-based questionnaire. Information collected included age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, health status, postcode, and digital literacy. Registered individuals were defined as having had an account created in the portal, independent of their actual use of the platform; users were defined as having ever used the portal. Multivariate logistic regression was used to model the probability of being a user. Statistical analysis was performed in R and Tableau was used to create maps of the proportion of Care Information Exchange users by postcode area. RESULTS: A total of 1083 participants replied to the survey (186% of the estimated minimum target sample). The proportion of users was 61.58% (667/1083). Among these, most (385/667, 57.7%) used the portal at least once a month. To characterize the system's users and nonusers, we performed a subanalysis of the sample, including only participants who had provided at least information regarding gender and age. The subanalysis included 650 individuals (389/650, 59.8% women; 551/650, 84.8% >40 years). Most participants were White (498/650, 76.6%) and resided in London (420/650, 64.6%). Individuals with a higher educational degree (undergraduate and professional, or postgraduate and higher) had higher odds of being a portal user (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.58, 95% CI 1.04-2.39 and OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.42-4.02, respectively) compared with those with a secondary degree or below. Higher digital literacy scores (≥30) were associated with higher odds of being a user (adjusted OR 2.96, 95% CI 2.02-4.35). Those with a good overall health status had lower odds of being a user (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: This work adds to the growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of educational aspects (educational level and digital literacy) in the adoption of patient portals. Further research should not only describe but also systematically address these inequalities through patient-centered interventions aimed at reducing the digital divide. Health care providers and policy makers must partner in investing and delivering strategic programs that improve access to technology and digital literacy in an effort to improve digital inclusion and reduce inequities in the delivery of care.

Assessing COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Effectiveness Through the North West London Vaccination Program: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared SARS-CoV-2, causing COVID-19, as a pandemic. The UK mass vaccination program commenced on December 8, 2020, vaccinating groups of the population deemed to be most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 infection. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the early vaccine administration coverage and outcome data across an integrated care system in North West London, leveraging a unique population-level care data set. Vaccine effectiveness of a single dose of the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines were compared. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study identified 2,183,939 individuals eligible for COVID-19 vaccination between December 8, 2020, and February 24, 2021, within a primary, secondary, and community care integrated care data set. These data were used to assess vaccination hesitancy across ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic deprivation measures (Pearson product-moment correlations); investigate COVID-19 transmission related to vaccination hubs; and assess the early effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination (after a single dose) using time-to-event analyses with multivariable Cox regression analysis to investigate if vaccination independently predicted positive SARS-CoV-2 in those vaccinated compared to those unvaccinated. RESULTS: In this study, 5.88% (24,332/413,919) of individuals declined and did not receive a vaccination. Black or Black British individuals had the highest rate of declining a vaccine at 16.14% (4337/26,870). There was a strong negative association between socioeconomic deprivation and rate of declining vaccination (r=-0.94; P=.002) with 13.5% (1980/14,571) of individuals declining vaccination in the most deprived areas compared to 0.98% (869/9609) in the least. In the first 6 days after vaccination, 344 of 389,587 (0.09%) individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The rate increased to 0.13% (525/389,243) between days 7 and 13, before then gradually falling week on week. At 28 days post vaccination, there was a 74% (hazard ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.19-0.35) and 78% (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.18-0.27) reduction in risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 for individuals that received the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines, respectively, when compared with unvaccinated individuals. A very low proportion of hospital admissions were seen in vaccinated individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (288/389,587, 0.07% of all patients vaccinated) providing evidence for vaccination effectiveness after a single dose. CONCLUSIONS: There was no definitive evidence to suggest COVID-19 was transmitted as a result of vaccination hubs during the vaccine administration rollout in North West London, and the risk of contracting COVID-19 or becoming hospitalized after vaccination has been demonstrated to be low in the vaccinated population. This study provides further evidence that a single dose of either the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine or the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is effective at reducing the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 up to 60 days across all age groups, ethnic groups, and risk categories in an urban UK population.

Assessment of Patients' Ability to Review Electronic Health Record Information to Identify Potential Errors: Cross-sectional Web-Based Survey.

BACKGROUND: Sharing personal health information positively impacts quality of care across several domains, and particularly, safety and patient-centeredness. Patients may identify and flag up inconsistencies in their electronic health records (EHRs), leading to improved information quality and patient safety. However, in order to identify potential errors, patients need to be able to understand the information contained in their EHRs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess patients' perceptions of their ability to understand the information contained in their EHRs and to analyze the main barriers to their understanding. Additionally, the main types of patient-reported errors were characterized. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey was undertaken between March 2017 and September 2017. A total of 682 registered users of the Care Information Exchange, a patient portal, with at least one access during the time of the study were invited to complete the survey containing both structured (multiple choice) and unstructured (free text) questions. The survey contained questions on patients' perceived ability to understand their EHR information and therefore, to identify errors. Free-text questions allowed respondents to expand on the reasoning for their structured responses and provide more detail about their perceptions of EHRs and identifying errors within them. Qualitative data were systematically reviewed by 2 independent researchers using the framework analysis method in order to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: A total of 210 responses were obtained. The majority of the responses (123/210, 58.6%) reported understanding of the information. The main barriers identified were information-related (medical terminology and knowledge and interpretation of test results) and technology-related (user-friendliness of the portal, information display). Inconsistencies relating to incomplete and incorrect information were reported in 12.4% (26/210) of the responses. CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of the responses affirmed the understanding of the information contained within the EHRs, both technology and information-based barriers persist. There is a potential to improve the system design to better support opportunities for patients to identify errors. This is with the aim of improving the accuracy, quality, and timeliness of the information held in the EHRs and a mechanism to further engage patients in their health care.

Can self-management programmes change healthcare utilisation in COPD?: A systematic review and framework analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The study aims to evaluate the ability of self-management programmes to change the healthcare-seeking behaviours of people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and any associations between programme design and outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature returned randomised controlled trials of SMPs for COPD. Change in healthcare utilisation was the primary outcome measure. Programme design was analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). RESULTS: A total of 26 papers described 19 SMPs. The most common utilisation outcome was hospitalisation (n = 22). Of these, 5 showed a significant decrease. Two theoretical domains were evidenced in all programmes: skills and behavioural regulation. All programmes evidenced at least 5 domains. However, there was no clear association between TDF domains and utilisation. Overall, study quality was moderate to poor. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the need for more alignment in the goals, design, and evaluation of SMPs. Specifically, the TDF could be used to guide programme design and evaluation in future. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Practices have a reasonable expectation that interventions they adopt will provide patient benefit and value for money. Better design and reporting of SMP trials would address their ability to do so.

Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights.

INTRODUCTION: A global rise in patient complaints has been accompanied by growing research to effectively analyse complaints for safer, more patient-centric care. Most patients and families complain to improve the quality of healthcare, yet progress has been complicated by a system primarily designed for case-by-case complaint handling. AIM: To understand how to effectively integrate patient-centric complaint handling with quality monitoring and improvement. METHOD: Literature screening and patient codesign shaped the review's aim in the first stage of this three-stage review. Ten sources were searched including academic databases and policy archives. In the second stage, 13 front-line experts were interviewed to develop initial practice-based programme theory. In the third stage, evidence identified in the first stage was appraised based on rigour and relevance, and selected to refine programme theory focusing on what works, why and under what circumstances. RESULTS: A total of 74 academic and 10 policy sources were included. The review identified 12 mechanisms to achieve: patient-centric complaint handling and system-wide quality improvement. The complaint handling pathway includes (1) access of information; (2) collaboration with support and advocacy services; (3) staff attitude and signposting; (4) bespoke responding; and (5) public accountability. The improvement pathway includes (6) a reliable coding taxonomy; (7) standardised training and guidelines; (8) a centralised informatics system; (9) appropriate data sampling; (10) mixed-methods spotlight analysis; (11) board priorities and leadership; and (12) just culture. DISCUSSION: If healthcare settings are better supported to report, analyse and use complaints data in a standardised manner, complaints could impact on care quality in important ways. This review has established a range of evidence-based, short-term recommendations to achieve this.

Health Care Professionals' Perspectives on the Secondary Use of Health Records to Improve Quality and Safety of Care in England: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care professionals (HCPs) are often patients' first point of contact in what concerns the communication of the purposes, benefits, and risks of sharing electronic health records (EHRs) for nondirect care purposes. Their engagement is fundamental to ensure patients' buy-in and a successful implementation of health care data sharing schemes. However, their views on this subject are seldom evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore HCPs' perspectives on the secondary uses of health care data in England. Specifically, we aimed to assess their knowledge on its purposes and the main concerns about data sharing processes. METHODS: A total of 30 interviews were conducted between March 27, 2017, and April 7, 2017, using a Web-based interview platform and following a topic guide with open-ended questions. The participants represented a variety of geographic locations across England (London, West Midlands, East of England, North East England, and Yorkshire and the Humber), covering both primary and secondary care services. The transcripts were compiled verbatim and systematically reviewed by 2 independent reviewers using the framework analysis method to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: HCPs were knowledgeable about the possible secondary uses of data and highlighted its importance for patient profiling and tailored care, research, quality assurance, public health, and service delivery planning purposes. Main concerns toward data sharing included data accuracy, patients' willingness to share their records, challenges on obtaining free and informed consent, data security, lack of adequacy or understanding of current policies, and potential patient exposure and exploitation. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a high level of HCPs' understanding about the purposes of data sharing for secondary purposes; however, some concerns still remain. A better understanding of HCPs' knowledge and concerns could inform national communication policies and improve tailoring to maximize efficiency and improve patients' buy-in.

Evaluating the impact of image guidance in the surgical setting: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Image guidance has been clinically available for over a period of 20 years. Although research increasingly has a translational emphasis, overall the clinical uptake of image guidance systems in surgery remains low. The objective of this review was to establish the metrics used to report on the impact of surgical image guidance systems used in a clinical setting. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was carried out on all relevant publications between January 2000 and April 2016. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched using a title strategy. Reported outcome metrics were grouped into clinically relevant domains and subsequent sub-categories for analysis. RESULTS: In total, 232 publications were eligible for inclusion. Analysis showed that clinical outcomes and system interaction were consistently reported. However, metrics focusing on surgeon, patient and economic impact were reported less often. No increase in the quality of reporting was observed during the study time period, associated with study design, or when the clinical setting involved a surgical specialty that had been using image guidance for longer. CONCLUSIONS: Publications reporting on the clinical use of image guidance systems are evaluating traditional surgical outcomes and neglecting important human and economic factors, which are pertinent to the uptake, diffusion and sustainability of image-guided surgery. A framework is proposed to assist researchers in providing comprehensive evaluation metrics, which should also be considered in the design phase. Use of these would help demonstrate the impact in the clinical setting leading to increased clinical integration of image guidance systems.

Which behaviour change techniques are most effective in improving healthcare utilisation in COPD self-management programmes? A protocol for a systematic review.

Introduction: Self-management interventions are often presented as a way to improve the quality of care for patients with chronic illness. However, self-management is quite broadly defined and it remains unclear which types of interventions are most successful. This review will use the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) as a lens through which to categorise self-management interventions regarding which programmes are most likely to be effective and under which circumstances.The aim of this study is to (1) describe the types of self-management programmes that have been developed in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and identify the common elements between these to better classify self-management, and (2) evaluate the effect that self-management programmes have on the healthcare behaviour of patients with COPD by classifying those programmes by the behaviour change techniques used. Methods and analysis: A systematic search of the literature will be performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC and PsycINFO. This review will be limited to randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies. The review will follow PRISMA-P guidelines, and will provide a PRISMA checklist and flowchart. Risk of bias in individual studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria, and the quality of included studies will be evaluated using the GRADE criteria, and will be reported in a Summary of Findings table.The primary analysis will be a catalogue of the interventions based on the components of the TDF that were used in the intervention. A matrix comparing included behaviour change techniques to improvements in utilisation will summarise the primary outcomes. Ethics and dissemination: Not applicable, as this is a secondary review of the literature. Prospero registration number: CRD42018104753.

Perfect Registration Leads to Imperfect Performance: A Randomized Trial of Multimodal Intraoperative Image Guidance.

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical safety and efficiency of 2 image guidance modalities, perfect augmented reality (AR) and side-by-side unregistered image guidance (IG), against a no guidance control (NG), when performing a simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). BACKGROUND: Image guidance using AR offers the potential to improve understanding of subsurface anatomy, with positive ramifications for surgical safety and efficiency. No intra-abdominal study has demonstrated any advantage for the technology. Perfect AR cannot be provided in the operative setting in a patient; however, it can be generated in the simulated setting. METHODS: Thirty-six experienced surgeons performed a baseline LC using the LapMentor simulator before randomization to 1 of 3 study arms: AR, IG, or NG. Each performed 3 further LC. Safety and efficiency-related simulator metrics, and task workload (SURG-TLX) were collected. RESULTS: The IG group had a shorter total instrument path length and fewer movements than NG and AR groups. Both IG and NG took a significantly shorter time than AR to complete dissection of Calot triangle. Use of IG and AR resulted in significantly fewer perforations and serious complications than the NG group. IG had significantly fewer perforations and serious complications than the AR group. Compared with IG, AR guidance was found to be significantly more distracting. CONCLUSION: Side-by-side unregistered image guidance (IG) improved safety and surgical efficiency in a simulated setting when compared with AR or NG. IG provides a more tangible opportunity for integrating image guidance into existing surgical workflow as well as delivering the safety and efficiency benefits desired.

Enhancing Safety Culture Through Improved Incident Reporting: A Case Study In Translational Research.

The Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, a large health care provider in London, together with an academic research unit, used a learning health systems cycle of interventions. The goals were to improve patient safety incident reporting and learning and shape a more just organizational safety culture. Following a phase of feedback gathering from front-line staff, seven evidence-based interventions were implemented and evaluated from October 2016 to August 2018. Indicators of safety culture, incident reporting rates, and reported rates of harm to patients and "never events" (events that should not happen in medical practice) were continuously monitored. In this article we report on this initiative, including its early results. We observed improvement on some measures of safety culture and incident reporting rates. Staff members' perceptions of six of the seven interventions were positive. The intervention exercise demonstrated the importance of health care policies in supporting local ownership of safety culture and encouraging the application of rigorous research standards.

Impact of sharing electronic health records with patients on the quality and safety of care: a systematic review and narrative synthesis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Providing patients with access to electronic health records (EHRs) has emerged as a promising solution to improve quality of care and safety. As the efforts to develop and implement EHR-based data sharing platforms mature and scale up worldwide, there is a need to evaluate the impact of these interventions and to weigh their relative risks and benefits, in order to inform evidence-based health policies. The aim of this work is to systematically characterise and appraise the demonstrated benefits and risks of sharing EHR with patients, by mapping them across the six domains of quality of care of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) analytical framework (ie, patient-centredness, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, equity and safety). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, HMIC, Medline/PubMed and PsycINFO databases will be searched from January 1997 to August 2017. Primary outcomes will include measures related with the six domains of quality of care of the IOM analytical framework. The quality of the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the ROBINS-I Tool and the Drummond's checklist. A narrative synthesis will be conducted for all included studies. Subgroup analysis will be performed by domain of quality of care domain and by time scale (ie, short-term, medium-term or long-term impact). The body of evidence will be summarised in a Summary of Findings table and its strength assessed according to the GRADE criteria. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethical approval as it will summarise published studies with non-identifiable data. This protocol complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations, and patient partners will be included in summarising the research findings into lay summaries and reports. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017070092.

Patient Segmentation Analysis Offers Significant Benefits For Integrated Care And Support.

Integrated care aims to organize care around the patient instead of the provider. It is therefore crucial to understand differences across patients and their needs. Segmentation analysis that uses big data can help divide a patient population into distinct groups, which can then be targeted with care models and intervention programs tailored to their needs. In this article we explore the potential applications of patient segmentation in integrated care. We propose a framework for population strategies in integrated care-whole populations, subpopulations, and high-risk populations-and show how patient segmentation can support these strategies. Through international case examples, we illustrate practical considerations such as choosing a segmentation logic, accessing data, and tailoring care models. Important issues for policy makers to consider are trade-offs between simplicity and precision, trade-offs between customized and off-the-shelf solutions, and the availability of linked data sets. We conclude that segmentation can provide many benefits to integrated care, and we encourage policy makers to support its use.

Surgical Checklist Implementation Project: The Impact of Variable WHO Checklist Compliance on Risk-adjusted Clinical Outcomes After National Implementation: A Longitudinal Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate impact of WHO checklist compliance on risk-adjusted clinical outcomes, including the influence of checklist components (Sign-in, Time-out, Sign-out) on outcomes. BACKGROUND: There remain unanswered questions surrounding surgical checklists as a quality and safety tool, such as the impact in cases of differing complexity and the extent of checklist implementation. METHODS: Data were collected from surgical admissions (6714 patients) from March 2010 to June 2011 at 5 academic and community hospitals. The primary endpoint was any complication, including mortality, occurring before hospital discharge. Checklist usage was recorded as checklist completed in full/partly. Multilevel modeling was performed to investigate the association between complications/mortality and checklist completion. RESULTS: Significant variability in checklist usage was found: although at least 1 of the 3 components was completed in 96.7% of cases, the entire checklist was only completed in 62.1% of cases. Checklist completion did not affect mortality reduction, but significantly lowered risk of postoperative complication (16.9% vs. 11.2%), and was largely noticed when all 3 components of the checklist had been completed (odds ratio = 0.57, 95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.87, P < 0.01). Calculated population-attributable fractions showed that 14% (95% confidence interval: 7%-21%) of the complications could be prevented if full completion of the checklist was implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Checklist implementation was associated with reduced case-mix-adjusted complications after surgery and was most significant when all 3 components of the checklist were completed. Full, as opposed to partial, checklist completion provides a health policy opportunity to improve checklist impact on surgical safety and quality of care.

Education and training in pediatric robotic surgery: lessons learned from an inaugural multinational workshop.

The introduction of robotic surgery into clinical practice brings new and specific needs for education and training. Application to the pediatric setting comes with unique considerations, warranting dedicated training resources that are accessible. A pediatric robotic surgery workshop was convened to address initial education and training requirements. The event was designed to offer an exposure rich environment for delegates to familiarize and learn basic principles in a maximally efficient manner. Pre- and post-workshop survey responses were evaluated to reflect on the quality of the educational experience and scope for improvement. Feasibility and sustainability of such events was further evaluated by reviewing various challenges encountered. A total of 29 surgeons participated in the workshop, with 7 countries represented. The majority of delegates (94 %) indicated they were "very satisfied" with the overall program. Delegates almost unanimously expressed preference and satisfaction for hands-on content. Qualitative feedback favored a stepwise and modular workshop structure, transitioning from didactic teaching to progressively more advanced training. At the basic and intermediate level, this style of event is able to satisfy initial training and educational needs. Feasibility and sustainability of such events is highly dependent on infrastructure resources that have numerous barriers to accessibility.