Measures of performance and proficiency in robotic assisted surgery: a systematic review.

Robotic assisted surgery (RAS) has seen a global rise in adoption. Despite this, there is not a standardised training curricula nor a standardised measure of performance. We performed a systematic review across the surgical specialties in RAS and evaluated tools used to assess surgeons' technical performance. Using the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically for full texts published on or after January 2020-January 2022. Observational studies and RCTs were included; review articles and systematic reviews were excluded. The papers' quality and bias score were assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Score for the observational studies and Cochrane Risk Tool for the RCTs. The initial search yielded 1189 papers of which 72 fit the eligibility criteria. 27 unique performance metrics were identified. Global assessments were the most common tool of assessment (n = 13); the most used was GEARS (Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills). 11 metrics (42%) were objective tools of performance. Automated performance metrics (APMs) were the most widely used objective metrics whilst the remaining (n = 15, 58%) were subjective. The results demonstrate variation in tools used to assess technical performance in RAS. A large proportion of the metrics are subjective measures which increases the risk of bias amongst users. A standardised objective metric which measures all domains of technical performance from global to cognitive is required. The metric should be applicable to all RAS procedures and easily implementable. Automated performance metrics (APMs) have demonstrated promise in their wide use of accurate measures.

Anaesthetists' current practice and perceptions of aerosol-generating procedures: a mixed-methods study.

The evidence base surrounding the transmission risk of 'aerosol-generating procedures' has evolved primarily through quantification of aerosol concentrations during clinical practice. Consequently, infection prevention and control guidelines are undergoing continual reassessment. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore the perceptions of practicing anaesthetists regarding aerosol-generating procedures. An online survey was distributed to the Membership Engagement Group of the Royal College of Anaesthetists during November 2021. The survey included five clinical scenarios to identify the personal approach of respondents to precautions, their hospital's policies and the associated impact on healthcare provision. A purposive sample was selected for interviews to explore the reasoning behind their perceptions and behaviours in greater depth. A total of 333 survey responses were analysed quantitatively. Transcripts from 18 interviews were coded and analysed thematically. The sample was broadly representative of the UK anaesthetic workforce. Most respondents and their hospitals were aware of, supported and adhered to UK guidance. However, there were examples of substantial divergence from these guidelines at both individual and hospital level. For example, 40 (12%) requested respiratory protective equipment and 63 (20%) worked in hospitals that required it to be worn whilst performing tracheal intubation in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients. Additionally, 173 (52%) wore respiratory protective equipment whilst inserting supraglottic airway devices. Regarding the use of respiratory protective equipment and fallow times in the operating theatre: 305 (92%) perceived reduced efficiency; 376 (83%) perceived a negative impact on teamworking; 201 (64%) were worried about environmental impact; and 255 (77%) reported significant problems with communication. However, 269 (63%) felt the negative impacts of respiratory protection equipment were appropriately balanced against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Attitudes were polarised about the prospect of moving away from using respiratory protective equipment. Participants' perceived risk from COVID-19 correlated with concern regarding stepdown (Spearman's test, R = 0.36, p < 0.001). Attitudes towards aerosol-generating procedures and the need for respiratory protective equipment are evolving and this information can be used to inform strategies to facilitate successful adoption of revised guidelines.

Strategies to Improve Recruitment to a De-escalation Trial: A Mixed-Methods Study of the OPTIMA Prelim Trial in Early Breast Cancer.

AIMS: De-escalation trials are challenging and sometimes may fail due to poor recruitment. The OPTIMA Prelim randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN42400492) randomised patients with early stage breast cancer to chemotherapy versus 'test-directed' chemotherapy, with a possible outcome of no chemotherapy, which could confer less treatment relative to routine practice. Despite encountering challenges, OPTIMA Prelim reached its recruitment target ahead of schedule. This study reports the root causes of recruitment challenges and the strategies used to successfully overcome them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mixed-methods recruitment intervention (QuinteT Recruitment Intervention) was used to investigate the recruitment difficulties and feedback findings to inform interventions and optimise ongoing recruitment. Quantitative site-level recruitment data, audio-recorded recruitment appointments (n = 46), qualitative interviews (n = 22) with trialists/recruiting staff (oncologists/nurses) and patient-facing documentation were analysed using descriptive, thematic and conversation analyses. Findings were triangulated to inform a 'plan of action' to optimise recruitment. RESULTS: Despite best intentions, oncologists' routine practices complicated recruitment. Discomfort about deviating from the usual practice of recommending chemotherapy according to tumour clinicopathological features meant that not all eligible patients were approached. Audio-recorded recruitment appointments revealed how routine practices undermined recruitment. A tendency to justify chemotherapy provision before presenting the randomised controlled trial and subtly indicating that chemotherapy would be more/less beneficial undermined equipoise and made it difficult for patients to engage with OPTIMA Prelim. To tackle these challenges, individual and group recruiter feedback focussed on communication issues and vignettes of eligible patients were discussed to address discomforts around approaching patients. 'Tips' documents concerning structuring discussions and conveying equipoise were disseminated across sites, together with revisions to the Patient Information Sheet. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study illuminating the tension between oncologists' routine practices and recruitment to de-escalation trials. Although time and resources are required, these challenges can be addressed through specific feedback and training as the trial is underway.

Regional anaesthesia practice for arteriovenous fistula formation surgery.

We conducted a survey and semi-structured qualitative interviews to investigate current anaesthetic practice for arteriovenous fistula formation surgery in the UK. Responses were received from 39 out of 59 vascular centres where arteriovenous access surgery is performed, a response rate of 66%. Thirty-five centres reported routine use of brachial plexus blocks, but variation in anaesthetic skill-mix and practice were observed. Interviews were conducted with 19 clinicians from 10 NHS Trusts including anaesthetists, vascular access and renal nurses, surgeons and nephrologists. Thematic analysis identified five key findings: (1) current anaesthetic practice showed that centres could be classified as 'regional anaesthesia dominant' or 'local anaesthesia/mixed'; (2) decision making around mode of anaesthesia highlighted the key role of surgeons as frontline decision makers across both centre types; (3) perceived barriers and facilitators of regional block use included clinicians' beliefs and preferences, resource considerations and patients' treatment preferences; (4) anaesthetists' preference for supraclavicular blocks emerged, alongside acknowledgement of varied practice; (5) there was widespread support for a future randomised controlled trial, although clinician equipoise issues and logistical/resource-related concerns were viewed as potential challenges. The use of regional anaesthesia for arteriovenous fistula formation in the UK is varied and influenced by a multitude of factors. Despite the availability of anaesthetists capable of performing regional blocks, there are other limiting factors that influence the routine use of this technique. The study also highlighted the perceived need for a large multicentre, randomised controlled trial to provide an evidence base to inform current practice.

Core information set for informed consent to surgery for oral or oropharyngeal cancer: A mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a core information set for informed consent to surgery for oral/oropharyngeal surgery. A core information set is baseline information rated important by patients and surgeons and is intended to improve patients' understanding of the intended procedure. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study. Systematic reviews of scientific and written healthcare literature, qualitative interviews and observations, Delphi surveys, and group consensus meetings identified information domains of importance for consent. SETTING: A regional head and neck clinic in the United Kingdom. Questionnaire participants were recruited from around the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients about to undergo, or who had previously undergone, surgery for oral/oropharyngeal cancer. Healthcare professionals involved in the management of head and neck cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was a core information set. RESULTS: Systematic reviews, interviews and consultation observations yielded 887 pieces of information that were categorised into 87 information domains. Survey response rates were 67% (n = 50) and 71% (n = 52) for patient and healthcare professional groups in round one. More than 90% responded in each group in the second round. Healthcare professionals were more likely to rate information about short-term or peri-operative events as important while patients rated longer term issues about survival and quality of life. The consensus-building process resulted in an agreed core information set of 13 domains plus two procedure-specific domains about tracheostomy and free-flap surgery. CONCLUSION: This study produced a core information set for surgeons and patients to discuss before surgery for oral/oropharyngeal cancer. Future work will optimise ways to integrate core information into routine consultations.