Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative: patient-centred outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centred outcomes are increasingly used in perioperative clinical trials. The Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative aims to define which measures should be used in future research to facilitate comparison between studies and to enable robust evidence synthesis. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to create a longlist of patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life, functional status, patient well-being, and life-impact measures for consideration. A three-stage Delphi consensus process involving 89 international experts was then conducted in order to refine this list into a set of recommendations. RESULTS: The literature review yielded six patient-satisfaction measures, seven generic health-related quality-of-life measures, eight patient well-being measures, five functional-status measures, and five life-impact measures for consideration. The Delphi response rates were 92%, 87%, and 100% for Rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Three additional measures were added during the Delphi process as a result of contributions from the StEP group members. Firm recommendations have been made about one health-related quality-of-life measure (EuroQol 5 Dimension, five-level version with visual analogue scale), one functional-status measure (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule version 2.0, 12-question version), and one life-impact measure (days alive and out of hospital at 30 days after surgery). Recommendations with caveats have been made about the Bauer patient-satisfaction measure and two life-impact measures (days alive and out of hospital at 1 yr after surgery, and discharge destination). CONCLUSIONS: Several patient-centred outcome measures have been recommended for use in future perioperative studies. We suggest that every clinical study should consider using at least one patient-centred outcome within a suite of endpoints.

Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative: patient comfort.

BACKGROUND: Maximising patient comfort during and after surgery is a primary concern of anaesthetists and other perioperative clinicians, but objective measures of what constitutes patient comfort in the perioperative period remain poorly defined. The Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative was established to derive a set of standardised endpoints for use in perioperative clinical trials. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review to identify measures of patient comfort used in the anaesthetic, surgical, and other perioperative literature. A multi-round Delphi consensus process that included up to 89 clinician researchers was then used to refine a recommended list of outcome measures. RESULTS: We identified 122 studies in a literature search, which were the basis for a preliminary list of 24 outcome measures and their definitions. The response rates for Delphi Rounds 1, 2, and 3 were 100% (n=22), 90% (n=79), and 100% (n=13), respectively. A final list of six defined endpoints was identified: pain intensity (at rest and during movement) at 24 h postoperatively, nausea and vomiting (0-6 h, 6-24 h, and overall), one of two quality-of-recovery (QoR) scales (QoR score or QoR-15), time to gastrointestinal recovery, time to mobilisation, and sleep quality. CONCLUSIONS: As standardised outcomes will support benchmarking and pooling (meta-analysis) of trials, one or more of these recommended endpoints should be considered for inclusion in clinical trials assessing patient comfort and pain after surgery.

Differences between patients' and clinicians' research priorities from the Anaesthesia and Peri-operative Care Priority Setting Partnership.

The James Lind Alliance Anaesthesia and Peri-operative Care Priority Setting Partnership was a recent collaborative venture bringing approximately 2000 patients, carers and clinicians together to agree priorities for future research into anaesthesia and critical care. This secondary analysis compares the research priorities of 303 service users, 1068 clinicians and 325 clinicians with experience as service users. All three groups prioritised research to improve patient safety. Service users prioritised research about improving patient experience, whereas clinicians prioritised research about clinical effectiveness. Clinicians who had experience as service users consistently prioritised research more like clinicians than like service users. Individual research questions about patient experience were more popular with patients and carers than with clinicians in all but one case. We conclude that patients, carers and clinicians prioritise research questions differently. All groups prioritise research into patient safety, but service users also favour research into patient experience, whereas clinicians favour research into clinical effectiveness.