RESUMO
PURPOSE: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is being increasingly performed with implant placed above the pectoral muscle (pre-pectoral), instead of below the pectoral muscle (sub-pectoral). Currently, there is a lack of comparative data on clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- vs. sub-pectoral IBR. We investigated whether this difference in surgical approach influenced clinical or patient-perceived outcomes. METHODS: This prospective non-randomised longitudinal cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04842240) recruited patients undergoing immediate IBR at the Leeds Breast Unit (Sep 2019-Sep 2021). Data collection included patient characteristics and post-operative complications. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures were collected using the BREAST-Q questionnaire at baseline, 2 weeks, 3- and 12-months post-surgery. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients underwent IBR (46 patients pre-pectoral; 59% vs. 32 patients sub-pectoral; 41%). Similar complication rates were observed (15.2% pre-pectoral vs. 9.4% sub-pectoral; p = 0.44). Overall implant loss rate was 3.8% (6.5% pre-pectoral vs. 0% sub-pectoral; p = 0.13). Respective median Breast-Q scores for pre- and sub-pectoral IBR at 3 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 48; p = 0.01), psychosocial well-being (60 vs. 57; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 76; p = 0.53), and Animation Q scores (73 vs. 76; p = 0.45). Respective Breast-Q scores at 12 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 53; p = 0.3), psychosocial well-being (59 vs. 60; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 78; p = 0.18), and Animation Q scores (69 vs. 73; p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates equivalent clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- and sub-pectoral IBR. The study findings can be utilised to aid informed decision making regarding either surgical option.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical use of 'My Hearing Explained for Children' (MHEfC) with children aged 8-11 years, from the perspectives of the child, parents and audiologist. DESIGN: A mixed methods randomised control trial. Participants completed evaluation questionnaires after their appointment. Statistical and thematic analyses were used to examine the rating scale and open response elements of the questionnaires respectively. STUDY SAMPLE: 45 families participated, 24 randomised to MHEfC and 21 to standard care. RESULTS: Use of MHEfC increased the appointment duration by 8.2 minutes (95% CI 4.1 to 14.2 minutes), which was acceptable to parents (96%) and audiologists (67%). It promoted conversation around 'behavioural and communication tactics', 'specific listening situations' and 'listening effort' at the expense of 'anatomy/physiology/aetiology'. MHEfC positively impacted the discussion of test results (54%); ease of finding joint solutions to problems (71%); and the nature of issues and management options discussed (54%). Parental satisfaction with discussion was high on both pathways, so some parents and audiologists questioned MHEfC necessity and recommended targeted use in future. CONCLUSIONS: MHEfC was acceptable to children (70%) and parents (86%). It successfully promoted child-centred topics of discussion and can positively impact discussion outcomes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A number of females with pelvic inflammatory disease will present to general surgical services with non-specific abdominal pain. Screening for sexually transmitted infections (STI) as an underlying cause is not routinely offered. We therefore established an STI screening programme for young females presenting to a same day emergency ambulatory surgical clinic as part of the diagnostic pathway. Data outlining the incidence and prevalence of STIs as the underlying cause of lower abdominal pain were collected. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study. Self-collected vulvovaginal swabs for chlamydia and gonorrhoea were offered as part of a standardised diagnostic pathway for all females meeting inclusion criteria presenting with abdominal pain. Positive results were referred to our local sexual health team for treatment and contact tracing. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 297 eligible patients; 259 participated, 20 patients declined testing and 18 samples were rejected as inadequate in the laboratory. 5.4% of swab results were positive (2 gonorrhoea and 12 chlamydia). All patients with positive swabs had presented with lower abdominal pain and of these only 21% had a documented sexual history. CONCLUSION: Undiagnosed STIs are prevalent, with significant fertility and public health risks. Young females seeking medical assessment for abdominal pain provide an opportunistic screening cohort with a likely subset of patients presenting with abdominal pain as a direct result of an STI. Our results demonstrate a high incidence of positive tests, suggesting further training of surgeons to include a sexual history in assessment of females with abdominal pain is vital.
Assuntos
Dor Abdominal , Infecções por Chlamydia , Gonorreia , Programas de Rastreamento , Humanos , Feminino , Gonorreia/diagnóstico , Gonorreia/epidemiologia , Infecções por Chlamydia/diagnóstico , Infecções por Chlamydia/epidemiologia , Adulto , Estudos de Coortes , Adulto Jovem , Adolescente , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Prevalência , Incidência , Doença Inflamatória Pélvica/epidemiologia , Doença Inflamatória Pélvica/microbiologia , Infecções Sexualmente Transmissíveis/diagnóstico , Infecções Sexualmente Transmissíveis/epidemiologiaRESUMO
Background: Implementing new innovations across the health and social care system is complex, involving many factors that in recent years have been compounded by Covid-19. While a plethora of implementation tools and frameworks are available, there are limitations in terms of their design and accessibility. Co-production is a valuable mechanism for developing tools that have utility and accessibility for those tasked with using them in health and social care organisations and there is growing acknowledgement of increasing the role of co-production in implementation science. This paper provides novel insight into co-production practices and relevance to implementation science by reporting findings from a study to co-produce a web-based implementation toolkit (WIT) that is accessible, usable and designed to support adaptive implementation across health and social care systems. Key themes relating to the process of co-production are outlined and the value of using co-production in implementation processes are discussed. Methods: A web-based survey (n = 36) was conducted with a range of stakeholders across health and social care. Findings identified a need for WIT. Survey respondents were invited to express interest in becoming part of a co-production group and to take part in three online interactive workshops to co-produce WIT. Workshops took place with the group (n = 12) and focused on key developmental stages of WIT. Results: Online co-production workshops were integral to the development and refinement of WIT. Benefits of using this process identified three interrelated themes: (i) Co-designing key features of the toolkit, (ii) Co-producing a toolkit with utility for users across health and social care settings, (iii) Co-producing a toolkit to support the implementation journey. Our approach of undertaking co-production as a dialogic process enabled generation of these themes. To illuminate discussion of these themes we draw upon iterative co-development of the "active ingredients" of key components (e.g., interactive Implementation Wheel) and functions (e.g., interactive "pop-up" definitions of keyword) and features (e.g., case studies) of WIT. Conclusion: Using a co-production approach with a range of end-users across health and social care systems, highlights the benefits of understanding implementation processes for users in these settings. User-centred design and processes for ensuring accessibility readily support the translation of implementation into rapidly changing health and social care systems to benefit outcomes for patients, their families, carers, service users and practitioners.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Decision-making when considering major lower limb amputation is complex and requires individualized outcome estimation. It is unknown how accurate healthcare professionals or relevant outcome prediction tools are at predicting outcomes at 1-year after major lower limb amputation. METHODS: An international, multicentre prospective observational study evaluating healthcare professional accuracy in predicting outcomes 1 year after major lower limb amputation and evaluation of relevant outcome prediction tools identified in a systematic search of the literature was undertaken. Observed outcomes at 1 year were compared with: healthcare professionals' preoperative predictions of death (surgeons and anaesthetists), major lower limb amputation revision (surgeons) and ambulation (surgeons, specialist physiotherapists and vascular nurse practitioners); and probabilities calculated from relevant outcome prediction tools. RESULTS: A total of 537 patients and 2244 healthcare professional predictions of outcomes were included. Surgeons and anaesthetists had acceptable discrimination (C-statistic = 0.715), calibration and overall performance (Brier score = 0.200) when predicting 1-year death, but performed worse when predicting major lower limb amputation revision and ambulation (C-statistics = 0.627 and 0.662 respectively). Healthcare professionals overestimated the death and major lower limb amputation revision risks. Consultants outperformed trainees, especially when predicting ambulation. Allied healthcare professionals marginally outperformed surgeons in predicting ambulation. Two outcome prediction tools (C-statistics = 0.755 and 0.717, Brier scores = 0.158 and 0.178) outperformed healthcare professionals' discrimination, calibration and overall performance in predicting death. Two outcome prediction tools for ambulation (C-statistics = 0.688 and 0.667) marginally outperformed healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: There is uncertainty in predicting 1-year outcomes following major lower limb amputation. Different professional groups performed comparably in this study. Two outcome prediction tools for death and two for ambulation outperformed healthcare professionals and may support shared decision-making.
Assuntos
Amputação Cirúrgica , Pessoal de Saúde , Extremidade Inferior , Humanos , Consultores , Tomada de Decisão Compartilhada , Extremidade Inferior/cirurgiaRESUMO
The clock occupies a prominent position in many feminist and midwifery critiques of the medicalisation of labour and birth. Concern has long focused on the production of standardised 'progress' during labour via the expectation that once in 'established' labour, birthing people's cervixes should dilate at a particular rate, measurable in centimetres and clock time. In this article we draw on 37 audio- or video-recordings of women labouring in two UK midwife-led units in NHS hospital settings to develop a more nuanced critique of the way in which times materialise during labour. Mobilising insights from literature that approaches time as relational we suggest that it is helpful to explore the making of times during labour as multiple, uncertain and open-ended. This moves analysis of time during labour and birth beyond concern with particular forms of time (such as the clock or the body) towards understanding how times are constituted through interactions (for example, between midwives, cervixes, clocks, people in labour and their birth partners), and what they do.