Aids to improve understanding of statistical risk in patients consenting for surgery and interventional procedures: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is an essential process in clinical decision-making, through which healthcare providers educate patients about benefits, risks, and alternatives of a procedure. Statistical risk information is difficult to communicate and the effectiveness of aids aimed at supporting this type of communication is uncertain. This systematic review aims to study the impact of risk communication adjuncts on patients' understanding of statistical risk in surgery and interventional procedures. METHODS: A systematic search was performed across Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science until July 2021 with a repeated search in September 2022. RCTs and observational studies examining risk communication tools (e.g., information leaflets and audio-video) in adult (age >16) patients undergoing a surgical or interventional procedure were included. Primary outcomes included the objective assessment of statistical risk recall. Secondary outcomes included patient attitudes with respect to statistical information. Due to the study heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 4348 articles were identified, and following abstract and full-text screening 14 articles, including 9 RCTs, were included. The total number of adult patients was 1513. The most common risk communication tool used was written information (n = 7). Most RCTs (7/9, 77.8%) showed statistically significant improvements in patient understanding of statistical risk in the intervention group. Quality assessment found some concerns with all RCTs. CONCLUSION: Risk communication tools appear to improve recall of statistical risk. Additional prospective trials comparing various aids simultaneously are warranted to determine the most effective method of improving understanding.

What are the non-technical skills required by junior doctors in the NHS to manage medical emergencies? A scoping review.

Many junior doctors have reported a lack of confidence in managing emergency conditions. However, there is insufficient literature summarising the current knowledge about the non-technical skills needed by junior doctors to tackle medical emergencies. This paper aims to identify the non-technical skills necessary for the management of medical emergencies by junior doctors. Three databases were systematically searched to identify relevant articles published between January 2000 and March 2020. In total, 8707 unique articles were identified and independently screened by at least two authors, using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A coding framework was applied to extract relevant data and for thematic analysis of the included studies. These methods have been performed following the PRISMA-ScR Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. There were a total of 13 articles included in the thematic analysis. The result of this review was the identification of several key non-technical skills: teamwork, communication, asking for help, challenging seniority, task prioritisation, decision-making, leadership and handling stress. In conclusion, lack of non-technical skills in junior doctors has a negative impact on patient care in a medical emergency. The training of junior doctors can be re-evaluated and designed to reflect the importance of these non-technical skills.

Improving risk communication: a proof-of-concept randomised control trial assessing the impact of visual aids for neurosurgical consent.

Introduction: Informed consent is a fundamental component in the work-up for surgical procedures. Statistical risk information pertaining to a procedure is by nature probabilistic and challenging to communicate, especially to those with poor numerical literacy. Visual aids and audio/video tools have previously been shown to improve patients' understanding of statistical information. In this study, we aimed to explore the impact of different methods of risk communication in healthy participants randomized to either undergo the consent process with visual aids or the standard consent process for lumbar puncture. Material and methods: Healthy individuals above 18 years old were eligible. The exclusion criteria were prior experience of the procedure or relevant medical knowledge, lack of capacity to consent, underlying cognitive impairment and hospitalised individuals. After randomisation, both groups received identical medical information about the procedure of a lumbar puncture in a hypothetical clinical scenario via different means of consent. The control group underwent the standard consent process in current clinical practice (Consent Form 1 without any illustrative examples), whereas the intervention group received additional anatomy diagrams, the Paling Palette and the Paling perspective scale. Anonymised questionnaires were received to evaluate their perception of the procedure and its associated risks. Results: Fifty-two individuals were eligible without statistically significant differences in age, sex, professional status and the familiarity of the procedure. Visual aids were noted to improve the confidence of participants to describe the risks by themselves (p = 0.009) and participants in the intervention group felt significantly less overwhelmed with medical information (p = 0.028). The enhanced consent process was found to be significantly more acceptable by participants (p = 0.03). There was a trend towards greater appropriateness (p = 0.06) and it appeared to have "good" usability (median SUS = 76.4), although this also did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.06). Conclusion: Visual aids could be an appropriate alternative method for medical consent without being inferior regarding the understanding of the procedure, its risks and its benefits. Future studies could possibly compare or incorporate multiple interventions to determine the most effective tools in a larger scale of population including patients as well as healthy individuals.

Empowering Early Career Neurosurgeons in the Critical Appraisal of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: The Design and Evaluation of a Pilot Course.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to play a greater role in neurosurgery. There is a need for neurosurgeons capable of critically appraising AI literature to evaluate its implementation or communicate information to patients. However, there are a lack of courses delivered at a level appropriate for individuals to develop such skills. We assessed the impact of a 2-day (non-credit bearing) online digital literacy course on the ability of individuals to critically appraise AI literature in neurosurgery. METHODS: We performed a prospective, quasi-experimental non-randomized, controlled study with an intervention arm comprising individuals enrolled in our 2-day digital health literacy course and a waiting-list control arm used for comparison. We assessed participants' pre- and post-course knowledge, confidence, and course acceptability using Qualtrics surveys designed for the purpose of this study. RESULTS: A total of 62 individuals (33 participants, 29 waitlist controls), including neurosurgical trainees and both undergraduate and post-graduate students, attended the course and completed the pre-course survey. The 2 groups did not vary significantly in terms of age or demographics. Following the course, participants significantly improved in their knowledge of AI (mean difference = 3.86, 95% CI = 2.97-4.75, P-value < 0.0001) and confidence in critically appraising literature using AI (P-value = 0.002). Similar differences in knowledge (mean difference = 3.15, 95% CI = 1.82-4.47, P-value < 0.0001) and confidence (P-value < 0.0001) were found when compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Bespoke courses delivered at an appropriate level can improve clinicians' understanding of the application of AI in neurosurgery, without the need for in-depth technical knowledge or programming skills.