How surgical Trainee Research Collaboratives achieve success: a mixed methods study to develop trainee engagement strategies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand the role of surgical Trainee Research Collaboratives (TRCs) in conducting randomised controlled trials and identify strategies to enhance trainee engagement in trials. DESIGN: This is a mixed methods study. We used observation of TRC meetings, semi-structured interviews and an online survey to explore trainees' motivations for engagement in trials and TRCs, including barriers and facilitators. Interviews were analysed thematically, alongside observation field notes. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Strategies to enhance TRCs were developed at a workshop by 13 trial methodologists, surgical trainees, consultants and research nurses. SETTING: This study was conducted within a secondary care setting in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to registered UK surgical trainees. TRC members and linked stakeholders across surgical specialties and UK regions were purposefully sampled for interviews. RESULTS: We observed 5 TRC meetings, conducted 32 semi-structured interviews and analysed 73 survey responses. TRCs can mobilise trainees thus gaining wider access to patients. Trainees engaged with TRCs to improve patient care, surgical evidence and to help progress their careers. Trainees valued the TRC infrastructure, research expertise and mentoring. Challenges for trainees included clinical and other priorities, limited time and confidence, and recognition, especially by authorship. Key TRC strategies were consultant support, initial simple rapid studies, transparency of involvement and recognition for trainees (including authorship policies) and working with Clinical Trials Units and research nurses. A 6 min digital story on YouTube disseminated these strategies. CONCLUSION: Trainee surgeons are mostly motivated to engage with trials and TRCs. Trainee engagement in TRCs can be enhanced through building relationships with key stakeholders, maximising multi-disciplinary working and offering training and career development opportunities.

Agreement between patient's description of abdominal symptoms of possible upper gastrointestinal cancer and general practitioner consultation notes: a qualitative analysis of video-recorded UK primary care consultation data.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal symptoms are common in primary care but infrequently might be due to an upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. Patients' descriptions may differ from medical terminology used by general practitioners (GPs). This may affect how information about abdominal symptoms possibly due to an UGI cancer are documented, creating potential missed opportunities for timely investigation. OBJECTIVES: To explore how abdominal symptoms are communicated during primary care consultations, and identify characteristics of patients' descriptions that underpin variation in the accuracy and completeness with which they are documented in medical records. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Primary care consultation video recordings, transcripts and medical records from an existing dataset were screened for adults reporting abdominal symptoms. We conducted a qualitative content analysis to capture alignments (medical record entries matching patient verbal and non-verbal descriptions) and misalignments (symptom information omitted or differing from patient descriptions). Categories were informed by the Calgary-Cambridge guide's 'gathering information' domains and patterns in descriptions explored. RESULTS: Our sample included 28 consultations (28 patients with 18 GPs): 10 categories of different clinical features of abdominal symptoms were discussed. The information GPs documented about these features commonly did not match what patients described, with misalignments more common than alignments (67 vs 43 instances, respectively). Misalignments often featured patients using vague descriptors, figurative speech, lengthy explanations and broad hand gestures. Alignments were characterised by patients using well-defined terms, succinct descriptions and precise gestures for symptoms with an exact location. Abdominal sensations reported as 'pain' were almost always documented compared with expressions of 'discomfort'. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal symptoms that are well defined or communicated as 'pain' may be more salient to GPs than those expressed vaguely or as 'discomfort'. Variable documentation of abdominal symptoms in medical records may have implications for the development of clinical decision support systems and decisions to investigate possible UGI cancer.

Role of primary care physician factors on diagnostic testing and referral decisions for symptoms of possible cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Missed opportunities for diagnosing cancer cause patients harm and have been attributed to suboptimal use of tests and referral pathways in primary care. Primary care physician (PCP) factors have been suggested to affect decisions to investigate cancer, but their influence is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence evaluating the influence of PCP factors on decisions to investigate symptoms of possible cancer. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycINFO between January 1990 and March 2021 for relevant citations. Studies examining the effect or perceptions and experiences of PCP factors on use of tests and referrals for symptomatic patients with any cancer were included. PCP factors comprised personal characteristics and attributes of physicians in clinical practice. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Critical appraisal and data extraction were undertaken independently by two authors. Due to study heterogeneity, data could not be statistically pooled. We, therefore, performed a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: 29 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in European countries. A total of 11 PCP factors were identified comprising modifiable and non-modifiable factors. Clinical judgement of symptoms as suspicious or 'alarm' prompted more investigations than non-alarm symptoms. 'Gut feeling' predicted a subsequent cancer diagnosis and was perceived to facilitate decisions to investigate non-specific symptoms as PCP experience increased. Female PCPs investigated cancer more than male PCPs. The effect of PCP age and years of experience on testing and referral decisions was inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: PCP interpretation of symptoms as higher risk facilitated testing and referral decisions for possible cancer. However, in the absence of 'alarm' symptoms or 'gut feeling', PCPs may not investigate cancer. PCPs require strategies for identifying patients with non-alarm and non-specific symptoms who need testing or referral. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420191560515.

Identifying Ovarian Cancer in Symptomatic Women: A Systematic Review of Clinical Tools.

In the absence of effective ovarian cancer screening programs, most women are diagnosed following the onset of symptoms. Symptom-based tools, including symptom checklists and risk prediction models, have been developed to aid detection. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and compare the diagnostic performance of these tools. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL, without language restriction, for relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 3 March 2020. We identified 1625 unique records and included 16 studies, evaluating 21 distinct tools in a range of settings. Fourteen tools included only symptoms; seven also included risk factors or blood tests. Four tools were externally validated-the Goff Symptom Index (sensitivity: 56.9-83.3%; specificity: 48.3-98.9%), a modified Goff Symptom Index (sensitivity: 71.6%; specificity: 88.5%), the Society of Gynaecologic Oncologists consensus criteria (sensitivity: 65.3-71.5%; specificity: 82.9-93.9%) and the QCancer Ovarian model (10% risk threshold-sensitivity: 64.1%; specificity: 90.1%). Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Given the moderate accuracy of several tools on external validation, they could be of use in helping to select women for ovarian cancer investigations. However, further research is needed to assess the impact of these tools on the timely detection of ovarian cancer and on patient survival.

Patient-Centered Outcomes From Multiparametric MRI and MRI-Guided Biopsy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) relating to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-guided biopsy as diagnostic tests for possible prostate cancer. METHODS: Medline via OVID, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for relevant articles. Hand searching of reference lists and snowballing techniques were performed. Studies of mpMRI and MRI-guided biopsy that measured any PCO were included. There were no restrictions placed on year of publication, language, or country for study inclusion. All database search hits were screened independently by two reviewers, and data were extracted using a standardized form. RESULTS: Overall, 2,762 database search hits were screened based on title and abstract. Of these, 222 full-text articles were assessed, and 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 2,192 participants featured in the included studies, all of which were conducted in high-income countries. Nineteen different PCOs were measured, with a median of four PCOs per study (range 1-11). Urethral bleeding, pain, and urinary tract infection were the most common outcomes measured. In the four studies that compared mpMRI or MRI-guided biopsy to transrectal ultrasound biopsy, most adverse outcomes occurred less frequently in MRI-related tests. These four studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias. DISCUSSION: PCOs measured in studies of mpMRI or MRI-guided biopsy thus far have mostly been physical outcomes, with some evidence that MRI tests are associated with less frequent adverse outcomes compared with transrectal ultrasound biopsy. There was very little evidence for the effect of mpMRI and MRI-guided biopsy on emotional, cognitive, social, or behavioral outcomes.

Patient Willingness to Have Tests to Guide Antibiotic Use for Respiratory Tract Infections: From the WWAMI Region Practice and Research Network (WPRN).

INTRODUCTION: The majority of consultations for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) lead to prescriptions for antibiotics, which have limited clinical benefit. We explored patients' willingness to have blood tests as part of the diagnostic work-up for RTIs, and patient knowledge about antibiotics. METHODS: Patients at 6 family medicine clinics were surveyed. Regression modeling was used to determine independent predictors of willingness to have venous and point-of-care (POC) blood tests, and knowledge of the value of antibiotics for RTIs. RESULTS: Data were collected from 737 respondents (response rate 83.8%), of whom 65.7% were women, 60.1% were white, and 25.1% were current smokers; patients' mean age was 46.9 years. Sex (female), race (white), and a preference to avoid antibiotics were independent predictors of greater level of antibiotic knowledge. A total of 63.1% were willing to have a venous draw and 79% a POC blood test, to help guide antibiotic decision-making. Non-American Indian/Alaskan Native race, current smoking, and greater knowledge of antibiotics were independent predictors of willingness to have a POC test. CONCLUSION: A large majority of patients seemed willing to have POC tests to facilitate antibiotic prescribing decisions for RTIs. Poor knowledge about antibiotics suggests better education regarding antibiotic use might influence patient attitudes towards use of antibiotics for RTIs.