The effectiveness of out-of-hours palliative care telephone advice lines: A rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People with palliative care needs and their carers often rely on out-of-hours services to remain at home. Policymakers have recommended implementing telephone advice lines to ensure 24/7 access to support. However, the impact of these services on patient and carer outcomes, as well as the health care system, remains poorly understood. AIM: To evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of out-of-hours palliative care telephone advice lines, and to identify service characteristics associated with effectiveness. DESIGN: Rapid systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023400370) with narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Three databases (Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched in February 2023 for studies of any design reporting on telephone advice lines with at least partial out-of-hours availability. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and quantitative and qualitative data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies, published 2000-2022, were included. Most studies were observational, none were experimental. While some evidence suggested that telephone advice lines offer guidance and reassurance, supporting care at home and potentially reducing avoidable emergency care use in the last months of life, variability in reporting and poor methodological quality across studies limit our understanding of patient/carer and health care system outcomes. CONCLUSION: Despite their increasing use, evidence for the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of palliative care telephone advice lines remains limited, primarily due to the lack of robust comparative studies. There is a need for more rigorous evaluations incorporating experimental or quasi-experimental methods and longer follow-up, and standardised reporting of telephone advice line models and outcomes, to guide policy and practice.

Risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes after autumn 2022 COVID-19 booster vaccinations: a pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies involving 7.4 million adults in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Background: UK COVID-19 vaccination policy has evolved to offering COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at increased risk of severe Illness from COVID-19. Building on our analyses of vaccine effectiveness of first, second and initial booster doses, we aimed to identify individuals at increased risk of severe outcomes (i.e., COVID-19 related hospitalisation or death) post the autumn 2022 booster dose. Methods: We undertook a national population-based cohort analysis across all four UK nations through linked primary care, vaccination, hospitalisation and mortality data. We included individuals who received autumn 2022 booster doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) or mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) during the period September 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022 to investigate the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between demographic and clinical factors and severe COVID-19 outcomes after the autumn booster dose. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), deprivation, urban/rural areas and comorbidities. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then conducted a fixed-effect meta-analysis to combine results across the four UK nations. Findings: Between September 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022, 7,451,890 individuals ≥18 years received an autumn booster dose. 3500 had severe COVID-19 outcomes (2.9 events per 1000 person-years). Being male (male vs female, aHR 1.41 (1.32-1.51)), older adults (≥80 years vs 18-49 years; 10.43 (8.06-13.50)), underweight (BMI <18.5 vs BMI 25.0-29.9; 2.94 (2.51-3.44)), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9.45 (8.15-10.96)) had a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death after the autumn booster dose. Those with a larger household size (≥11 people within household vs 2 people; 1.56 (1.23-1.98)) and from more deprived areas (most deprived vs least deprived quintile; 1.35 (1.21-1.51)) had modestly higher risks. We also observed at least a two-fold increase in risk for those with various chronic neurological conditions, including Down's syndrome, immunodeficiency, chronic kidney disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease, or cardiovascular disease. Interpretation: Males, older individuals, underweight individuals, those with an increasing number of comorbidities, from a larger household or more deprived areas, and those with specific underlying health conditions remained at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the autumn 2022 vaccine booster dose. There is now a need to focus on these risk groups for investigating immunogenicity and efficacy of further booster doses or therapeutics. Funding: National Core Studies-Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council and Economic and Social Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in outcome selection in breast cancer and nephrology trials.

We recently reported that according to patients and healthcare professionals in breast cancer and nephrology trials, teams conducting the trials got their choice of primary outcome wrong (72% of the time) more often than they got it right (28% of the time). A Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representative, co-author of this letter, asked (on Twitter) whether PPI contributors had been involved in the design of the original trials and by extension the outcome selection. The purpose of this study was to answer this question.

Use of a modified Delphi process to develop research priorities in major trauma.

PURPOSE: The burden of major trauma within the UK is ever increasing. There is a need to establish research priorities within the field. Delphi methodology can be used to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of stakeholders. This can be used to prioritise clinically relevant, patient-centred research questions to guide future funding allocations. The aim of our study was to identify key future research priorities pertaining to the management of major trauma in the UK. METHODS: A three-phased modified Delphi process was undertaken. Phase 1 involved the submission of research questions by members of the trauma community using an online survey (Phase 1). Phases 2 and 3 involved two consecutive rounds of prioritisation after questions were subdivided into 6 subcategories: Brain Injury, Rehabilitation, Trauma in Older People, Pre-hospital, Interventional, and Miscellaneous (Phases 2 and 3). Cut-off points were agreed by consensus amongst the steering subcommittees. This established a final prioritised list of research questions. RESULTS: In phase 1, 201 questions were submitted by 65 stakeholders. After analysis and with consensus achieved, 186 questions were taken forward for prioritisation in phase 2 with 114 included in phase 3. 56 prioritised major trauma research questions across the 6 categories were identified with a clear focus on long-term patient outcomes. Research priorities across the patient pathway from roadside to rehabilitation were deemed of importance. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus within the major trauma community has identified 56 key research questions across 6 categories. Dissemination of these questions to funding bodies to allow for the development of high-quality research is now required. There is a clear indication for targeted multi-centre multi-disciplinary research in major trauma.

Patient Views Around Their Hernia Surgery: A Worldwide Online Survey Promoted Through Social Media.

Introduction: Hernias are one of the most common surgical diagnoses, and general surgical operations are performed. The involvement of patients in the decision making can be limited. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of patients around their hernia and its management, to aid future planning of hernia services to maximise patient experience, and good outcomes for the patient. Methods: A SurveyMonkey questionnaire was developed by patient advocates with some advice from surgeons. It was promoted on Twitter and Facebook, such as all found "hernia help" groups on these platforms over a 6-week period during the summer of 2020. Demographics, the reasons for seeking a hernia repair, decision making around the choice of surgeon, hospital, mesh type, pre-habilitation, complications, and participation in a hernia registry were collected. Results: In total, 397 questionnaires were completed in the study period. The majority of cases were from English speaking countries. There was a strong request for hernia specialists to perform the surgery, to have detailed knowledge about all aspects of hernia disease and its management, such as no operation and non-mesh options. Chronic pain was the most feared complication. The desire for knowledge about the effect of the hernia and surgery on the sexual function in all age groups was a notable finding. Pre-habilitation and a hernia registry participation were well-supported. Conclusions: Hernia repair is a quality of life surgery. Whether awaiting surgery or having had surgery with a good or bad outcome, patients want information about their condition and treatment, such as the effect on aspects of life, such as sex, and they wish greater involvement in their management decisions. Patients want their surgery by surgeons who can also manage complications of such surgery or recommend further treatment. A large group of "hernia surgery injured" patients feel abandoned by their general surgeon when complications ensue.