Publication Rates, Ethnic and Sex Disparities in UK and Ireland Surgical Research Prize Presentations: An Analysis of Data From the Moynihan and Patey Prizes From 2000 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Presentation at academic conferences is an important marker of research productivity. However, not all accepted abstracts progress to full publication, and there is anecdotal evidence suggesting an imbalance in sex and ethnicity amongst presenters. There is a lack of data evaluating the outcome of prize presentation sessions at academic surgical conferences in the UK. This study aimed to analyse the outcomes and demographics from presentations at prize sessions at two prestigious UK surgical conferences. METHODS: This retrospective observational study compared data on all Moynihan (Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland) and Patey (Surgical Research Society) prize presentations from 2000 to 2020. The primary outcome was rate of publication. Secondary outcomes included demographic differences in sex and ethnicity, publication according to prize outcome, academic affiliation, time to publication, and journal impact factor. RESULTS: Some 442 accepted abstracts were identified over the 21-year period, with 71.0% from the Moynihan sessions and 79.3% from the Patey sessions leading to full publications, with a median time to publication of 448 days (IQR 179-859) in journals with relatively high impact factors (median 5.00; IQR 3.15-6.36). Of the 442 prize presenters, 85 (19.2%) were female. The majority of the presenters were White males (211, 47.7%), followed by Asian males (112, 25.3%). However, there was a continuously increasing overall trend of female presenters from 2000 to 2020 (P = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Publication rates from the two prize sessions were high, with presenters publishing in journals with high impact factors. There, however, was a disparity in sex and ethnicity amongst presenters.

Winter cancellations of elective surgical procedures in the UK: a questionnaire survey of patients on the economic and psychological impact.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the economic and psychological impact of the cancellation of operations due to winter pressures on patients, their families and the economy. DESIGN: This questionnaire study was designed with the help of patient groups. Data were collected on the economic and financial burden of cancellations. Emotions were also quantified on a 5-point Likert scale. SETTING: Five NHS Hospital Trusts in the East Midlands region of England. PARTICIPANTS: We identified 796 participants who had their elective operations cancelled between 1 November 2017 and 31 March 2018 and received responses from 339 (43%) participants. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were posted a modified version of a validated quality of life questionnaire with a prepaid return envelope. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were the financial and psychological impact of the cancellation of elective surgery on patients and their families. RESULTS: Of the 339 respondents, 163 (48%) were aged <65 years, with 111 (68%) being in employment. Sixty-six (19%) participants had their operations cancelled on the day. Only 69 (62%) of working adults were able to return to work during the time scheduled for their operation, with a mean loss of 5 working days (SD 10). Additional working days were lost subsequently by 60 (54%) participants (mean 7 days (SD 10)). Family members of 111 (33%) participants required additional time off work (mean 5 days (SD 7)). Over 30% of participants reported extreme levels of sadness, disappointment, anger, frustration and stress. At least moderate concern about continued symptoms was reported by 234 (70%) participants, and 193 (59%) participants reported at least moderate concern about their deteriorating condition. CONCLUSIONS: The cancellation of elective surgery during the winter had an adverse impact on patients and the economy, including days of work lost and health-related anxiety. We recommend better planning, and provision of more notice and better support to patients.

A systematic review of the epidemiology, pathophysiology and current management of hyperlipidaemic pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aims of this systematic review were to define the epidemiology and pathophysiology of hyperlipidaemic pancreatitis, establish its association with clinical outcome and define management strategies. METHODS: The Cochrane, Embase and Medline databases were searched, limited to the last decade, for articles on hyperlipidaemic pancreatitis. All randomised controlled trials, observational studies and case series (with a minimum of 10 patients) on hyperlipidaemic pancreatitis were included. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies with 1979 patients were included. The median admission triglyceride concentration was 42.8 mmol/L (range 13.6-108.6 mmol/L) [3785 mg/dL (range 1205-9612 mg/dL)]. Severe hypertriglyceridaemia (>1000 mg/dL, 11.0 mmol/L) was present in 1.7% of the adult population, and about 15-20% of these developed hyperlipidaemic acute pancreatitis. Medical management of severe hyperlipidaemia at onset of acute pancreatitis has not been investigated fully. However, tight regulation of triglyceride concentration after presentation with acute pancreatitis was found to reduce the risk of recurrence. Plasmapheresis reduced concentrations of triglycerides by up to 85%, but this did not impact morbidity or mortality. All studies included defined hyperlipidaemia as a more severe form of pancreatitis. CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests an increasing risk of acute pancreatitis in patients with hyperlipidaemia and a more severe form of pancreatitis. There is some evidence to suggest biochemical benefit of using novel techniques like plasmapheresis without the desired physiological benefit. However, there is a need for an international consensus on the management of hyperlipidaemic pancreatitis. More rigorous and methodologically robust studies are required to inform such consensus guidelines.

Nutrition education and leadership for improved clinical outcomes: training and supporting junior doctors to run 'Nutrition Awareness Weeks' in three NHS hospitals across England.

BACKGROUND: One in four adults are estimated to be at medium to high risk of malnutrition when screened using the 'Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool' upon admission to hospital in the United Kingdom. The Need for Nutrition Education/Education Programme (NNEdPro) Group was developed to address this issue and the Nutrition Education and Leadership for Improved Clinical Outcomes (NELICO) is a project within this group.The objective of NELICO was to assess whether an intensive training intervention combining clinical and public health nutrition, organisational management and leadership strategies, could equip junior doctors to contribute to improvement in nutrition awareness among healthcare professionals in the National Health Service in England. METHODS: Three junior doctors were self-selected from the NNEdPro Group original training. Each junior doctor recruited three additional team members to attend an intensive training weekend incorporating nutrition, change management and leadership. This equipped them to run nutrition awareness weeks in their respective hospitals. Knowledge, attitudes and practices were evaluated at baseline as well as one and four months post-training as a quality assurance measure. The number and type of educational events held, pre-awareness week Online Hospital Survey results, attendance and qualitative feedback from training sessions, effectiveness of dissemination methods such as awareness stalls, Hospital Nutrition Attitude Survey results and overall feedback were also used to determine impact. RESULTS: When the weighted average score for knowledge, attitudes and practices at baseline was compared with four months post-intervention scores, there was a significant increase in the overall score (p = 0.03). All three hospital teams conducted an effective nutrition awareness week, as determined by qualitative data collected from interviews and feedback from educational sessions. CONCLUSION: The NELICO project and its resulting nutrition awareness weeks were considered innovative in terms of concept and content. It was considered useful, both for the junior doctors who showed improvement in their nutrition knowledge and reported enthusiasm and for the hospital setting, increasing awareness of clinical and public health nutrition among healthcare professionals. The NELICO project is one innovative method to promote nutrition awareness in tomorrow's doctors and shows they have the enthusiasm and drive to be nutrition champions.