Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals, as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Patient beliefs and perceptions play a crucial role in the decision-making process when managing a meniscal tear. A qualitative systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: There has been an increase in research on the effectiveness of treatment options for the management of meniscal tears. However, there is very little evidence about the patient experiences of meniscal tears. AIM: To summarise the available qualitative evidence on patients' experiences and expectations of meniscal tears. METHOD: A search of EMBASE, Medline, Sociofile and Web of Science up to November 2020 was performed to identify studies reporting patient experiences of meniscal tears. Studies were critically appraised using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) checklist, and a meta-synthesis was performed to generate third-order constructs (new themes). RESULTS: Two studies reporting semi-structured interviews from 34 participants (24 male; 10 female) were included. The mean interview length ranged from 16 to 45 min. Five themes were generated: (1) the imaging (MRI) results are a key driver in the decision-making process, (2) surgery is perceived to be the definitive and quicker approach, (3) physiotherapy and exercise is a slower approach which brought success over time, (4) patient perceptions and preferences are important in the clinical decision-making process and, (5) the impact on patient lives is a huge driver in seeking care and treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to summarise the qualitative evidence on patient experiences with meniscal tears. The themes generated demonstrate the importance of patient perceptions of MRI findings and timing of treatment success as important factors in the decision-making process. This study demonstrates the need to strengthen our understanding of patients' experiences of meniscal tears.

Mind the evidence gap: the use of patient-based evidence to create "complete HTA" in the twenty-first century.

The aim of this paper is to review the concept of patient-based evidence in health technology assessment (HTA), drawing on philosophical ideas of knowledge in order to judge whether current approaches to the use of evidence for HTA are complete. We draw on a number of key sources, including key papers and book chapters, discussion forums, agency reports, and conference presentations. We develop the potential dimensions of patient-based evidence, describe its key attributes, and consider its future development. Patient-based evidence has the potential to be a key concept in HTA, comprised of a series of related elements of importance to patients. We recognize that we raise more questions than can be answered, but as an emerging concept, recognition and understanding of patient-based evidence is still developing. The concepts and methods that support its application in HTA require urgent development. We conclude that clinical and economic forms of evidence are not enough for HTA. For HTA to be complete, we need to consider all relevant aspects of the phenomena, including patient-based evidence. There is now an urgent need for the global research and HTA community to work together to realize the full potential of patient-based evidence through conceptual and methodological development and wider recognition. We advocate that a task force be set up to address these urgent issues.

Meniscal tears are more common than previously identified, however, less than a quarter of people with a tear undergo arthroscopy.

PURPOSE: The management of meniscal tears is a widely researched and evolving field. Previous studies reporting the incidence of meniscal tears are outdated and not representative of current practice. The aim of this study was to report the current incidence of MRI confirmed meniscal tears in patients with a symptomatic knee and the current intervention rate in a large NHS trust. METHODS: Radiology reports from 13,358 consecutive magnetic resonance imaging scans between 2015 and 2017, performed at a large UK hospital serving a population of 470,000, were assessed to identify patients with meniscal tears. The hospital database was interrogated to explore the subsequent treatment undertaken by the patient. A linear regression model was used to identify if any factors predicted subsequent arthroscopy. RESULTS: 1737 patients with isolated meniscal tears were identified in patients undergoing an MRI for knee pain, suggesting a rate of 222 MRI confirmed tears per 100,000 of the population aged 18 to 55 years old. 47% attended outpatient appointments and 22% underwent arthroscopy. Root tears [odds ratio (95% CI) 2.24 (1.0, 4.49); p = 0.049] and bucket handle tears were significantly associated with subsequent surgery, with no difference between the other types of tears. The presence of chondral changes did not significantly affect the rate of surgery [0.81 (0.60, 1.08); n.s]. CONCLUSION: Meniscal tears were found to be more common than previously described. However, less than half present to secondary care and only 22% undergo arthroscopy. These findings should inform future study design and recruitment strategies. In agreement with previous literature, bucket handle tears and root tears were significant predictors of subsequent surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Planning for Chaos: Developing the Concept of Emergency Preparedness through the Experience of the Paramedic.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency preparedness is a developing specialty with a limited evidence base. Published literature primarily offers a retrospective view of experience, with few studies examining and understanding the individual lived experience of practitioners prospectively. This study explores paramedics' lived experience of emergency preparedness and applies that learning. METHODS: Thirteen paramedics were recruited through purposive sampling. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews explored their individual experiences of emergency preparedness, in line with the idiographic focus of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. RESULTS: Through data analysis, the following superordinate themes were identified for further discussion: self-determination, control, and experience-based practice. Participants appeared to value their role and the unpredictable environment in which they worked. Personal resilience, an area that they suggested is not covered effectively within individual preparation, was viewed as important. The participants articulated that risk, threat, uncertainty, safety, trust, and control were important concepts within individual preparedness. These paramedics valued practice-based knowledge and education as credible and transferrable to their clinical work. CONCLUSION: Evidence from this study suggests that standard emergency preparedness, with the focus at organizational level, is not sufficient for the individual workers or for an overall effective response. Dimensions of individual preparedness are presented, with the paramedic central to the experience within a conceptual model (the DiEP model), creating a new form of emergency preparedness that reflects the individual paramedic's experience.

Experiences of in-patient mental health services: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In-patients in crisis report poor experiences of mental healthcare not conducive to recovery. Concerns include coercion by staff, fear of assault from other patients, lack of therapeutic opportunities and limited support. There is little high-quality evidence on what is important to patients to inform recovery-focused care.AimsTo conduct a systematic review of published literature, identifying key themes for improving experiences of in-patient mental healthcare. METHOD: A systematic search of online databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL) for primary research published between January 2000 and January 2016. All study designs from all countries were eligible. A qualitative analysis was undertaken and study quality was appraised. A patient and public reference group contributed to the review. RESULTS: Studies (72) from 16 countries found four dimensions were consistently related to significantly influencing in-patients' experiences of crisis and recovery-focused care: the importance of high-quality relationships; averting negative experiences of coercion; a healthy, safe and enabling physical and social environment; and authentic experiences of patient-centred care. Critical elements for patients were trust, respect, safe wards, information and explanation about clinical decisions, therapeutic activities, and family inclusion in care. CONCLUSIONS: A number of experiences hinder recovery-focused care and must be addressed with the involvement of staff to provide high-quality in-patient services. Future evaluations of service quality and development of practice guidance should embed these four dimensions.Declaration of interestK.B. is editor of British Journal of Psychiatry and leads a national programme (Synergi Collaborative Centre) on patient experiences driving change in services and inequalities.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination strategies for adolescent girls and boys in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most widespread sexually transmitted infection worldwide. It causes several health consequences, in particular accounting for the majority of cervical cancer cases in women. In the United Kingdom, a vaccination campaign targeting 12-year-old girls started in 2008; this campaign has been successful, with high uptake and reduced HPV prevalence observed in vaccinated cohorts. Recently, attention has focused on vaccinating both sexes, due to HPV-related diseases in males (particularly for high-risk men who have sex with men) and an equity argument over equalising levels of protection. METHODS: We constructed an epidemiological model for HPV transmission in the UK, accounting for nine of the most common HPV strains. We complemented this with an economic model to determine the likely health outcomes (healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years) for individuals from the epidemiological model. We then tested vaccination with the three HPV vaccines currently available, vaccinating either girls alone or both sexes. For each strategy we calculated the threshold price per vaccine dose, i.e. the maximum amount paid for the added health benefits of vaccination to be worth the cost of each vaccine dose. We calculated results at 3.5% discounting, and also 1.5%, to consider the long-term health effects of HPV infection. RESULTS: At 3.5% discounting, continuing to vaccinate girls remains highly cost-effective compared to halting vaccination, with threshold dose prices of £56-£108. Vaccination of girls and boys is less cost-effective (£25-£53). Compared to vaccinating girls only, adding boys to the programme is not cost-effective, with negative threshold prices (-£6 to -£3) due to the costs of administration. All threshold prices increase when using 1.5% discounting, and adding boys becomes cost-effective (£36-£47). These results are contingent on the UK's high vaccine uptake; for lower uptake rates, adding boys (at the same uptake rate) becomes more cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccinating girls is extremely cost-effective compared with no vaccination, vaccinating both sexes is less so. Adding boys to an already successful girls-only programme has a low cost-effectiveness, as males have high protection through herd immunity. If future health effects are weighted more heavily, threshold prices increase and vaccination becomes cost-effective.

"About sixty per cent I want to do it": Health researchers' attitudes to, and experiences of, patient and public involvement (PPI)-A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Funders, policy-makers and research organizations increasingly expect health researchers in the UK to involve patients and members of the public in research. It has been stated that it makes research "more effective, more credible and often more cost efficient." However, the evidence base for this assertion is evolving and can be limited. There has been little research into how health researchers feel about involving people, how they go about it, how they manage formal policy rhetoric, and what happens in practice. OBJECTIVE: To explore researchers' experiences and perceptions of patient and public involvement (PPI). METHODS: Semi-structured interview study of 36 health researchers (both clinical and non-clinical), with data collection and thematic analysis informed by the theoretical domains framework. RESULTS: In the course of our analysis, we developed four themes that encapsulate the participants' experiences and perceptions of PPI. Participants expressed ambivalence, cynicism and enthusiasm about PPI, an activity that creates emotional labour, which is both rewarding and burdensome and requires practical and social support. It is operationalized in an academic context influenced by power and incentives. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Researchers' experiences and attitudes towards patient and public involvement are a key factor in the successful embedding of involvement within the wider research culture. We call for a culture change that supports the development of effective organizational approach to support involvement.

Establishing the values for patient engagement (PE) in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) research: an international, multiple-stakeholder perspective.

PURPOSE: Active patient engagement is increasingly viewed as essential to ensuring that patient-driven perspectives are considered throughout the research process. However, guidance for patient engagement (PE) in HRQoL research does not exist, the evidence-base for practice is limited, and we know relatively little about underpinning values that can impact on PE practice. This is the first study to explore the values that should underpin PE in contemporary HRQoL research to help inform future good practice guidance. METHODS: A modified 'World Café' was hosted as a collaborative activity between patient partners, clinicians and researchers: self-nominated conference delegates participated in group discussions to explore values associated with the conduct and consequences of PE. Values were captured via post-it notes and by nominated note-takers. Data were thematically analysed: emergent themes were coded and agreement checked. Association between emergent themes, values and the Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework were explored. RESULTS: Eighty participants, including 12 patient partners, participated in the 90-min event. Three core values were defined: (1) building relationships; (2) improving research quality and impact; and (3) developing best practice. Participants valued the importance of building genuine, collaborative and deliberative relationships-underpinned by honesty, respect, co-learning and equity-and the impact of effective PE on research quality and relevance. CONCLUSIONS: An explicit statement of values seeks to align all stakeholders on the purpose, practice and credibility of PE activities. An innovative, flexible and transparent research environment was valued as essential to developing a trustworthy evidence-base with which to underpin future guidance for good PE practice.

The power of symbolic capital in patient and public involvement in health research.

BACKGROUND: Policy-makers and health research funders increasingly require researchers to demonstrate that they have involved patients in the design and conduct of research. However, the extent to which patients and public have the power to get involved on an equal footing is dependent on their economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital. OBJECTIVE: To explore power relations in patient and public involvement (PPI) in research, particularly how patients may wield symbolic capital to develop a more equal relationship. METHODS: Narrative interviews with a maximum variation sample of 38 people involved as patients, carers or public in health research, analysed thematically. FINDINGS: Symbolic capital may be demonstrated in a range of ways (sometimes alongside or in the absence of other forms of capital): illness experience, technical illness knowledge and the challenging outsider. Symbolic capital is unstable and dependent on others for recognition and legitimacy. Nonetheless, participants identify a gradual shift in power relations over time. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Research into PPI has been conceptually and theoretically poor, limiting our understanding of its mechanisms and wider contextual elements. Our findings demonstrate the importance of reflecting on the forms of power and capital wielded by the health research community, and of acknowledging the way in which PPI is challenging the status quo. As one of the first papers to conceptualize how different forms of symbolic capital operate and their critical role in challenging the balance of power, our findings may help researchers better plan their PPI activities and reflect on their own power.

The development of service user-led recommendations for health and social care services on leaving hospital with memory loss or dementia - the SHARED study.

BACKGROUND: Health and social care services are under strain providing care in the community particularly at hospital discharge. Patient and carer experiences can inform and shape services. OBJECTIVE: To develop service user-led recommendations enabling smooth transition for people living with memory loss from acute hospital to community. DESIGN: Lead and co-researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 pairs of carers and patients with memory loss at discharge, 6 and 12 weeks post-discharge and one semi-structured interview with health and social care professionals and Admiral Nurses. Framework analysis was guided by co-researchers. Two focus groups of study participants, facilitated by co-researchers, met to shape and finalize recommendations. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Recruitment took place in acute hospitals in two National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England. Patients were aged 65 and over, with memory loss, an in-patient for at least 1 week returning to the community, who had a carer consenting to be in the study. RESULTS: Poor delivery of services caused considerable stress to some study families living with memory loss. Three key recommendations included a need for a written, mutually agreed discharge plan, a named coordinator of services, and improved domiciliary care services. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Vulnerable patients with memory loss find coming out of hospital after an extended period a stressful experience. The SHARED study contributes to understanding the hospital discharge process through the eyes of the patient and carer living with memory loss and has the potential to contribute to more efficient use of resources and to improving health outcomes in communities.

EVALUATION OF PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INITIATIVES IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES.

OBJECTIVES: Although there is increased awareness of patient and public involvement (PPI) among health technology assessment (HTA) organizations, evaluations of PPI initiatives are relatively scarce. Our objective as members of Health Technology Assessment International's (HTAi's) Patient and Citizen Involvement Group (PCIG) was to advance understanding of the range of evaluation strategies adopted by HTA organizations and their potential usefulness. METHODS: In March 2016, a survey was sent to fifty-four HTA organizations through the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and contacts of members of HTAi's PCIG. Respondents were asked about their organizational structure; how patients and members of the public are involved; whether and how PPI initiatives have been evaluated, and, if so, which facilitators and challenges to evaluation were found and how results were used and disseminated. RESULTS: Fifteen (n = 15) programs from twelve countries responded (response rate 27.8 percent) that involved patients (14/15) and members of the public (10/15) in HTA activities. Seven programs evaluated their PPI activities, including participant satisfaction (5/7), process (5/7) and impact evaluations (4/7). Evaluation results were used to improve PPI activities, identify education and training needs, and direct strategic priorities. Facilitators and challenges revolved around the need for stakeholder buy-in, sufficient resources, senior leadership, and including patients in evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: A small but diverse set of HTA organizations evaluate their PPI activities using a range of strategies that reflect the range of rationales and approaches to PPI in HTA. It will be important for HTA organizations to draw on evaluation theories and methods.

Hospital care following emergency admission: a critical incident case study of the experiences of patients with advanced lung cancer and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of patients with advanced Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and lung cancer, their carers and healthcare professionals following emergency admission to acute care hospital. BACKGROUND: Emergency admissions of people with lung cancer and COPD have increased and there is global concern about the number of patients who die in hospital. The experience of patients with advanced lung cancer and COPD admitted to hospital as an emergency when nearing the end of life has not previously been investigated. DESIGN: Qualitative critical incident case study. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 39 patients (15 with COPD and 24 with lung cancer), 20 informal carers and 50 healthcare professionals, exploring patients' experiences of emergency hospital admission. Interviews took place after admission and following discharge. Participants nominated relatives and healthcare professionals for interview. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Patients were satisfied with their 'emergency' care but not the care they received once their initial symptoms had been stabilised. The poorer quality care they experienced was characterised by a lack of attention to their fundamental needs, lack of involvement of the family, poor communication about care plans and a lack of continuity between primary and secondary care. A conceptual model of 'spectacular' and 'subtacular' trajectories of care was used to relate the findings to the wider context of health care provision. CONCLUSION: The complex nature of illness for patients with advanced respiratory disease makes emergency hospital admissions likely. Whilst patients (with COPD and lung cancer) were satisfied with care in the acute 'spectacular' phase of their admission, more attention needs to be given to the continuing care needs of patients in the 'subtacular' phase. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This is the first study to explore the patient experience of acute care following an emergency admission and identifies where there is potential for care to be improved.

Quality of reporting on patient and public involvement within surgical research: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment difficulties are a well-reported concern in surgical literature, which may be improved by patient and public involvement (PPI). PPI within research has been defined as being conducted "with" or "by" patients or members of the public rather than being "about" or "for" them. However, the extent to which PPI is used within surgical research is unknown. METHODS: Surgical literature was systematically reviewed using EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed. Search terms related to (i) patients, (ii) involvement, (iii) perioperative care, and (iv) impact. Quality of PPI reporting was evaluated using the GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public checklist and the guidelines developed by Wright and Foster. A patient representative advised on the purpose and analysis of this systematic review. RESULTS: Eight articles described PPI in surgical trials to improve the identification of research topics, study design, recruitment, retention, and data collection. Quality of PPI reporting was suboptimal, as none of the articles provided a clear account of how PPI was conceptualized. Training and support for patients, their involvement in dissemination, and a critique of the limitations of PPI were not reported. However, it was not clear whether this represents an underutilization of PPI or purely suboptimal reporting in surgery. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of surgical research reporting upon PPI, and the quality of reporting is low. Further research to define appropriate standards for reporting on PPI activities may facilitate broadening the utilization and impact of PPI in surgical research.