Strategies to address recruitment to a randomised trial of surgical and non-surgical treatment for cancer: results from a complex recruitment intervention within the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery 2 (MARS 2) study.

OBJECTIVES: Recruiting to randomised trials is often challenging particularly when the intervention arms are markedly different. The Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery 2 randomised controlled trial (RCT) compared standard chemotherapy with or without (extended) pleurectomy decortication surgery for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Anticipating recruitment difficulties, a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention was embedded in the main trial phase to unearth and address barriers. The trial achieved recruitment to target with a 4-month COVID-19 pandemic-related extension. This paper presents the key recruitment challenges, and the strategies delivered to optimise recruitment and informed consent. DESIGN: A multifaceted, flexible, mixed-method approach to investigate recruitment obstacles drawing on data from staff/patient interviews, audio recorded study recruitment consultations and screening logs. Key findings were translated into strategies targeting identified issues. Data collection, analysis, feedback and strategy implementation continued cyclically throughout the recruitment period. SETTING: Secondary thoracic cancer care. RESULTS: Respiratory physicians, oncologists, surgeons and nursing specialists supported the trial, but recruitment challenges were evident. The study had to fit within a framework of a thoracic cancer service considered overstretched where patients encountered multiple healthcare professionals and treatment views, all of which challenged recruitment. Clinician treatment biases, shaped in part by the wider clinical and research context alongside experience, adversely impacted several aspects of the recruitment process by restricting referrals for study consideration, impacting eligibility decisions, affecting the neutrality in which the study and treatment was presented and shaping patient treatment expectations and preferences. Individual and group recruiter feedback and training raised awareness of key equipoise issues, offered support and shared good practice to safeguard informed consent and optimise recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: With bespoke support to overcome identified issues, recruitment to a challenging RCT of surgery versus no surgery in a thoracic cancer setting with a complex recruitment pathway and multiple health professional involvement is possible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN ISRCTN44351742, Clinical Trials.gov NCT02040272.

Examining the application of the IDEAL framework in the reporting and evaluation of innovative invasive procedures: secondary qualitative analysis of a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The development of new surgical procedures is fundamental to advancing patient care. The Idea, Developments, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term (IDEAL) framework describes study designs for stages of innovation. It can be difficult to apply due to challenges in defining and identifying innovative procedures. This study examined how the IDEAL framework is operationalised in real-world settings; specifically, the types of innovations evaluated using the framework and how authors justify their choice of IDEAL study design. DESIGN: Secondary qualitative analysis of a systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Citation searches (Web of Science and Scopus) identified studies following the IDEAL framework and citing any of the ten key IDEAL/IDEAL_D papers. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies of invasive procedures/devices of any design citing any of the ten key IDEAL/IDEAL_D papers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: All relevant text was extracted. Three frameworks were developed, namely: (1) type of innovation under evaluation; (2) terminology used to describe stage of innovation and (3) reported rationale for IDEAL stage. RESULTS: 48 articles were included. 19/48 described entirely new procedures, including those used for the first time in a different clinical context (n=15/48), reported as IDEAL stage 2a (n=8, 53%). Terminology describing stage of innovation was varied, inconsistent and ambiguous and was not defined. Authors justified their choice of IDEAL study design based on limitations in published evidence (n=36) and unknown feasibility and safety (n=32) outcomes. CONCLUSION: Identifying stage of innovation is crucial to inform appropriate study design and governance decisions. Authors' rationale for choice of IDEAL stage related to the existing evidence base or lack of sufficient outcome data for procedures. Stage of innovation was poorly defined with inconsistent descriptions. Further work is needed to develop methods to identify innovation to inform practical application of the IDEAL framework. Defining the concept of innovation in terms of uncertainty, risk and degree of evidence may help to inform decision-making.

Extended pleurectomy decortication and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for pleural mesothelioma (MARS 2): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Extended pleurectomy decortication for complete macroscopic resection for pleural mesothelioma has never been evaluated in a randomised trial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after extended pleurectomy decortication plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. METHODS: MARS 2 was a phase 3, national, multicentre, open-label, parallel two-group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK. The trial took place across 26 hospitals (21 recruiting only, one surgical only, and four recruiting and surgical). Following two cycles of chemotherapy, eligible participants with pleural mesothelioma were randomly assigned (1:1) to surgery and chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone using a secure web-based system. Individuals aged 16 years or older with resectable pleural mesothelioma and adequate organ and lung function were eligible for inclusion. Participants in the chemotherapy only group received two to four further cycles of chemotherapy, and participants in the surgery and chemotherapy group received pleurectomy decortication or extended pleurectomy decortication, followed by two to four further cycles of chemotherapy. It was not possible to mask allocation because the intervention was a major surgical procedure. The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation to death from any cause. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population for all outcomes, unless specified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02040272, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between June 19, 2015, and Jan 21, 2021, of 1030 assessed for eligibility, 335 participants were randomly assigned (169 to surgery and chemotherapy, and 166 to chemotherapy alone). 291 (87%) participants were men and 44 (13%) women, and 288 (86%) were diagnosed with epithelioid mesothelioma. At a median follow-up of 22·4 months (IQR 11·3-30·8), median survival was shorter in the surgery and chemotherapy group (19·3 months [IQR 10·0-33·7]) than in the chemotherapy alone group (24·8 months [IQR 12·6-37·4]), and the difference in restricted mean survival time at 2 years was -1·9 months (95% CI -3·4 to -0·3, p=0·019). There were 318 serious adverse events (grade ≥3) in the surgery group and 169 in the chemotherapy group (incidence rate ratio 3·6 [95% CI 2·3 to 5·5], p<0·0001), with increased incidence of cardiac (30 vs 12; 3·01 [1·13 to 8·02]) and respiratory (84 vs 34; 2·62 [1·58 to 4·33]) disorders, infection (124 vs 53; 2·13 [1·36 to 3·33]), and additional surgical or medical procedures (15 vs eight; 2·41 [1·04 to 5·57]) in the surgery group. INTERPRETATION: Extended pleurectomy decortication was associated with worse survival to 2 years, and more serious adverse events for individuals with resectable pleural mesothelioma, compared with chemotherapy alone. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (15/188/31), Cancer Research UK Feasibility Studies Project Grant (A15895).

Development and pilot testing of a patient-reported outcome measure to assess symptoms of parastomal hernia.

AIM: The aim was to develop and pilot a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess symptoms of parastomal hernia (PSH). METHODS: Standard questionnaire development was undertaken (phases 1-3). An initial list of questionnaire domains was identified from validated colorectal cancer PROMs and from semi-structured interviews with patients with a PSH and health professionals (phase 1). Domains were operationalized into items in a provisional questionnaire, and 'think-aloud' patient interviews explored face validity and acceptability (phase 2). The updated questionnaire was piloted in patients with a stoma who had undergone colorectal surgery and had a computed tomography scan available for review. Patient-reported symptoms were examined in relation to PSH (phase 3). Three sources determined PSH presence: (i) data about PSH presence recorded in hospital notes, (ii) independent expert review of the computed tomography scan and (iii) patient report of being informed of a PSH by a health professional. RESULTS: For phase 1, 169 and 127 domains were identified from 70 PROMs and 29 interviews respectively. In phase 2, 14 domains specific to PSH were identified and operationalized into questionnaire items. Think-aloud interviews led to three minor modifications. In phase 3, 44 completed questionnaires were obtained. Missing data were few: 5/660 items. PSH symptom scores associated with PSH presence varied between different data sources. The scale with the most consistent differences between PSH presence and absence and all data sources was the stoma appearance scale. CONCLUSION: A PROM to examine the symptoms of PSH has been developed from the literature and views of key informants. Although preliminary testing shows it to be understandable and acceptable it is uncertain if it is sensitive to PSH-specific symptoms and further psychometric testing is needed.

Exploring what is important during burn recovery: a qualitative study investigating priorities of patients and healthcare professionals over time.

OBJECTIVES: This qualitative study aimed to investigate: (1) priorities of patients and healthcare professionals during recovery from a burn injury, (2) how priorities change over time and (3) how priorities map to outcomes currently reported in burns research. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A total of 53 patients and healthcare professionals were recruited from four National Health Service (NHS) burn services across England and Wales across England and Wales. Patient participants (n=32) included adults, adolescents and parents of paediatric patients, with a variety of burn injuries in terms of severity and cause of burn injury. Healthcare professionals (n=21) were NHS staff members involved in burn care and included professionals with a range of clinical experience and roles (eg, nurses, surgeons, occupational therapists, physiotherapist, administration). RESULTS: Ten themes relating to priorities (outcomes) during recovery from a burn injury were identified for patients and professionals. Of those, six were identified for patients and professionals ('pain and discomfort', 'psychological well-being', 'healing', 'scarring', 'function', 'infection'), three were unique to professionals ('patient knowledge, understanding and support', 'sense of control', 'survival') and one was unique to patients ('uncertainty'). Results highlighted that importance of these priorities changes over time (eg, 'survival' was only a concern in the short term). Likewise, priorities differed between patients and professionals (eg, 'pain' was important to patients throughout their recovery, but not for professionals). Seven out of 10 themes overlapped with outcomes commonly assessed in burn research. CONCLUSION: Professionals' and patients' priorities (important outcomes) change over time after burn injury and differ between those groups. Burn care research should consider measuring outcomes at different time points during the recovery from a burn injury to accurately reflect complexity of burn recovery.

A standardized measurement instrument was recommended for evaluating operator experience in complex healthcare interventions.

OBJECTIVE: During development of complex surgical innovations, modifications occur to optimize safety and efficacy. Operators' experiences (how professionals feel undertaking the innovation) drive this process but comprehensive overviews of measures of this concept are lacking. This study identified and appraised measures to assess operators' experience of surgical innovation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: There were three phases: (1) Literature reviews identified measures of operators' experience and concepts measured were extracted and grouped into domains. (2) Quality appraisal was conducted to assess content validity of identified instruments and was supported by COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments methodology. Self-reported measurement instruments that had underdone formal development were eligible. Content validity was assessed using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity (rated sufficient/insufficient/indeterminate/inconsistent), informed by standards for measurement development and domains identified in phase 1. (3) Instruments determined suitable and of sufficient quality underwent supplemental appraisal in interviews with international multidisciplinary professionals and a focus group. RESULTS: Literature reviews identified 16 measurement instruments from 243 studies. Most assessed 'psychological' experiences and 'usability'. No instrument was specifically validated for innovative surgery. Three instruments were rated 'sufficient' (Surgery Task Load Index [SURG-TLX]) or 'indeterminate' (Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Imperial Stress Assessment Tool). Twenty professionals were interviewed (seven female; 15 specialties; six countries) and the focus group included 10 participants (four professionals, six researchers). The SURG-TLX was considered the most relevant, comprehensive, and comprehensible instrument. CONCLUSION: The SURG-TLX is preliminarily recommended to measure operators' experiences of innovation. Further work exploring its role and impact on surgical innovation is required.

What Are Patients Told About Innovative Surgical Procedures? A Qualitative Synthesis of 7 Case Studies in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how information about innovative surgical procedures is communicated to patients. BACKGROUND: Despite the national and international guidance that patients should be informed whether a procedure is innovative and has uncertain outcomes, little is known about current practice. METHODS: This qualitative study followed 7 "case studies" of surgical innovation in hospitals across the United Kingdom. Preoperative interviews were conducted with clinician innovators (n=9), preoperative real-time consultations between clinicians and patients were audio-recorded (n=37). Patients were interviewed postoperatively (n=30). Data were synthesized using thematic analytical methods. RESULTS: Interviews with clinicians demonstrated strong intentions to inform patients about the innovative nature of the procedure in a neutral manner, although tensions between fully informing patients and not distressing them were raised. In the consultations, only a minority of clinicians actually made explicit statements about, (1) the procedure being innovative, (2) their limited clinical experience with it, (3) the paucity of evidence, and (4) uncertainty/unknown outcomes. Discussions about risks were generalized and often did not relate to the innovative component. Instead, all clinicians optimistically presented potential benefits and many disclosed their own positive beliefs. Postoperative patient interviews revealed that many believed that the procedure was more established than it was and were unaware of the unknown risks. CONCLUSIONS: There were contradictions between clinicians' intentions to inform patients about the uncertain outcomes of innovative and their actual discussions with patients. There is a need for communication interventions and training to support clinicians to provide transparent data and shared decision-making for innovative procedures.

Impact of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus open lobectomy for lung cancer on recovery assessed using self-reported physical function: VIOLET RCT.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Surgery remains the main method of managing early-stage disease. Minimal-access video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery results in less tissue trauma than open surgery; however, it is not known if it improves patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy with open surgery for the treatment of lung cancer. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicentre, superiority, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinding of participants (until hospital discharge) and outcome assessors conducted in nine NHS hospitals. Adults referred for lung resection for known or suspected lung cancer, with disease suitable for both surgeries, were eligible. Participants were followed up for 1 year. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy or open surgery. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery used one to four keyhole incisions without rib spreading. Open surgery used a single incision with rib spreading, with or without rib resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported physical function (using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30) at 5 weeks. Secondary outcomes included upstaging to pathologic node stage 2 disease, time from surgery to hospital discharge, pain in the first 2 days, prolonged pain requiring analgesia at > 5 weeks, adverse health events, uptake of adjuvant treatment, overall and disease-free survival, quality of life (Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, Quality of Life Questionnaire Lung Cancer 13 and EQ-5D) at 2 and 5 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 503 patients were randomised between July 2015 and February 2019 (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, n = 247; open surgery, n = 256). One participant withdrew before surgery. The mean age of patients was 69 years; 249 (49.5%) patients were men and 242 (48.1%) did not have a confirmed diagnosis. Lobectomy was performed in 453 of 502 (90.2%) participants and complete resection was achieved in 429 of 439 (97.7%) participants. Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 physical function was better in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group at 5 weeks (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, n = 247; open surgery, n = 255; mean difference 4.65, 95% confidence interval 1.69 to 7.61; p = 0.0089). Upstaging from clinical node stage 0 to pathologic node stage 1 and from clinical node stage 0 or 1 to pathologic node stage 2 was similar (p ≥ 0.50). Pain scores were similar on day 1, but lower in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group on day 2 (mean difference -0.54, 95% confidence interval -0.99 to -0.09; p = 0.018). Analgesic consumption was 10% lower (95% CI -20% to 1%) and the median hospital stay was less (4 vs. 5 days, hazard ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.09, 1.65; p = 0.006) in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group. Prolonged pain was also less (relative risk 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.94; p = 0.003). Time to uptake of adjuvant treatment, overall survival and progression-free survival were similar (p ≥ 0.28). Fewer participants in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group experienced complications before and after discharge from hospital (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.84; p < 0.001 and relative risk 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.00; p = 0.053, respectively). Quality of life to 1 year was better across several domains in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group. The probability that video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year is 1. LIMITATIONS: Ethnic minorities were under-represented compared with the UK population (< 5%), but the cohort reflected the lung cancer population. CONCLUSIONS: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy was associated with less pain, fewer complications and better quality of life without any compromise to oncologic outcome. Use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is highly likely to be cost-effective for the NHS. FUTURE WORK: Evaluation of the efficacy of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery with robotic assistance, which is being offered in many hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN13472721. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a common cause of cancer death worldwide. If the disease is caught early, the part of the lung containing the tumour can be removed in an operation called a lobectomy. The operation can be carried out through a large cut so that the surgeon has a full view of the lung, which is called open surgery, or using several small cuts and a camera, which is called video-assisted thoracoscopic (keyhole) surgery. It is thought that, as keyhole surgery is less invasive, patients recover quicker. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no high-quality research studies that are applicable to UK practice to support this. This study was conducted so that it could be determined, based on high-quality evidence, which operation provides the best treatment and recovery for patients. WHO PARTICIPATED?: Five hundred and three adults referred for lobectomy for known or suspected lung cancer from nine hospitals in the UK. WHAT WAS INVOLVED?: Participants were randomly allocated to either receive keyhole or open surgery. Participants were followed up for 12 months. We collected information on further treatment, hospital visits, safety information and disease progression over this period. Participants were also asked to complete questionnaires about their health and recovery. WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: For patients with early-stage lung cancer who underwent a lobectomy, keyhole surgery led to less pain, less time in hospital and better quality of life than open surgery, without having a detrimental effect on cancer progression or survival. Keyhole surgery was found to be cost-effective and to provide excellent value for money for the NHS.

Qualitative documentary analysis of guidance on information provision and consent for the introduction of innovative invasive procedures including surgeries within NHS organisations' policies in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVE: To review guidance, included in written local UK National Health Service (NHS) organisation policies, on information provision and consent for the introduction of new invasive procedures- including surgeries, and devices (IPs/Ds). DESIGN: A qualitative documentary analysis of data on patient information provision and consent extracted from policies for the introduction of IP/Ds from NHS organisations in England and Wales. SETTING: NHS trusts in England and health boards in Wales, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Between December 2017 and July 2018, 150 acute trusts in England and 7 health boards in Wales were approached for their policies for the introduction of new IP/Ds. In total, 123 policies were received, 11 did not fit the inclusion criteria and a further policy was included from a trust website resulting in 113 policies included for review. RESULTS: From the 113 policies, 22 did not include any statements on informed consent/information provision or lacked guidance on the information to be provided to patients and were hence excluded. Consequently, 91 written local NHS policies were included in the final dataset. Within the guidance obtained, variation existed on disclosure of the procedure's novelty, potential risks, benefits, uncertainties, alternative treatments and surgeon's experience. Few policies stated that clinicians should discuss the existing evidence associated with a procedure. Additionally, while the majority of policies referred to patients needing written information, this was often not mandated and few policies specified the information to be included. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly a fifth of all the policies lacked guidance on information to be provided to patients. There was variability in the policy documents regarding what patients should be told about innovative procedures. Further research is needed to ascertain the information and level of detail appropriate for patients when considering innovative procedures. A core information set including patients' and clinicians' views is required to address variability around information provision/consent for innovative procedures.

Managing surgical demand when needs outstrip resource: qualitative investigation of colorectal cancer surgery provision in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, elective surgical provision was severely affected by the need for hospital reorganization to care for critically ill patients. In response, National Health Service (NHS) England issued national guidance proposing acceptable time intervals for postponing different types of surgical procedure. This study reports healthcare professionals' private accounts of the strategies adopted to manage the imbalance of demand and resource, using colorectal cancer surgery as a case study. METHODS: Twenty-seven semistructured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals between June and November 2020. A key informant sampling approach was used, followed by snowballing to achieve maximum regional variation across the UK. Data were analysed thematically using the constant comparison approach. RESULTS: In the context of considerable resource constraint, surgical teams overcame challenges to continue elective cancer provision. They achieved this by pursuing a combination of strategies: relocating surgical services; prioritizing patients within and across surgical specialties; adapting patient treatment plans; and introducing changes to surgical team working practices. Despite national guidance, prioritization decisions were framed as complex, and the most challenging of the strategies to implement, both practically and emotionally. CONCLUSION: There is a need to better support surgeons tasked with prioritizing patients when capacity exceeds demand.

Understanding the perspectives of recruiters is key to improving randomised controlled trial enrolment: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting patients to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often reported to be challenging, and the evidence base for effective interventions that could be used by staff (recruiters) undertaking recruitment is lacking. Although the experiences and perspectives of recruiters have been widely reported, an evidence synthesis is required in order to inform the development of future interventions. This paper aims to address this by systematically searching and synthesising the evidence on recruiters' perspectives and experiences of recruiting patients into RCTs.  METHODS: A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) following Thomas and Harden's approach to thematic synthesis was conducted. The Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ORRCA and Web of Science electronic databases were searched. Studies were sampled to ensure that the focus of the research was aligned with the phenomena of interest of the QES, their methodological relevance to the QES question, and to include variation across the clinical areas of the studies. The GRADE CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in the review findings. RESULTS: In total, 9316 studies were identified for screening, which resulted in 128 eligible papers. The application of the QES sampling strategy resulted in 30 papers being included in the final analysis. Five overlapping themes were identified which highlighted the complex manner in which recruiters experience RCT recruitment: (1) recruiting to RCTs in a clinical environment, (2) enthusiasm for the RCT, (3) making judgements about whether to approach a patient, (4) communication challenges, (5) interplay between recruiter and professional roles. CONCLUSIONS: This QES identified factors which contribute to the complexities that recruiters can face in day-to-day clinical settings, and the influence recruiters and non-recruiting healthcare professionals have on opportunities afforded to patients for RCT participation. It has reinforced the importance of considering the clinical setting in its entirety when planning future RCTs and indicated the need to better normalise and support research if it is to become part of day-to-day practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020141297 (registered 11/02/2020).

Healthcare organization policy recommendations for the governance of surgical innovation: review of NHS policies.

BACKGROUND: The governance for introducing innovative surgical procedures/devices differs from the research requirements needed for new drugs. New invasive procedures/devices may be offered to patients outside of research protocols with local organization oversight alone. Such institutional arrangements exist in many countries and written policies provide guidance for their use, but little is known about their scope or standards. METHODS: One hundred and fifty acute NHS trusts in England and seven health boards in Wales were systematically approached for information about their policies. A modified framework approach was used to analyse when policies considered new procedures/devices to be within local organization remit and/or requiring research ethics committee (REC) approval. RESULTS: Of 113 policies obtained, 109 and 34 described when local organization and REC approval was required, respectively. Procedures/devices being used for the first time in the organization (n = 69) or by a clinician (n = 67) were commonly within local remit, and only 36 stated that evidence was required. Others stated limited evidence as a rationale for needing REC approval (n = 13). External guidance categorizing procedures as 'research only' was the most common reason for gaining REC approval (n = 15). Procedures/devices with uncertain outcomes (n = 28), requiring additional training (n = 26), and not previously used (n = 6) were within the remit of policies, while others recommended REC application in these situations (n = 5, 2 and 7, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study on NHS policies for surgical innovation shows variability in the introduction of procedures/devices in terms of local oversight and/or need for REC approval. Current NHS standards allow untested innovations to occur without the safety of research oversight and thus a standard approach is urgently needed.

Development of a new adapted QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI-Two) for rapid application to RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls-to identify previously hidden barriers and improve recruitment.

BACKGROUND: Many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) struggle to recruit, despite valiant efforts. The QRI (QuinteT Recruitment Intervention) uses innovative research methods to optimise recruitment by revealing previously hidden barriers related to the perceptions and experiences of recruiters and patients, and targeting remedial actions. It was designed to be integrated with RCTs anticipating difficulties at the outset. A new version of the intervention (QRI-Two) was developed for RCTs already underway with enrolment shortfalls. METHODS: QRIs in 12 RCTs with enrolment shortfalls during 2007-2017 were reviewed to document which of the research methods used could be rapidly applied to successfully identify recruitment barriers. These methods were then included in the new streamlined QRI-Two intervention which was applied in 20 RCTs in the USA and Europe during 2018-2019. The feasibility of the QRI-Two was investigated, recruitment barriers and proposed remedial actions were documented, and the QRI-Two protocol was finalised. RESULTS: The review of QRIs from 2007 to 2017 showed that previously unrecognised recruitment barriers could be identified but data collection for the full QRI required time and resources usually unavailable to ongoing RCTs. The streamlined QRI-Two focussed on analysis of screening/accrual data and RCT documents (protocol, patient-information), with discussion of newly diagnosed barriers and potential remedial actions in a workshop with the RCT team. Four RCTs confirmed the feasibility of the rapid application of the QRI-Two. When the QRI-Two was applied to 14 RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls, an array of previously unknown/underestimated recruitment barriers related to issues such as equipoise, intervention preferences, or study presentation was identified, with new insights into losses of eligible patients along the recruitment pathway. The QRI-Two workshop enabled discussion of the newly diagnosed barriers and potential remedial actions to improve recruitment in collaboration with the RCT team. As expected, the QRI-Two performed less well in six RCTs at the start-up stage before commencing enrolment. CONCLUSIONS: The QRI-Two can be applied rapidly, diagnose previously unrecognised recruitment barriers, and suggest remedial actions in RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls, providing opportunities for RCT teams to develop targeted actions to improve recruitment. The effectiveness of the QRI-Two in improving recruitment requires further evaluation.

Understanding stage of innovation of invasive procedures and devices: protocol for a systematic review and thematic analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical innovation has generally occurred in an unstandardised manner. This has led to unnecessary exposure of patients to harm, research waste and inadequate evidence. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up) Collaboration provided a set of recommendations for evaluating surgical innovations based on their stage of innovation. Despite further refinements and guidance, adoption of the IDEAL recommendations has been slow; an important reason may be that determining the stage of innovation is often difficult. To facilitate evaluation of surgical innovations, there is a need for a detailed insight into what stage of innovation means, and how it can be determined. The aim of this study is to understand the concept of stage of innovation as reported in the literature. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review is being conducted. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from their inception until July 2021 using an iteratively developed strategy based on the concepts of stage of innovation, invasive procedures or devices and guidance. Articles were included if they described an approach to evaluating surgical innovations in stages, described a method for determining stage of innovation, described indicators of stage of innovation, defined stages or described potential sources of stage-related information. Conference abstracts and non-English language articles were excluded. Other articles were detected from citations within included articles and suggestions from experts in surgical innovation. Data will be extracted regarding approaches to evaluating surgical innovations, methods for determining stage of innovation, indicators of stage of innovation, definitions of stages and potential sources of stage-related information. A thematic analysis will be conducted, and findings summarised in a narrative report. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will not be required. This systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at appropriate conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021270812.

Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic or Open Lobectomy in Early-Stage Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is limited randomized evidence on the comparative outcomes of early-stage lung cancer resection by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) versus open resection. METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group multicenter randomized trial that recruited participants with known or suspected early-stage lung cancer and randomly assigned them to open or VATS resection of their lesions. The primary outcome was physical function at 5 weeks as a measure of recovery using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core health-related quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better function; the clinical minimally important difference for improvement is 5 points). We followed the patients for an additional 47 weeks for other outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 503 participants were randomly assigned (247 to VATS and 256 to open lobectomy). At 5 weeks, median physical function was 73 in the VATS group and 67 in the open surgery group, with a mean difference of 4.65 points (95% confidence interval, 1.69 to 7.61). Of the participants allocated to VATS, 30.7% had serious adverse events after discharge compared with 37.8% of those allocated to open surgery (risk ratio, 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 1.00]). At 52 weeks, there were no differences in cancer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.74 [0.43 to 1.27]) or overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.67 [0.32 to 1.40]). CONCLUSIONS: VATS lobectomy for lung cancer is associated with a better recovery of physical function in the 5 weeks after random assignment compared with open surgery. Long-term oncologic outcomes will require continued follow-up to assess. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme [reference number 13/04/03]; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN13472721.)

Using qualitative research methods to understand how surgical procedures and devices are introduced into NHS hospitals: the Lotus study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The development of innovative invasive procedures and devices are essential to improving outcomes in healthcare. However, how these are introduced into practice has not been studied in detail. The Lotus study will follow a wide range of 'case studies' of new procedures and/or devices being introduced into NHS trusts to explore what information is communicated to patients, how procedures are modified over time and how outcomes are selected and reported. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This qualitative study will use ethnographic approaches to investigate how new invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced. Consultations in which the innovation is discussed will be audio-recorded to understand information provision practice. To understand if and how procedures evolve, they will be video recorded and non-participant observations will be conducted. Post-operative interviews will be conducted with the innovating team and patients who are eligible for the intervention. Audio-recordings will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Video-recordings will be reviewed to deconstruct procedures into key components and document how the procedure evolves. Comparisons will be made between the different data sources. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales approval (Ref 18/SW/0277). Results will be disseminated at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The findings of this study will provide a better understanding of how innovative invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced into practice.

Use of external evidence for design and Bayesian analysis of clinical trials: a qualitative study of trialists' views.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from previous studies is often used relatively informally in the design of clinical trials: for example, a systematic review to indicate whether a gap in the current evidence base justifies a new trial. External evidence can be used more formally in both trial design and analysis, by explicitly incorporating a synthesis of it in a Bayesian framework. However, it is unclear how common this is in practice or the extent to which it is considered controversial. In this qualitative study, we explored attitudes towards, and experiences of, trialists in incorporating synthesised external evidence through the Bayesian design or analysis of a trial. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 trialists: 13 statisticians and three clinicians. Participants were recruited across several universities and trials units in the United Kingdom using snowball and purposeful sampling. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and techniques of constant comparison. RESULTS: Trialists used existing evidence in many ways in trial design, for example, to justify a gap in the evidence base and inform parameters in sample size calculations. However, no one in our sample reported using such evidence in a Bayesian framework. Participants tended to equate Bayesian analysis with the incorporation of prior information on the intervention effect and were less aware of the potential to incorporate data on other parameters. When introduced to the concepts, many trialists felt they could be making more use of existing data to inform the design and analysis of a trial in particular scenarios. For example, some felt existing data could be used more formally to inform background adverse event rates, rather than relying on clinical opinion as to whether there are potential safety concerns. However, several barriers to implementing these methods in practice were identified, including concerns about the relevance of external data, acceptability of Bayesian methods, lack of confidence in Bayesian methods and software, and practical issues, such as difficulties accessing relevant data. CONCLUSIONS: Despite trialists recognising that more formal use of external evidence could be advantageous over current approaches in some areas and useful as sensitivity analyses, there are still barriers to such use in practice.

Recruiters' perspectives and experiences of trial recruitment processes: a qualitative evidence synthesis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Recruitment to randomised trials (RCTs) is often challenging. Reviews of interventions to improve recruitment have highlighted a paucity of effective interventions aimed at recruiters and the need for further research in this area. Understanding the perspectives and experiences of those involved in RCT recruitment can help to identify barriers and facilitators to recruitment, and subsequently inform future interventions to support recruitment. This protocol describes methods for a proposed qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) of recruiters' perspectives and experiences relating to RCT recruitment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The proposed review will synthesise studies reporting clinical and non-clinical recruiters' perspectives and experiences of recruiting to RCTs. The following databases will be searched: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ORRCA and Web of Science. A thematic synthesis approach to analysing the data will be used. An assessment of methodological limitations of each study will be performed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Assessing the confidence in the review findings will be evaluated using the GRADE Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The proposed QES will not require ethical approval as it includes only published literature. The results of the synthesis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and publicised using social media. The results will be considered alongside other work addressing factors affecting recruitment in order to inform future development and refinement of recruitment interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020141297.

'Overnight, things changed. Suddenly, we were in it': a qualitative study exploring how surgical teams mitigated risks of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 presents a risk of infection and transmission for operating theatre teams. Guidelines to protect patients and staff emerged and changed rapidly based on expert opinion and limited evidence. This paper presents the experiences and innovations developed by international surgical teams during the early stages of the pandemic to attempt to mitigate risk. DESIGN: In-depth, semistructured interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using methods of constant comparison. PARTICIPANTS: 43 participants, including surgeons from a range of specialties (primarily general surgery, otolaryngology, neurosurgery, cardiothoracic and ophthalmology), anaesthetists and those in nursing roles. SETTING: The UK, Italy, Spain, the USA, China and New Zealand between March and May 2020. RESULTS: Surgical teams sought to mitigate COVID-19 risks by modifying their current practice with an abundance of strategies and innovations. Communication and teamwork played an integral role in how teams adapted, although participants reflected on the challenges of having to improvise in real time. Uncertainties remained about optimal surgical practice and there were significant tensions where teams were forced to balance what was best for patients while contemplating their own safety. CONCLUSIONS: The perceptions of risks during a pandemic such as COVID-19 can be complex and context dependent. Management of these risks in surgery must be driven by evidence-based practice resulting from a pragmatic and novel approach to collation of global evidence. The context of surgery has changed dramatically, and surgical teams have developed a plethora of innovations. There is an urgent need for high-quality evidence to inform surgical practice that optimises the safety of both patients and healthcare professionals as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolds.

Optimising recruitment to the HAND-1 RCT feasibility study: integration of the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI).

BACKGROUND: Recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be challenging, with most trials not reaching recruitment targets. Randomised feasibility studies can be set up prior to a main trial to identify and overcome recruitment obstacles. This paper reports on an intervention-the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI)-to optimise recruitment within a randomised feasibility study of surgical treatments for patients with Dupuytren's contracture (the HAND-1 study). METHODS: The QRI was introduced in 2-phases: phase 1 sought to understand the recruitment challenges by interviewing trial staff, scrutinising screening logs and analysing audio-recorded patient consultations; in phase 2 a tailored plan of action consisting of recruiter feedback and training was delivered to address the identified challenges. RESULTS: Two key recruitment obstacles emerged: (1) issues with the recruitment pathway, in particular methods to identify potentially eligible patients and (2) equipoise of recruiters and patients. These were addressed by liaising with centres to share good practice and refine their pathway and by providing bespoke feedback and training on consent discussions to individual recruiters and centres whilst recruitment was ongoing. The HAND-1 study subsequently achieved its recruitment target. CONCLUSIONS: Transferable lessons learnt from the QRI in the feasibility study will be implemented in the definitive RCT, enabling a "head start" in the tackling of wider issues around screening methods and consent discussions in the set up/early recruitment study phases, with ongoing QRI addressing specific issues with new centres and recruiters. Findings from this study are likely to be relevant to other surgical and similar trials that are anticipated to encounter issues around patient and recruiter equipoise of treatments and variation in recruitment pathways across centres. The study also highlights the value of feasibility studies in fine-tuning design and conduct issues for definitive RCTs. Embedding a QRI in an RCT, at feasibility or main stage, offers an opportunity for a detailed and nuanced understanding of key recruitment challenges and the chance to address them in "real-time" as recruitment proceeds.