Risk of Aneurysm Rupture (ROAR) study: protocol for a long-term, longitudinal, UK multicentre study of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.

INTRODUCTION: Unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA) are common in the adult population, but only a relatively small proportion will rupture. It is therefore essential to have accurate estimates of rupture risk to target treatment towards those who stand to benefit and avoid exposing patients to the risks of unnecessary treatment. The best available UIA natural history data are the PHASES study. However, this has never been validated and given the known heterogeneity in the populations, methods and biases of the constituent studies, there is a need to do so. There are also many potential predictors not considered in PHASES that require evaluation, and the estimated rupture risk is largely based on short-term follow-up (mostly 1 year). The aims of this study are to: (1) test the accuracy of PHASES in a UK population, (2) evaluate additional predictors of rupture and (3) assess long-term UIA rupture rates. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Risk of Aneurysm Rupture study is a longitudinal multicentre study that will identify patients with known UIA seen in neurosurgery units. Patients will have baseline demographics and aneurysm characteristics collected by their neurosurgery unit and then a single aggregated national cohort will be linked to databases of hospital admissions and deaths to identify all patients who may have subsequently suffered a subarachnoid haemorrhage. All matched admissions and deaths will be checked against medical records to confirm the diagnosis of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. The target sample size is 20 000 patients. The primary outcome will be aneurysm rupture resulting in hospital admission or death. Cox regression models will be built to test each of the study's aims. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been given by South Central Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee (21SC0064) and Confidentiality Advisory Group support (21CAG0033) provided under Section 251 of the NHS Act 2006. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17658526.

Referrers' point of view on the referral process to neurosurgery and opinions on neurosurgeons: a large-scale regional survey in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: There is an increased reliance on online referral systems (ORS) within neurosurgical departments across the UK. Opinions of neurosurgeons on ORS are extensively reported but those of referrers have hardly been sought. Our study aims at ascertaining our referring colleagues' views on our ORS and its impact on patient care, their opinions on neurosurgeons and how to improve our referral process. SETTING: 14 district general hospitals and one teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 641 healthcare professionals across a range of medical and surgical specialties including doctors of all grades, nurses and physiotherapists. Survey responses were obtained by medical students using a smartphone application. RESULTS: Although 92% of respondents were aware of the ORS, 74% would routinely phone the on-call registrar either before or after making referrals online. The majority (44%) believed their call to relate to a life-threatening emergency. 62% of referrers considered the ORS helpful in informing patients' care and 48% had a positive opinion of their interaction with neurosurgical registrars. On ways to improve the ORS, 50% selected email/text confirmation of response sent to referrers and 16% to referring consultants. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that referrers feel that using our ORS positively impacts patient care but that it remains in need of improvement in order to better suit our colleagues' needs when it comes to managing neurosurgical patients. We feel that the promotion of neurosurgical education and mitigation of the effects of adverse workplace human factors are likely to achieve the common goal of neurosurgeons and referrers alike: a high standard in patient care.