Implementing human factors in anaesthesia: guidance for clinicians, departments and hospitals: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society and the Association of Anaesthetists: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society and the Association of Anaesthetists.

Human factors is an evidence-based scientific discipline used in safety critical industries to improve safety and worker well-being. The implementation of human factors strategies in anaesthesia has the potential to reduce the reliance on exceptional personal and team performance to provide safe and high-quality patient care. To encourage the adoption of human factors science in anaesthesia, the Difficult Airway Society and the Association of Anaesthetists established a Working Party, including anaesthetists and operating theatre team members with human factors expertise and/or interest, plus a human factors scientist, an industrial psychologist and an experimental psychologist/implementation scientist. A three-stage Delphi process was used to formulate a set of 12 recommendations: these are described using a 'hierarchy of controls' model and classified into design, barriers, mitigations and education and training strategies. Although most anaesthetic knowledge of human factors concerns non-technical skills, such as teamwork and communication, human factors is a broad-based scientific discipline with many other additional aspects that are just as important. Indeed, the human factors strategies most likely to have the greatest impact are those related to the design of safe working environments, equipment and systems. While our recommendations are primarily provided for anaesthetists and the teams they work with, there are likely to be lessons for others working in healthcare beyond the speciality of anaesthesia.

Human factors in anaesthesia: a narrative review.

Healthcare relies on high levels of human performance, as described by the 'human as the hero' concept. However, human performance varies and is recognised to fall in high-pressure situations, meaning that it is not a reliable method of ensuring safety. Other safety-critical industries embed human factors principles into all aspects of their organisations to improve safety and reduce reliance on exceptional human performance; there is potential to do the same in anaesthesia. Human factors is a broad-based scientific discipline which aims to make it as easy as possible for workers to do things correctly. The human factors strategies most likely to be effective are those which 'design out' the chance of an error or adverse event occurring. When errors or adverse events do happen, barriers are in place to trap them and reduce the risk of progression to patient and/or worker harm. If errors or adverse events are not trapped by these barriers, mitigations are in place to minimise the consequences. Non-technical skills form an important part of human factors barriers and mitigation strategies and include: situation awareness; decision-making; task management; and team working. Human factors principles are not a substitute for proper investment and appropriate staffing levels. Although applying human factors science has the potential to save money in the long term, its proper implementation may require investment before reward can be reaped. This narrative review describes what is known about human factors in anaesthesia to date.

COVID-19 vaccination acceptability in the UK at the start of the vaccination programme: a nationally representative cross-sectional survey (CoVAccS - wave 2).

OBJECTIVES: Investigate factors associated with the intention to have the COVID-19 vaccination following initiation of the UK national vaccination programme. STUDY DESIGN: An online cross-sectional survey completed by 1500 adults (13th-15th January 2021). METHODS: Linear regression analyses were used to investigate associations between intention to be vaccinated for COVID-19 and sociodemographic factors, previous influenza vaccination, attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination and vaccination in general. Participants' main reasons for likely vaccination (non-)uptake were also solicited. RESULTS: 73.5% of participants (95% CI 71.2%, 75.7%) reported being likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19, 17.3% (95% CI 15.4%, 19.3%) were unsure, and 9.3% (95% CI 7.9%, 10.8%) reported being unlikely to be vaccinated. The full regression model explained 69.8% of the variance in intention. Intention was associated with: having been/intending to be vaccinated for influenza last winter/this winter; stronger beliefs about social acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine; the perceived need for vaccination; adequacy of information about the vaccine; and weaker beliefs that the vaccine is unsafe. Beliefs that only those at serious risk of illness should be vaccinated and that the vaccines are just a means for manufacturers to make money were negatively associated with vaccination intention. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants reported being likely to get the COVID-19 vaccination. COVID-19 vaccination attitudes and beliefs are a crucial factor underpinning vaccine intention. Continued engagement with the public with a focus on the importance and safety of vaccination is recommended.

A user-centered approach to developing a new tool measuring the behavioural and social drivers of vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Children around the world remain under-vaccinated for many reasons. To develop effective vaccine delivery programmes and monitor intervention impact, vaccine programme implementers need to understand reasons for under-vaccination within their local context. The World Health Organization (WHO) Working Group on the Behavioural and Social Drivers of Vaccination (BeSD) is developing standardised tools for assessing childhood vaccine acceptance and uptake that can be used across regions and countries. The tools will include: (1) a validated survey; (2) qualitative interview guides; and (3) corresponding user guidance. We report a user-centred needs assessment of key end-users of the BeSD tools. METHODS: Twenty qualitative interviews (Apr-Aug 2019) with purposively sampled vaccine programme managers, partners and stakeholders from UNICEF and WHO country and regional offices. The interviews assessed current systems, practices and challenges in data utilisation and reflections on how the BeSD tools might be optimised. Framework analysis was used to code the interviews. RESULTS: Regarding current practices, participants described a variety of settings, data systems, and frequencies of vaccination attitude measurement. They reported that the majority of data used is quantitative, and there is appetite for increased use of qualitative data. Capacity for conducting studies on social/behavioural drivers of vaccination was high in some jurisdictions and needed in others. Issues include barriers to collecting such data and variability in sources. Reflecting on the tools, participants described the need to explore the attitudes and practices of healthcare workers in addition to parents and caregivers. Participants were supportive of the proposed mixed-methods structure of the tools and training in their usage, and highlighted the need for balance between tool standardisation and flexibility to adapt locally. CONCLUSIONS: A user-centred approach in developing the BeSD tools has given valuable direction to their design, bringing the use of behavioural and social data to the heart of programme planning.

Development and Validation of a Short Version of the Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: MODe-Lite.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based tools are necessary for scientifically improving the way MTBs work. Such tools are available but can be difficult to use. This study aimed to develop a robust observational assessment tool for use on cancer multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) by health care professionals in everyday practice. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional observational study was conducted in the United Kingdom from September 2015 to July 2016. Three tumor boards from three teaching hospitals were recruited, with 44 members overall. Six weekly meetings involving 146 consecutive cases were video-recorded and scored using the validated MODe tool. Data were subjected to reliability and validity analysis in the current study to develop a shorter version of the MODe. RESULTS: Phase 1, a reduction of the original items in the MODe, was achieved through two focus group meetings with expert assessors based on previous research. The 12 original items were reduced to 6 domains, receiving full agreement by the assessors. In phase 2, the six domains were subjected to item reliability, convergent validation, and internal consistency testing against the MODe-Lite global score, the MODe global score, and the items of the MODe. Significant positive correlations were evident across all domains (p < 0.01), indicating good reliability and validity. In phase 3, feasibility and high inter-assessor reliability were achieved by two clinical assessors. Six domains measuring clinical input, holistic input, clinical collaboration, pathology, radiology, and management plan were integrated into MODe-Lite. CONCLUSIONS: As an evidence-based tool for health care professionals in everyday practice, MODe-Lite gives cancer MTBs insight into the way they work and facilitates improvements in practice.

Impact of a quality improvement project to reduce the rate of obstetric anal sphincter injury: a multicentre study with a stepped-wedge design.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a care bundle (antenatal information to women, manual perineal protection and mediolateral episiotomy when indicated) on obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) rates. DESIGN: Multicentre stepped-wedge cluster design. SETTING: Sixteen maternity units located in four regions across England, Scotland and Wales. POPULATION: Women with singleton live births between October 2016 and March 2018. METHODS: Stepwise region by region roll-out every 3 months starting January 2017. The four maternity units in a region started at the same time. Multi-level logistic regression was used to estimate the impact of the care bundle, adjusting for time trend and case-mix factors (age, ethnicity, body mass index, parity, birthweight and mode of birth). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Obstetric anal sphincter injury in singleton live vaginal births. RESULTS: A total of 55 060 singleton live vaginal births were included (79% spontaneous and 21% operative). Median maternal age was 30 years (interquartile range 26-34 years) and 46% of women were primiparous. The OASI rate decreased from 3.3% before to 3.0% after care bundle implementation (adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = 0.03). There was no evidence that the effect of the care bundle differed according to parity (P = 0.77) or mode of birth (P = 0.31). There were no significant changes in caesarean section (P = 0.19) or episiotomy rates (P = 0.16) during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of this care bundle reduced OASI rates without affecting caesarean section rates or episiotomy use. These findings demonstrate its potential for reducing perineal trauma during childbirth. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: OASI Care Bundle reduced severe perineal tear rates without affecting caesarean section rates or episiotomy use.

Building resilient and responsive research collaborations to tackle antimicrobial resistance-Lessons learnt from India, South Africa, and UK.

Research, collaboration, and knowledge exchange are critical to global efforts to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Different healthcare economies are faced with different challenges in implementing effective strategies to address AMR. Building effective capacity for research to inform AMR-related strategies and policies is recognised as an important contributor to success. Interdisciplinary, intersector, as well as international collaborations are needed to span global to local efforts to tackle AMR. The development of reciprocal, long-term partnerships between collaborators in high-income and in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) needs to be built on principles of capacity building. Using case studies spanning local and international research collaborations to codesign, implement, and evaluate strategies to tackle AMR, we have evaluated and build upon the ESSENCE criteria for capacity building in LMICs. The first case study describes the local codesign and implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in the state of Kerala in India. The second case study describes an international research collaboration investigating AMR surgical patient pathways in India, the UK, and South Africa. We describe the steps undertaken to develop robust, agile, and flexible AMS research and implementation teams. Notably, investing in capacity building ensured that the programmes described in these case studies were sustained through the current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus pandemic. Describing the strategies adopted by a local and an international collaboration to tackle AMR, we provide a model for capacity building in LMICs that can support sustainable and agile AMS programmes.

Systematic literature review of learning curves for colorectal polyp resection techniques in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

AIM: The performance of therapeutic procedures in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGI) can be challenging and carries an increased risk of adverse events. There is increasing demand for the training of endoscopists in these procedures, but limited guidelines exist concerning procedural competency. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curves for LGI polypectomy, colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). METHOD: A systematic review of electronic databases between 1946 and September 2019 was performed. Citations were included if they reported learning curve data. Outcome measures that defined the success of procedural competency were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 34 out of 598 studies met the inclusion criteria of which 28 were related to ESD, three to polypectomy and three to EMR. Outcome measures for polypectomy competency (en bloc resection, delayed bleeding and independent polypectomy rate) were achieved after completion of between 250 and 400 polypectomies and after 300 colonoscopies. EMR outcome measures, including complete resection and recurrence, were achieved variably between 50 and 300 procedures. Outcome measures for ESD included efficiency (resection rates and procedural speed) and safety (adverse events). En bloc resection rates of over 80% and R0 resection rates of over 70% were achieved at 20-40 cases and procedural speed increased after 30 ESD cases. Competency in safety metrics was variably achieved at 20-200 cases. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of data on learning curves in LGI polypectomy, EMR and ESD. Despite limited evidence, we have identified relevant outcome measures and threshold numbers for the most common LGI polyp resection techniques for potential inclusion in training programmes/credentialing guidelines.

Implementation and evaluation of nationwide scale-up of the Surgical Safety Checklist.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist improves surgical outcomes, but evidence and theoretical frameworks for successful implementation in low-income countries remain lacking. Based on previous research in Madagascar, a nationwide checklist implementation in Benin was designed and evaluated longitudinally. METHODS: This study had a longitudinal embedded mixed-methods design. The well validated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to structure the approach and evaluate the implementation. Thirty-six hospitals received 3-day multidisciplinary training and 4-month follow-up. Seventeen hospitals were sampled purposively for evaluation at 12-18 months. The primary outcome was sustainability of checklist use at 12-18 months measured by questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were CFIR-derived implementation outcomes, measured using the WHO Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale (WHOBARS), safety questionnaires and focus groups. RESULTS: At 12-18 months, 86·0 per cent of participants (86 of 100) reported checklist use compared with 31·1 per cent (169 of 543) before training and 88·8 per cent (158 of 178) at 4 months. There was high-fidelity use (median WHOBARS score 5·0 of 7; use of basic safety processes ranged from 85·0 to 99·0 per cent), and high penetration shown by a significant improvement in hospital safety culture (adapted Human Factors Attitude Questionnaire scores of 76·7, 81·1 and 82·2 per cent before, and at 4 and 12-18 months after training respectively; P < 0·001). Acceptability, adoption, appropriateness and feasibility scored 9·6-9·8 of 10. This approach incorporated 31 of 36 CFIR implementation constructs successfully. CONCLUSION: This study shows successfully sustained nationwide checklist implementation using a validated implementation framework.

Accuracy of surgical complication rate estimation using ICD-10 codes.

BACKGROUND: The ICD-10 codes are used globally for comparison of diagnoses and complications, and are an important tool for the development of patient safety, healthcare policies and the health economy. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of verified complication rates in surgical admissions identified by ICD-10 codes and to validate these estimates against complications identified using the established Global Trigger Tool (GTT) methodology. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of a sample of surgical admissions in two Norwegian hospitals. Complications were identified and classified by two expert GTT teams who reviewed patients' medical records. Three trained reviewers verified ICD-10 codes indicating a complication present on admission or emerging in hospital. RESULTS: A total of 700 admissions were drawn randomly from 12 966 procedures. Some 519 possible complications were identified in 332 of 700 admissions (47·4 per cent) from ICD-10 codes. Verification of the ICD-10 codes against information from patients' medical records confirmed 298 as in-hospital complications in 141 of 700 admissions (20·1 per cent). Using GTT methodology, 331 complications were found in 212 of 700 admissions (30·3 per cent). Agreement between the two methods reached 83·3 per cent after verification of ICD-10 codes. The odds ratio for identifying complications using the GTT increased from 5·85 (95 per cent c.i. 4·06 to 8·44) to 25·38 (15·41 to 41·79) when ICD-10 complication codes were verified against patients' medical records. CONCLUSION: Verified ICD-10 codes strengthen the accuracy of complication rates. Use of non-verified complication codes from administrative systems significantly overestimates in-hospital surgical complication rates.

Analysing Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Patient Management: A Prospective Observational Evaluation of Team Clinical Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team (MDT)-driven cancer care is a mandatory UK national policy, widely used globally. However, few studies have examined how MDT members make decisions as a team. We report a single-centre prospective study on team working within breast cancer MDT. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of 10 breast MDT meetings (MDM). Trained clinical observer scored quality of presented information and disciplinary contribution to case reviews in real time, using a validated tool, namely Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making. Data were analysed to evaluate quality of team working. RESULTS: Ten MDMs were observed (N = 346 patients). An average of 42 patients were discussed per MDM (range: 29-51) with an average 3 min 20 s (range: 31 s-9 min) dedicated to each patient. Management decision was made in 99% of cases. In terms of contribution to case reviews, breast care nurses scored significantly (p < 0.05) lower (M = 1.79, SD = 0.12) compared to other team members (e.g. surgeons, M = 4.65; oncologists, M = 3.07; pathologists, M = 4.51; radiologists, M = 3.21). Information on patient psychosocial aspects (M = 1.69, SD = 0.68), comorbidities (M = 1.36, SD = 0.39) and views on treatment options (M = 1.47, SD = 0.34) was also significantly (p < 0.05) less well represented compared to radiology (M = 3.62, SD = 0.77), pathology (M = 4.42, SD = 0.49) and patient history (M = 3.91, SD = 0.48). CONCLUSION: MDT evaluation via direct observation in a meeting is feasible and reliable. We found consistent levels of quality of information coverage and contribution within the team, but certain aspects could be improved. Contribution to patient review resides predominantly with surgeons, while presented patient information is largely of biomedical nature. These findings can be fed to cancer MDTs to identify potential interventions for improvement.

Opportunities for system level improvement in antibiotic use across the surgical pathway.

Optimizing antibiotic prescribing across the surgical pathway (before, during, and after surgery) is a key aspect of tackling important drivers of antimicrobial resistance and simultaneously decreasing the burden of infection at the global level. In the UK alone, 10 million patients undergo surgery every year, which is equivalent to 60% of the annual hospital admissions having a surgical intervention. The overwhelming majority of surgical procedures require effectively limited delivery of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infections. Evidence from around the world indicates that antibiotics for surgical prophylaxis are administered ineffectively, or are extended for an inappropriate duration of time postoperatively. Ineffective antibiotic prophylaxis can contribute to the development of surgical site infections (SSIs), which represent a significant global burden of disease. The World Health Organization estimates SSI rates of up to 50% in postoperative surgical patients (depending on the type of surgery), with a particular problem in low- and middle-income countries, where SSIs are the most frequently reported healthcare-associated infections. Across European hospitals, SSIs alone comprise 19.6% of all healthcare-acquired infections. Much of the scientific research in infection management in surgery is related to infection prevention and control in the operating room, surgical prophylaxis, and the management of SSIs, with many studies focusing on infection within the 30-day postoperative period. However it is important to note that SSIs represent only one of the many types of infection that can occur postoperatively. This article provides an overview of the surgical pathway and considers infection management and antibiotic prescribing at each step of the pathway. The aim was to identify the implications for research and opportunities for system improvement.

Understanding antibiotic decision making in surgery-a qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics and culture of antibiotic decision making in the surgical specialty. METHODS: A qualitative study including ethnographic observation and face-to-face interviews with participants from six surgical teams at a teaching hospital in London was conducted. Over a 3-month period: (a) 30 ward rounds (WRs) (100 h) were observed, (b) face-to-face follow-up interviews took place with 13 key informants, (c) multidisciplinary meetings on the management of surgical patients and daily practice on wards were observed. Applying these methods provided rich data for characterizing the antibiotic decision making in surgery and enabled cross-validation and triangulation of the findings. Data from the interview transcripts and the observational notes were coded and analysed iteratively until saturation was reached. RESULTS: The surgical team is in a state of constant flux with individuals having to adjust to the context in which they work. The demands placed on the team to be in the operating room, and to address the surgical needs of the patient mean that the responsibility for antibiotic decision making is uncoordinated and diffuse. Antibiotic decision making is considered by surgeons as a secondary task, commonly delegated to junior members of their team and occurs in the context of disjointed communication. CONCLUSION: There is lack of clarity around medical decision making for treating infections in surgical patients. The result is sub-optimal and uncoordinated antimicrobial management. Developing the role of a perioperative clinician may help to improve patient-level outcomes and optimize decision making.

Content Validation and Evaluation of an Endovascular Teamwork Assessment Tool.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: To modify, content validate, and evaluate a teamwork assessment tool for use in endovascular surgery. METHODS: A multistage, multimethod study was conducted. Stage 1 included expert review and modification of the existing Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS) tool. Stage 2 included identification of additional exemplar behaviours contributing to effective teamwork and enhanced patient safety in endovascular surgery (using real-time observation, focus groups, and semistructured interviews of multidisciplinary teams). Stage 3 included content validation of exemplar behaviours using expert consensus according to established psychometric recommendations and evaluation of structure, content, feasibility, and usability of the Endovascular Observational Teamwork Assessment Tool (Endo-OTAS) by an expert multidisciplinary panel. Stage 4 included final team expert review of exemplars. RESULTS: OTAS core team behaviours were maintained (communication, coordination, cooperation, leadership team monitoring). Of the 114 OTAS behavioural exemplars, 19 were modified, four removed, and 39 additional endovascular-specific behaviours identified. Content validation of these 153 exemplar behaviours showed that 113/153 (73.9%) reached the predetermined Item-Content Validity Index rating for teamwork and/or patient safety. After expert team review, 140/153 (91.5%) exemplars were deemed to warrant inclusion in the tool. More than 90% of the expert panel agreed that Endo-OTAS is an appropriate teamwork assessment tool with observable behaviours. Some concerns were noted about the time required to conduct observations and provide performance feedback. CONCLUSION: Endo-OTAS is a novel teamwork assessment tool, with evidence for content validity and relevance to endovascular teams. Endo-OTAS enables systematic objective assessment of the quality of team performance during endovascular procedures.

Realistic evaluation of Situation Awareness for Everyone (SAFE) on paediatric wards: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence suggests that health outcomes for hospitalised children in the UK are worse than other countries in Europe, with an estimated 1500 preventable deaths in hospital each year. It is presumed that some of these deaths are due to unanticipated deterioration, which could have been prevented by earlier intervention, for example, sepsis. The Situation Awareness For Everyone (SAFE) intervention aims to redirect the 'clinical gaze' to encompass a range of prospective indicators of risk or deterioration, including clinical indicators and staff concerns, so that professionals can review relevant information for any given situation. Implementing the routine use of huddles is central to increasing situation awareness in SAFE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this article, we describe the realistic evaluation framework within which we are evaluating the SAFE programme. Multiple methods and data sources are used to help provide a comprehensive understanding of what mechanisms for change are triggered by an intervention and how they have an impact on the existing social processes sustaining the behaviour or circumstances that are being targeted for change. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from London-Dulwich Research Ethics Committee (14/LO/0875). It is anticipated that the findings will enable us to understand what the important elements of SAFE and the huddle are, the processes by which they might be effective and-given the short timeframes of the project-initial effects of the intervention on outcomes. The present research will add to the extant literature by providing the first evidence of implementation of SAFE and huddles in paediatric wards in the UK.

Innovative tools for quality assessment: integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS).

OBJECTIVES: With the aim to facilitate a more comprehensive review process in public health including patient safety, we established a tool that we have termed ICROMS (Integrated quality Criteria for the Review Of Multiple Study designs), which unifies, integrates and refines current quality criteria for a large range of study designs including qualitative research. STUDY DESIGN: Review, pilot testing and expert consensus. METHODS: The tool is the result of an iterative four phase process over two years: 1) gathering of established criteria for assessing controlled, non-controlled and qualitative study designs; 2) pilot testing of a first version in two systematic reviews on behavioural change in infection prevention and control and in antibiotic prescribing; 3) further refinement and adding of additional study designs in the context of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control funded project 'Systematic review and evidence-based guidance on organisation of hospital infection control programmes' (SIGHT); 4) scrutiny by the pan-European expert panel of the SIGHT project, which had the objective of ensuring robustness of the systematic review. RESULTS: ICROMS includes established quality criteria for randomised studies, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series, and incorporates criteria for non-controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies and qualitative studies. The tool consists of two parts: 1) a list of quality criteria specific for each study design, as well as criteria applicable across all study designs by using a scoring system; 2) a 'decision matrix', which specifies the robustness of the study by identifying minimum requirements according to the study type and the relevance of the study to the review question. The decision matrix directly determines inclusion or exclusion of a study in the review. ICROMS was applied to a series of systematic reviews to test its feasibility and usefulness in the appraisal of multiple study designs. The tool was applicable across a wide range of study designs and outcome measures. CONCLUSION: ICROMS is a comprehensive yet feasible appraisal of a large range of study designs to be included in systematic reviews addressing behaviour change studies in patient safety and public health. The tool is sufficiently flexible to be applied to a variety of other domains in health-related research. Beyond its application to systematic reviews, we envisage that ICROMS can have a positive effect on researchers to be more rigorous in their study design and more diligent in their reporting.

A systematic review of patient preference elicitation methods in the treatment of colorectal cancer.

AIM: This systematic review aimed to assess the use of patient preference in colorectal cancer treatment. Eliciting patient preference is important for shared decision-making in colorectal cancer treatment. The introduction of newer treatments, which balance quality of life and overall survival, makes this an important future focus. METHOD: A systematic search strategy of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews was undertaken to obtain relevant articles. Information regarding the type of patients included, preference instruments, study settings, outcomes and limitations was extracted. RESULTS: The eight articles comprising this review each described an empirical study using a validated instrument to define patient preference for an aspect of colorectal cancer treatment. The evidence suggests that patients are prepared to trade significant reductions in life expectancy to avoid certain complications of colorectal surgery, particularly stoma formation. In the adjuvant setting, patients are prepared to risk significant treatment side effects to gain small potential increases in life expectancy and chance of survival. Where neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment risks worsening function, however, patients generally forgo any potential increase in survival to improve bowel function and therefore quality of life. The only predictors of preference were tertiary education and previous cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Most patients judge a moderate survival benefit to be sufficient to make adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer worthwhile, but they are willing to trade a potential reduction in life expectancy and survival to avoid certain unwanted surgical sequelae.

Implementation of an endoscopy safety checklist.

Patient safety and quality improvement are increasingly prioritised across all areas of healthcare. Errors in endoscopy are common but often inconsequential and therefore go uncorrected. A series of minor errors, however, may culminate in a significant adverse event. This is unsurprising given the rising volume and complexity of cases coupled with shift working patterns. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that surgical safety checklists can prevent errors and thus positively impact on patient morbidity and mortality. Consequently, surgical checklists are mandatory for all procedures. Many UK hospitals are mandating the use of similar checklists for endoscopy. There is no guidance on how best to implement endoscopy checklists nor any measure of their usefulness in endoscopy. This article outlines lessons learnt from innovating service delivery in our unit.

Decision-making in Colorectal Cancer Tumor Board meetings: results of a prospective observational assessment.

BACKGROUND: The management of colorectal cancer increasingly involves multidisciplinary tumor boards. In cases where these occur, the quality can be variable. Despite this, there are no uniform measures to evaluate them. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of colorectal cancer tumor boards, via real-time prospective observation. METHODS: An observational tool, termed Colorectal Multidisciplinary Team Metric for Observation of Decision-Making (cMDT-MODe), was used to assess decision-making in 267 cases. The presentation of case history, radiological and pathological information, as well as contributions to decision making of the various team members were analyzed using descriptive statistics and t-tests. Interobserver agreement was assessed using intraclasscorrelation coefficients. RESULTS: Tumor board meetings lasted 76 min, were attended by approximately 16 specialists each, and reviewed an average of 24 cancer cases (3 min per case review). Regarding the quality of presented information to the team, case history information was rated the highest (mean 4.57), followed by radiological information (mean 4.22) and pathological information (mean 3.81). Regarding each team-member's contribution to discussion, surgeons were scored the highest (mean 4.81), followed by radiologists (mean 4.41) and meeting chairs (mean 4.13)--all team members except the board coordinators were scored highly. Overall scoring reliability was good (0.79). CONCLUSIONS: The cMDT-MODe instrument can be reliably used to prospectively assess decision making in the multidisciplinary management of colorectal patients. By systematically quantifying the quality of a colorectal cancer tumor board, we can identify areas for improving practice so as to optimize decision making for cancer care.