Evaluating patient factors, operative management and postoperative outcomes in trauma laparotomy patients worldwide: a protocol for a global observational multicentre trauma study.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma contributes to the greatest loss of disability-adjusted life-years for adolescents and young adults worldwide. In the context of global abdominal trauma, the trauma laparotomy is the most commonly performed operation. Variation likely exists in how these patients are managed and their subsequent outcomes, yet very little global data on the topic currently exists. The objective of the GOAL-Trauma study is to evaluate both patient and injury factors for those undergoing trauma laparotomy, their clinical management and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We describe a planned prospective multicentre observational cohort study of patients undergoing trauma laparotomy. We will include patients of all ages who present to hospital with a blunt or penetrating injury and undergo a trauma laparotomy within 5 days of presentation to the treating centre. The study will collect system, patient, process and outcome data, following patients up until 30 days postoperatively (or until discharge or death, whichever is first). Our sample size calculation suggests we will need to recruit 552 patients from approximately 150 recruiting centres. DISCUSSION: The GOAL-Trauma study will provide a global snapshot of the current management and outcomes for patients undergoing a trauma laparotomy. It will also provide insight into the variation seen in the time delays for receiving care, the disease and patient factors present, and patient outcomes. For current standards of trauma care to be improved worldwide, a greater understanding of the current state of trauma laparotomy care is paramount if appropriate interventions and targets are to be identified and implemented.

Challenges and patient outcomes in chronic subdural haematoma at the level of a regional care system A multi-centre, mixed-methods study from the East of England.

BACKGROUND: Chronic subdural haematoma (cSDH) is a common neurosurgical pathology affecting older patients with other health conditions. A significant proportion (up-to 90%) of referrals for surgery in neurosciences units (NSU) come from secondary care. However, the organisation of this care and the experience of patients repatriated to non-specialist centres are currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to clarify patient outcome in non-specialist centres following NSU discharge for cSDH surgery and to understand key system challenges. The study was set within a representative neurosurgical care system in the east of England. DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients referred for cSDH surgery. Alongside case record review, patient and staff experience were explored using surveys as well as an interactive c-design workshop. Challenges were identified from thematic analysis of survey responses and triangulated by focussed workshop discussions. RESULTS: Data on 381 patients referred for cSDH surgery from six centres was reviewed. One hundred and fifty-six (41%) patients were repatriated following surgery. Sixty-one (39%) of those repatriated suffered an inpatient complication (new infection, troponin rise or renal injury) following NSU discharge, with 58 requiring institutional discharge or new care. Surveys for staff (n = 42) and patients (n = 209) identified that resourcing, communication, and inter-hospital distance posed care challenges. This was corroborated through workshop discussions with stakeholders from two institutions. CONCLUSIONS: A significant amount of perioperative care for cSDH is delivered outside of specialist centres. Future improvement initiatives must recognise the system-wide nature of delivery and the challenges such an arrangement presents.

Design as a quality improvement strategy: The case for design expertise.

Bad design in safety-critical environments like healthcare can lead to users being frustrated, excluded or injured. In contrast, good design can make it easier to use a service correctly, with impacts on both the safety and efficiency of healthcare delivery, as well as the experience of patients and staff. The participative dimension of design as an improvement strategy has recently gained traction in the healthcare quality improvement literature. However, the role of design expertise and professional design has been much less explored. Good design does not happen by accident: it takes expertise and the specific reasoning that expert designers develop through practical experience and training. Here, we define design, show why poor design can be disastrous and illustrate the benefits of good design. We argue for the recognition of distinctive design expertise and describe some of its characteristics. Finally, we discuss how design could be better promoted in healthcare improvement.

Artificial intelligence-enabled ophthalmoscopy for papilledema: a systematic review protocol.

Papilledema is a pathology delineated by the swelling of the optic disc secondary to raised intracranial pressure (ICP). Diagnosis by ophthalmoscopy can be useful in the timely stratification of further investigations, such as magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography to rule out pathologies associated with raised ICP. In resource-limited settings, in particular, access to trained specialists or radiological imaging may not always be readily available, and accurate fundoscopy-based identification of papilledema could be a useful tool for triage and escalation to tertiary care centres. Artificial intelligence (AI) has seen a rise in neuro-ophthalmology research in recent years, but there are many barriers to the translation of AI to clinical practice. The objective of this systematic review is to garner and present a comprehensive overview of the existing evidence on the application of AI in ophthalmoscopy for papilledema, and to provide a valuable perspective on this emerging field that sits at the intersection of clinical medicine and computer science, highlighting possible avenues for future research in this domain.

Does the implementation of a trauma system affect injury-related morbidity and economic outcomes? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Trauma accounts for a huge burden of disease worldwide. Trauma systems have been implemented in multiple countries across the globe, aiming to link and optimise multiple aspects of the trauma care pathway, and while they have been shown to reduce overall mortality, much less is known about their cost-effectiveness and impact on morbidity. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to explore the impact the implementation of a trauma system has on morbidity, quality of life and economic outcomes, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All comparator study types published since 2000 were included, both retrospective and prospective in nature, and no limits were placed on language. Data were reported as a narrative review. RESULTS: Seven articles were identified that met the inclusion criteria, all of which reported a pre-trauma and post-trauma system implementation comparison in high-income settings. The overall study quality was poor, with all studies demonstrating a severe risk of bias. Five studies reported across multiple types of trauma patients, the majority describing a positive impact across a variety of morbidity and health economic outcomes following trauma system implementation. Two studies focused specifically on traumatic brain injury and did not demonstrate any impact on morbidity outcomes. DISCUSSION: There is currently limited and poor quality evidence that assesses the impact that trauma systems have on morbidity, quality of life and economic outcomes. While trauma systems have a fundamental role to play in high-quality trauma care, morbidity and disability data can have large economic and cultural consequences, even if mortality rates have improved. The sociocultural and political context of the surrounding healthcare infrastructure must be better understood before implementing any trauma system, particularly in resource-poor and fragile settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022348529 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Perioperative management of adults with traumatic brain injury.

Despite advances in management strategy, traumatic brain injury remains strongly associated with neurological impairment and mortality. Management of traumatic brain injury requires careful and targeted management of the physiological consequences which extend beyond the scope of the primary impact to the cranium. Here, we present a review of the principles of its acute management in adults. We outline the procedure which patients are assessed and the critical physiological variables which must be monitored to prevent further neurological damage. We describe current interventional strategies from the context of the underlying physiological mechanisms and recent clinical data and identify persisting challenges in traumatic brain injury management and potential avenues of future progress.

The Impact of Trauma System Implementation on Patient Quality of Life and Economic Burden: A Systematic Review Study Protocol.

Background: Trauma accounts for 10% of global mortality, with increasing rates disproportionally affecting low- and middle-income countries. In an attempt to improve clinical outcomes after injury, trauma systems have been implemented in multiple countries over recent years. However, whilst many studies have subsequently demonstrated improvements in overall mortality outcomes, less is known about the impact trauma systems have on morbidity, quality of life, and economic burden. This systematic review seeks to assess the existing evidence base for trauma systems with these outcome measures. Methods: This review will include any study that assesses the impact implementation of a trauma system has on patient morbidity, quality of life, or economic burden. Any comparator study, including cohort, case-control, and randomised controlled studies, will be included, both retrospective or prospective in nature. Studies conducted from any region in the world and involving any age of patient will be included. We will collect data on any morbidity outcomes, health-related quality of life measures, or health economic assessments reported. We predict a high heterogeneity in these outcomes used and will therefore keep inclusion criteria broad. Discussion: Previous reviews have shown the significant improvements that can be achieved in mortality outcomes with the implementation of an organised trauma system, however the wider impact they can have on morbidity outcomes, quality of life measures, and the economic burden of trauma, is less well described. This systematic review will present all available data on these outcomes, helping to better characterise both the societal and economic impact of trauma system implementation. Highlights: Trauma systems are known to improve mortality rates, however less in known on the impact they have on morbidity outcomes, quality of life, and economic burdenWe aim to perform a systematic review to identify any comparator study that assesses the impact implementation of a trauma system on these outcomesUnderstanding the impact trauma systems can have on wider parameters, such as economic and quality of life outcomes, is crucial to allow governments globally to appropriately allocate often limited healthcare resources.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022348529.

Can process mapping and a multisite Delphi of perioperative professionals inform our understanding of system-wide factors that may impact operative risk?

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the use of process mapping and a multidisciplinary Delphi can identify potential contributors to perioperative risk. We hypothesised that this approach may identify factors not represented in common perioperative risk tools and give insights of use to future research in this area. DESIGN: Multidisciplinary, modified Delphi study. SETTING: Two centres (one tertiary, one secondary) in the UK during 2020 amidst coronavirus pressures. PARTICIPANTS: 91 stakeholders from 23 professional groups involved in the perioperative care of older patients. Key stakeholder groups were identified via process mapping of local perioperative care pathways. RESULTS: Response rate ranged from 51% in round 1 to 19% in round 3. After round 1, free text suggestions from the panel were combined with variables identified from perioperative risk scores. This yielded a total of 410 variables that were voted on in subsequent rounds. Including new suggestions from round two, 468/519 (90%) of the statements presented to the panel reached a consensus decision by the end of round 3. Identified risk factors included patient-level factors (such as ethnicity and socioeconomic status), and organisational or process factors related to the individual hospital (such as policies, staffing and organisational culture). 66/160 (41%) of the new suggestions did not feature in systematic reviews of perioperative risk scores or key process indicators. No factor categorised as 'organisational' is currently present in any perioperative risk score. CONCLUSIONS: Through process mapping and a modified Delphi we gained insights into additional factors that may contribute to perioperative risk. Many were absent from currently used risk stratification scores. These results enable an appreciation of the contextual limitations of currently used risk tools and could support future research into the generation of more holistic data sets for the development of perioperative risk assessment tools.

Neurotrauma clinicians' perspectives on the contextual challenges associated with traumatic brain injury follow up in low-income and middle-income countries: A reflexive thematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major global health issue, but low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face the greatest burden. Significant differences in neurotrauma outcomes are recognised between LMICs and high-income countries. However, outcome data is not consistently nor reliably recorded in either setting, thus the true burden of TBI cannot be accurately quantified. OBJECTIVE: To explore the specific contextual challenges of, and possible solutions to improve, long-term follow-up following TBI in low-resource settings. METHODS: A cross-sectional, pragmatic qualitative study, that considered knowledge subjective and reality multiple (i.e. situated within the naturalistic paradigm). Data collection utilised semi-structured interviews, by videoconference and asynchronous e-mail. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's six-stage Reflexive Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: 18 neurosurgeons from 13 countries participated in this study, and data analysis gave rise to five themes: Clinical Context: What must we understand?; Perspectives and Definitions: What are we talking about?; Ownership and Beneficiaries: Why do we do it?; Lost to Follow-up: Who misses out and why?; Processes and Procedures: What do we do, or what might we do? CONCLUSION: The collection of long-term outcome data plays an imperative role in reducing the global burden of neurotrauma. Therefore, this was an exploratory study that examined the contextual challenges associated with long-term follow-up in LMICs. Where technology can contribute to improved neurotrauma surveillance and remote assessment, these must be implemented in a manner that improves patient outcomes, reduces clinical burden on physicians, and does not surpass the comprehension, capabilities, or financial means of the end user. Future research is recommended to investigate patient and family perspectives, the impact on clinical care teams, and the full economic implications of new technologies for follow-up.

Using network analysis to model the effects of the SARS Cov2 pandemic on acute patient care within a healthcare system.

Consolidation of healthcare in the US has resulted in integrated organizations, encompassing large geographic areas, with varying services and complex patient flows. Profound changes in patient volumes and behavior have occurred during the SARS Cov2 pandemic, but understanding these across organizations is challenging. Network analysis provides a novel approach to address this. We retrospectively evaluated hospital-based encounters with an index emergency department visit in a healthcare system comprising 18 hospitals, using patient transfer as a marker of unmet clinical need. We developed quantitative models of transfers using network analysis incorporating the level of care provided (ward, progressive care, intensive care) during pre-pandemic (May 25, 2018 to March 16, 2020) and mid-pandemic (March 17, 2020 to March 8, 2021) time periods. 829,455 encounters were evaluated. The system functioned as a non-small-world, non-scale-free, dissociative network. Our models reflected transfer destination diversification and variations in volume between the two time points - results of intentional efforts during the pandemic. Known hub-spoke architecture correlated with quantitative analysis. Applying network analysis in an integrated US healthcare organization demonstrates changing patterns of care and the emergence of bottlenecks in response to the SARS Cov2 pandemic, consistent with clinical experience, providing a degree of face validity. The modelling of multiple influences can identify susceptibility to stress and opportunities to strengthen the system where patient movement is common and voluminous. The technique provides a mechanism to analyze the effects of intentional and contextual changes on system behavior.

Systems approach to improving traumatic brain injury care in Myanmar: a mixed-methods study from lived experience to discrete event simulation.

OBJECTIVES: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global health problem, whose management in low-resource settings is hampered by fragile health systems and lack of access to specialist services. Improvement is complex, given the interaction of multiple people, processes and institutions. We aimed to develop a mixed-method approach to understand the TBI pathway based on the lived experience of local people, supported by quantitative methodologies and to determine potential improvement targets. DESIGN: We describe a systems approach based on narrative exploration, participatory diagramming, data collection and discrete event simulation (DES), conducted by an international research collaborative. SETTING: The study is set in the tertiary neurotrauma centre in Yangon General Hospital, Myanmar, in 2019-2020 (prior to the SARS-CoV2 pandemic). PARTICIPANTS: The qualitative work involved 40 workshop participants and 64 interviewees to explore the views of a wide range of stakeholders including staff, patients and relatives. The 1-month retrospective admission snapshot covered 85 surgical neurotrauma admissions. RESULTS: The TBI pathway was outlined, with system boundaries defined around the management of TBI once admitted to the neurosurgical unit. Retrospective data showed 18% mortality, 71% discharge to home and an 11% referral rate. DES was used to investigate the system, showing its vulnerability to small surges in patient numbers, with critical points being CT scanning and observation ward beds. This explorative model indicated that a modest expansion of observation ward beds to 30 would remove the flow-limitations and indicated possible consequences of changes. CONCLUSIONS: A systems approach to improving TBI care in resource-poor settings may be supported by simulation and informed by qualitative work to ground it in the direct experience of those involved. Narrative interviews, participatory diagramming and DES represent one possible suite of methods deliverable within an international partnership. Findings can support targeted improvement investments despite coexisting resource limitations while indicating concomitant risks.

Casemix, management, and mortality of patients rreseceiving emergency neurosurgery for traumatic brain injury in the Global Neurotrauma Outcomes Study: a prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is increasingly recognised as being responsible for a substantial proportion of the global burden of disease. Neurosurgical interventions are an important aspect of care for patients with TBI, but there is little epidemiological data available on this patient population. We aimed to characterise differences in casemix, management, and mortality of patients receiving emergency neurosurgery for TBI across different levels of human development. METHODS: We did a prospective observational cohort study of consecutive patients with TBI undergoing emergency neurosurgery, in a convenience sample of hospitals identified by open invitation, through international and regional scientific societies and meetings, individual contacts, and social media. Patients receiving emergency neurosurgery for TBI in each hospital's 30-day study period were all eligible for inclusion, with the exception of patients undergoing insertion of an intracranial pressure monitor only, ventriculostomy placement only, or a procedure for drainage of a chronic subdural haematoma. The primary outcome was mortality at 14 days postoperatively (or last point of observation if the patient was discharged before this time point). Countries were stratified according to their Human Development Index (HDI)-a composite of life expectancy, education, and income measures-into very high HDI, high HDI, medium HDI, and low HDI tiers. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to examine the effect of HDI on mortality while accounting for and quantifying between-hospital and between-country variation. FINDINGS: Our study included 1635 records from 159 hospitals in 57 countries, collected between Nov 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2020. 328 (20%) records were from countries in the very high HDI tier, 539 (33%) from countries in the high HDI tier, 614 (38%) from countries in the medium HDI tier, and 154 (9%) from countries in the low HDI tier. The median age was 35 years (IQR 24-51), with the oldest patients in the very high HDI tier (median 54 years, IQR 34-69) and the youngest in the low HDI tier (median 28 years, IQR 20-38). The most common procedures were elevation of a depressed skull fracture in the low HDI tier (69 [45%]), evacuation of a supratentorial extradural haematoma in the medium HDI tier (189 [31%]) and high HDI tier (173 [32%]), and evacuation of a supratentorial acute subdural haematoma in the very high HDI tier (155 [47%]). Median time from injury to surgery was 13 h (IQR 6-32). Overall mortality was 18% (299 of 1635). After adjustment for casemix, the odds of mortality were greater in the medium HDI tier (odds ratio [OR] 2·84, 95% CI 1·55-5·2) and high HDI tier (2·26, 1·23-4·15), but not the low HDI tier (1·66, 0·61-4·46), relative to the very high HDI tier. There was significant between-hospital variation in mortality (median OR 2·04, 95% CI 1·17-2·49). INTERPRETATION: Patients receiving emergency neurosurgery for TBI differed considerably in their admission characteristics and management across human development settings. Level of human development was associated with mortality. Substantial opportunities to improve care globally were identified, including reducing delays to surgery. Between-hospital variation in mortality suggests changes at an institutional level could influence outcome and comparative effectiveness research could identify best practices. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Group.

The Value and Potential of Qualitative Research Methods in Neurosurgery.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the value and potential of qualitative research to neurosurgery and provide insight and understanding to this underused methodology. METHODS: The definition of qualitative research is critically discussed and the heterogeneity within this field of inquiry explored. The value of qualitative research to the field of neurosurgery is articulated through its contribution to understanding complex clinical problems. DISCUSSION: To resolve some of the misunderstanding of qualitative research, this paper discusses research design choices. We explore approaches that use qualitative techniques but are not, necessarily, situated within a qualitative paradigm in addition to how qualitative research philosophy aids researchers to conduct interpretive inquiry that can reveal more than simply what was said by participants. Common research designs associated with qualitative inquiry are introduced, and how complex analysis may contribute more in-depth insights is explained. Approaches to quality are discussed briefly to support improvements in qualitative methods and qualitative manuscripts. Finally, we consider the future of qualitative research in neurosurgery, and suggest how to move forward in the qualitative neurosurgical evidence base. CONCLUSIONS: There is enormous potential for qualitative research to contribute to the advancement of person-centered care within neurosurgery. There are signs that more qualitative research is being conducted and that neurosurgical journals are increasingly open to this methodology. While studies that do not engage fully within the qualitative paradigm can make important contributions to the evidence base, due regard should be given to immersive inquiry within qualitative paradigms to allow complex, in-depth, investigations of the human experience.

How can communication to GPs at hospital discharge be improved? A systems approach.

BACKGROUND: Poor communication to GPs at hospital discharge threatens patient safety and continuity of care, with reliance on discharge summaries that are commonly written by the most junior doctors. Previous quality improvement efforts have largely focused on adherence to standardised templates, with limited success. A lack of understanding has been identified as a cause of the issue's resistance to decades of improvement work. AIM: To understand the system of communication to GPs at hospital discharge, with a view to identifying potential routes to improvement. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative exploration of the secondary-to-primary care communication system surrounding a large UK hospital. METHOD: A systems approach, recently defined for the healthcare domain, was used to structure and thematically analyse interviews (n = 18) of clinical and administrative staff from both sides of the primary-secondary care interface, and a subsequent focus group. RESULTS: The largely one-way communication system structure and the low level of hospital stakeholder insight into recipient GP needs emerged as consistent hindrances to system performance. More open lines of communication and shared records might enable greater collaboration to share feedback and resolve informational deficits. Teaching sessions and assessments for medical students and junior doctors led by GPs could help to instil the importance of detail and nuance when using standardised communication templates. CONCLUSION: Facilitating the sharing of performance insights between stakeholder groups emerged as the key theme of how communication might be improved. The empirical measures proposed have the potential to mitigate the safety risks of key barriers to performance such as patient complexity.

Neurosurgeons' experiences of conducting and disseminating clinical research in low-income and middle-income countries: a reflexive thematic analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Low-income and-middle-income countries (LMICs) are increasing investment in research and development, yet there remains a paucity of neurotrauma research published by those in LMICs. The aim of this study was to understand neurosurgeons' experiences of, aspirations for, and ability to conduct and disseminate clinical research in LMICs. DESIGN: This was a two-stage inductive qualitative study situated within the naturalistic paradigm. This study committed to an interpretivist way of knowing (epistemology), and considered reality subjective and multiple (ontology). Data collection used online methods and included a web-based survey tool for demographic data, an asynchronous online focus group and follow-up semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's Reflexive Thematic Analysis supported by NVivo V.12. SETTING: LMICs. PARTICIPANTS: In April-July 2020, 26 neurosurgeons from 11 LMICs participated in this study (n=24 in the focus groups, n=20 in follow-up interviews). RESULTS: The analysis gave rise to five themes: The local landscape; creating capacity; reach and impact; collaborative inquiry; growth and sustainability. Each theme contained an inhibitor and stimulus to neurosurgeons conducting and disseminating clinical research, interpreted as 'the neurosurgical research potential in LMICs'. Mentorship, education, infrastructure, impact and engagement were identified as specific accelerators. Whereas lack of generalisability, absence of dissemination and dissemination without peer review may desensitise the impact of research conducted by neurosurgeons. CONCLUSION: The geographical, political and population complexities make research endeavour challenging for neurosurgeons in LMICs. Yet in spite of, and because of, these complexities LMICs provide rich opportunities to advance global neurosurgery. More studies are required to evaluate the specific effects of accelerators of research conducted by neurosurgeons and to understand the effects of desensitisers on high-quality, high-impact clinical research.

Neurotrauma clinicians' perspectives on the contextual challenges associated with long-term follow-up following traumatic brain injury in low-income and middle-income countries: a qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global public health concern; however, low/middle-income countries (LMICs) face the greatest burden. The WHO recognises the significant differences between patient outcomes following injuries in high-income countries versus those in LMICs. Outcome data are not reliably recorded in LMICs and despite improved injury surveillance data, data on disability and long-term functional outcomes remain poorly recorded. Therefore, the full picture of outcome post-TBI in LMICs is largely unknown. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cross-sectional pragmatic qualitative study using individual semistructured interviews with clinicians who have experience of neurotrauma in LMICs. The aim of this study is to understand the contextual challenges associated with long-term follow-up of patients following TBI in LMICs. For the purpose of the study, we define 'long-term' as any data collected following discharge from hospital. We aim to conduct individual semistructured interviews with 24-48 neurosurgeons, beginning February 2020. Interviews will be recorded and transcribed verbatim. A reflexive thematic analysis will be conducted supported by NVivo software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee approved this study in February 2020. Ethical issues within this study include consent, confidentiality and anonymity, and data protection. Participants will provide informed consent and their contributions will be kept confidential. Participants will be free to withdraw at any time without penalty; however, their interview data can only be withdrawn up to 1 week after data collection. Findings generated from the study will be shared with relevant stakeholders such as the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies and disseminated in conference presentations and journal publications.