Generalisable Overview of Study Risk for Lead Investigators Needing Guidance (GOSLING): A data governance risk tool.

INTRODUCTION: Digitisation of patient records, coupled with a moral imperative to use routinely collected data for research, necessitate effective data governance that both facilitates evidence-based research and minimises associated risks. The Generalisable Overview of Study Risk for Lead Investigators Needing Guidance (GOSLING) provides the first quantitative risk-measure for assessing the data-related risks of clinical research projects. METHODS: GOSLING employs a self-assessment designed to standardise risk assessment, considering various domains, including data type, security measures, and public co-production. The tool categorises projects into low, medium, and high-risk tiers based on a scoring system developed with the input of patient and public members. It was validated using both real and synthesised project proposals to ensure its effectiveness at triaging the risk of requests for health data. RESULTS: The tool effectively distinguished between fifteen low, medium, and high-risk projects in testing, aligning with subjective expert assessments. An interactive interface and an open-access policy for the tool encourage researchers to self-evaluate and mitigate risks prior to submission for data governance review. Initial testing demonstrated its potential to streamline the review process by identifying projects that may require less scrutiny or those that pose significant risks. DISCUSSION: GOSLING represents the first quantitative approach to measuring study risk, answering calls for standardised risk assessments in using health data for research. Its implementation could contribute to advancing ethical data use, enhancing research transparency, and promoting public trust. Future work will focus on expanding its applicability and exploring its impact on research efficiency and data governance practices.

Comparison of an Implantable Middle Ear Microphone and Conventional External Microphone for Cochlear Implants: A Clinical Feasibility Study.

OBJECTIVES: All commercially available cochlear implant (CI) systems use an external microphone and sound processor; however, external equipment carries lifestyle limitations. Although totally implantable devices using subcutaneous microphones have been developed, these are compromised by problems with soft tissue sound attenuation, feedback, and intrusive body noise. This in vivo pilot study evaluates a middle ear microphone (MEM) that aims to overcome these issues and compares hearing performance with that of an external CI microphone. DESIGN: Six adult participants with an existing CI were implanted with a temporary MEM in the contralateral ear. Signals from the MEM were routed via a percutaneous plug and cable to the CI sound processor. Testing was performed in the CI microphone and MEM conditions using a range of audiometric assessments, which were repeated across four visits. RESULTS: Performance of the MEM did not differ significantly from that of the CI on the assessments of Auditory Speech Sounds Evaluation loudness scaling at either 250 or 1000 Hz, or in the accuracy of repeating keywords presented at 70 dB. However, the MEM had significantly poorer aided sound-field thresholds, particularly at higher frequencies (≥4000 Hz), and significantly poorer performance on Arthur Boothroyd words presented at 55 dB, compared with the CI. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, the MEM showed comparable performance to that of an external CI microphone across some audiometric assessments. However, performance with the MEM was poorer than the CI in soft-level speech (55 dB) and at higher frequencies. As such, the benefits of MEM need to be considered against the compromises in hearing performance. However, with future development, MEM is a potentially promising technology.

Magnitude and modifiers of the weekend effect in hospital admissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the magnitude of the weekend effect, defined as differences in patient outcomes between weekend and weekday hospital admissions, and factors influencing it. DESIGN: A systematic review incorporating Bayesian meta-analyses and meta-regression. DATA SOURCES: We searched seven databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2000 to April 2015, and updated the MEDLINE search up to November 2017. Eligibility criteria: primary research studies published in peer-reviewed journals of unselected admissions (not focusing on specific conditions) investigating the weekend effect on mortality, adverse events, length of hospital stay (LoS) or patient satisfaction. RESULTS: For the systematic review, we included 68 studies (70 articles) covering over 640 million admissions. Of these, two-thirds were conducted in the UK (n=24) or USA (n=22). The pooled odds ratio (OR) for weekend mortality effect across admission types was 1.16 (95% credible interval 1.10 to 1.23). The weekend effect appeared greater for elective (1.70, 1.08 to 2.52) than emergency (1.11, 1.06 to 1.16) or maternity (1.06, 0.89 to 1.29) admissions. Further examination of the literature shows that these estimates are influenced by methodological, clinical and service factors: at weekends, fewer patients are admitted to hospital, those who are admitted are more severely ill and there are differences in care pathways before and after admission. Evidence regarding the weekend effect on adverse events and LoS is weak and inconsistent, and that on patient satisfaction is sparse. The overall quality of evidence for inferring weekend/weekday difference in hospital care quality from the observed weekend effect was rated as 'very low' based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework. CONCLUSIONS: The weekend effect is unlikely to have a single cause, or to be a reliable indicator of care quality at weekends. Further work should focus on underlying mechanisms and examine care processes in both hospital and community. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016036487.