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.

'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.

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.

Protocol for developing quality assurance measures to use in surgical trials: an example from the ROMIO study.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery are frequently criticised because surgeon expertise and standards of surgery are not considered or accounted for during study design. This is particularly true in pragmatic trials (which typically involve multiple centres and surgeons and are based in 'real world' settings), compared with explanatory trials (which are smaller and more tightly controlled). OBJECTIVE: This protocol describes a process to develop and test quality assurance (QA) measures for use within a predominantly pragmatic surgical RCT comparing minimally invasive and open techniques for oesophageal cancer (the NIHR ROMIO study). It builds on methods initiated in the ROMIO pilot RCT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We have identified three distinct types of QA measure: (i) entry criteria for surgeons, through assessment of operative videos, (ii) standardisation of operative techniques (by establishing minimum key procedural phases) and (iii) monitoring of surgeons during the trial, using intraoperative photography to document key procedural phases and standardising the pathological assessment of specimens. The QA measures will be adapted from the pilot study and tested iteratively, and the video and photo assessment tools will be tested for reliability and validity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained (NRES Committee South West-Frenchay, 25 April 2016, ref: 16/SW/0098). Results of the QA development study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN59036820, ISRCTN10386621.

Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

INTRODUCTION: Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10386621.