BMJ open
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Impact of inhalational versus intravenous anaesthesia on early delirium and long-term survival in elderly patients after cancer surgery: study protocol of a multicentre, open-label, and randomised controlled trial.
Elderly patients who have solid organ cancer often receive surgery. Some of them may develop delirium after surgery and delirium development is associated with worse outcomes. Furthermore, despite all of the advances in medical care, the long-term survival in cancer patients is far from optimal. Evidences suggest that choice of anaesthetics during surgery, that is, either inhalational or intravenous anaesthetics, may influence outcomes. However, the impact of general anaesthesia type on the occurrence of postoperative delirium is inconclusive. Although retrospective studies suggest that propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia was associated with longer survival after cancer surgery when compared with inhalational anaesthesia, prospective studies as such are still lacking. The purposes of this randomised controlled trial are to test the hypotheses that when compared with sevoflurane-based inhalational anaesthesia, propofol-based intravenous anaesthesia may reduce the incidence of early delirium and prolong long-term survival in elderly patients after major cancer surgery. ⋯ The study protocol has been approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committees of Peking University First Hospital (2015[869]) and all participating centres. The results of early and long-term outcomes will be analysed and reported separately.
-
Multicenter Study
Referrers' point of view on the referral process to neurosurgery and opinions on neurosurgeons: a large-scale regional survey in the UK.
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. ⋯ 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.
-
Consultation duration has previously been shown to be associated with patient, practitioner and practice characteristics. However, previous studies were conducted outside the UK, considered only small numbers of general practitioner (GP) consultations or focused primarily on practitioner-level characteristics. We aimed to determine the patient-level and practice-level factors associated with duration of GP and nurse consultations in UK primary care. ⋯ Small observed differences in consultation duration indicate that patients are treated similarly regardless of background. Increased consultation duration may be beneficial for older or comorbid patients, but the benefits and costs of increased consultation duration require further study.
-
To assess whether the food and drink retail outlets in two major National Health Service (NHS) district general hospitals in England adhere to quality statements 1-3 of the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) quality standard 94. ⋯ Neither hospital was consistently compliant with quality statements 1-3 of the NICE quality standard 94. Improving the availability of healthy foods and drinks while reducing the display and accessibility to less healthy options in NHS venues may improve family awareness of healthy alternatives. Making it easier for parents to direct their children to healthier choices is an ostensibly central component of our healthcare system.
-
Multicenter Study Pragmatic Clinical Trial
Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial: a protocol for the pragmatic randomised study of appendicitis treatment.
Several European studies suggest that some patients with appendicitis can be treated safely with antibiotics. A portion of patients eventually undergo appendectomy within a year, with 10%-15% failing to respond in the initial period and a similar additional proportion with suspected recurrent episodes requiring appendectomy. Nearly all patients with appendicitis in the USA are still treated with surgery. A rigorous comparative effectiveness trial in the USA that is sufficiently large and pragmatic to incorporate usual variations in care and measures the patient experience is needed to determine whether antibiotics are as good as appendectomy. ⋯ This trial was approved by the University of Washington's Human Subjects Division. Results from this trial will be presented in international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.