ItemQuality of life in restorative versus non-restorative resections for rectal cancer: systematic review(Wiley, 2021-11-09) Lawday, S.; Flamey, N.; Fowler, G. E.; Leaning, M.; Dyar, N.; Daniels, I. R.; Smart, N. J.; Hyde, C.BACKGROUND: Low rectal cancers could be treated using restorative (anterior resection, AR) or non-restorative procedures with an end/permanent stoma (Hartmann's, HE; or abdominoperineal excision, APE). Although the surgical choice is determined by tumour and patient factors, quality of life (QoL) will also influence the patient's future beyond cancer. This systematic review of the literature compared postoperative QoL between the restorative and non-restorative techniques using validated measurement tools. METHODS: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020131492). Embase and MEDLINE, along with grey literature and trials websites, were searched comprehensively for papers published since 2012. Inclusion criteria were original research in an adult population with rectal cancer that reported QoL using a validated tool, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-CR30, QLQ-CR29, and QLQ-CR38. Studies were included if they compared AR with APE (or HE), independent of study design. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Outcomes of interest were: QoL, pain, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (stool frequency, flatulence, diarrhoea and constipation), and body image. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 6453 patients; all papers were observational and just four included preoperative evaluations. There was no identifiable difference in global QoL and pain between the two surgical techniques. Reported results regarding GI symptoms and body image documented similar findings. The ROBINS-I tool highlighted a significant risk of bias across the studies. CONCLUSION: Currently, it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion on postoperative QoL, pain, GI symptoms, and body image following restorative or non-restorative surgery. The included studies were generally of poor quality, lacked preoperative evaluations, and showed considerable bias in the data. ItemP032 SURGICAL SITE INFECTIONS FOLLOWING EMERGENCY HERNIA REPAIR: A SUB-STUDY FROM THE MASH PROJECT(Wiley, 2021-11-08) Proctor, Victoria; Spence, Olivia; Burns, Flora; Green, Susanna; Sayers, Adele; Smart, Neil; Lee, MatthewAcutely symptomatic hernia (ASH) of the abdominal wall and groin are common presentations. Decisions related to repair technique can be driven by contamination and surgical site infection (SSI) risk. The aim of this study is to report rates of SSI following ASH repair, and assess the performance of the Bluebelle wound health questionnaire in this population.This study reports on the operated sub-group of the MASH study. This was a 12 week, UK-based, multi-centre, collaborative, prospective cohort study (NCT04197271) recruited adults with ASH. Hernia site, repair type, wound complications, and Bluebelle questionnaire at 30 & 90 days were captured. Performance of this score was assessed using ROC curves, and regression modelling.223 patients were operated on, and 21 (9.4%) developed SSI within 90 days. Infections were most common in umbilical hernia (16.2%). No infections were seen in ‘simple’ symptomatic hernia. There was no association with either repair type. Bluebelle scores for 109 patients had an area under the curve of 0.807, showing good performance in this population. Regression modelling showed that SSI was most strongly associated with increased Bluebelle score (OR 8.54 (4.27 to 12.80, p < 0.001)). Use of a sutured repair was associated with a lower score (OR -3.79 (-7.19 to -0.39, p = 0.029)).SSI is common after surgical treatment of ASH. Strategies to reduce this are needed. The Bluebelle score appears valid for this population; mesh repair might affect scores independent of SSI. ItemArtificial intelligence as a diagnostic aid in cross-sectional radiological imaging of the abdominopelvic cavity: a protocol for a systematic review(BMJ, 2021-10-20) Fowler, G. E.; Macefield, R. C.; Hardacre, C.; Callaway, M. P.; Smart, N. J.; Blencowe, N. S.INTRODUCTION: The application of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies as a diagnostic aid in healthcare is increasing. Benefits include applications to improve health systems, such as rapid and accurate interpretation of medical images. This may improve the performance of diagnostic, prognostic and management decisions. While a large amount of work has been undertaken discussing the role of AI little is understood regarding the performance of such applications in the clinical setting. This systematic review aims to critically appraise the diagnostic performance of AI algorithms to identify disease from cross-sectional radiological images of the abdominopelvic cavity, to identify current limitations and inform future research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be conducted on Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant studies. Primary studies where AI-based technologies have been used as a diagnostic aid in cross-sectional radiological images of the abdominopelvic cavity will be included. Diagnostic accuracy of AI models, including reported sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve will be examined and compared with standard practice. Risk of bias of included studies will be assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Findings will be reported according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required as primary data will not be collected. The results will inform further research studies in this field. Findings will be disseminated at relevant conferences, on social media and published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021237249. ItemAssessing communication skills of GP registrars: a comparison of patient and GP examiner ratings(Wiley, 2002-04-10) Greco, M.; Spike, N.; Powell, R.; Brownlea, A.CONTEXT: General practice. OBJECTIVES: To compare ratings of GP registrars' communication skills by patients and GP examiners. DESIGN: A comparative study where the communication skills of GP registrars were assessed both by patients, using a validated tool called the Doctors' Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire (DISQ), and by GP examiners as part of the Fellowship examination of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP). PARTICIPANTS: These included 138 GP registrars, 6075 patients, and more than 70 GP examiners. RESULTS: Spearman rank correlations were used to test the strength of the relationship between Fellowship examination and DISQ scores. Findings showed that there were several communication skills areas with mild (but significant) correlations between patient and GP examiner ratings. These areas included warmth of greeting, listening skills, respect, and concern for the patient as a person. No significant correlations were detected for explanation skills. Interestingly, the correlations between GP examiner and patient ratings were stronger for female GP registrars. CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that patients' ratings of GP registrars' communication skills is aligned to ratings made by GP examiners as part of the summative RACGP Fellowship examination. However, further work is required to assess the strength of this alignment, given that patient-doctor communication is assessed more widely through new components of the examination. Item'I've got a little list'-the scourge of a surgical junior. A quality improvement project to change the surgical patient list in a district general hospital(BMJ, 2020-06) Khan, Hiba; Flesher, Elizabeth; Harding, Alex; Bethune, Rob; Lawday, SamuelBackground: Junior doctors at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital spend hours every day creating and updating patient lists for all surgical specialties on Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. This not only consumes time that should be spent on clinical tasks, it allows for human errors, system errors and patient safety concerns. Our aim was to reduce time spent on the list and reduce the chance for error. Methods: We measured the time junior doctors spent creating and updating the surgical lists for one specialty, and on-call shifts. Our first Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle was to introduce clinical secretaries; this reduced the time spent by ward teams on the list but had no effect on the on-call team. We then worked with the hospital application developer to adapt software currently used to suit all surgical teams. Once completed, this software was rolled out alongside the existing spreadsheet method with a view to a switch after a transition period. Results: The introduction of clinical secretaries reduced the time spent on the colorectal surgery list from 99.22 min a day to 43.38 min. The on-call team however did not benefit from this intervention. Following the introduction of the new software, the day on-call team time spent on the list changed from 121 min a day to 4.66 min. The night on-call team time changed from 91 min to 7.38 min. Conclusion: Reducing the time juniors spend compiling surgical lists has clear benefits to patients with extra time for junior doctors to clerk patients. The use of an automated system removes the chance of error in transcription of blood results. Due to the success of this project, colorectal, upper gastrointestinal, urology, vascular and on-call teams have adopted the new list permanently.