Qualitative documentary analysis of guidance on information provision and consent for the introduction of innovative invasive procedures including surgeries within NHS organisations' policies in England and Wales

OBJECTIVE

To review guidance, included in written local UK National Health Service (NHS) organisation policies, on information provision and consent for the introduction of new invasive procedures- including surgeries, and devices (IPs/Ds).

DESIGN

A qualitative documentary analysis of data on patient information provision and consent extracted from policies for the introduction of IP/Ds from NHS organisations in England and Wales.

SETTING

NHS trusts in England and health boards in Wales, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Between December 2017 and July 2018, 150 acute trusts in England and 7 health boards in Wales were approached for their policies for the introduction of new IP/Ds. In total, 123 policies were received, 11 did not fit the inclusion criteria and a further policy was included from a trust website resulting in 113 policies included for review.

RESULTS

From the 113 policies, 22 did not include any statements on informed consent/information provision or lacked guidance on the information to be provided to patients and were hence excluded. Consequently, 91 written local NHS policies were included in the final dataset. Within the guidance obtained, variation existed on disclosure of the procedure's novelty, potential risks, benefits, uncertainties, alternative treatments and surgeon's experience. Few policies stated that clinicians should discuss the existing evidence associated with a procedure. Additionally, while the majority of policies referred to patients needing written information, this was often not mandated and few policies specified the information to be included.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly a fifth of all the policies lacked guidance on information to be provided to patients. There was variability in the policy documents regarding what patients should be told about innovative procedures. Further research is needed to ascertain the information and level of detail appropriate for patients when considering innovative procedures. A core information set including patients' and clinicians' views is required to address variability around information provision/consent for innovative procedures.

Surgical clinical trials with non-inferiority design: a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis

Background

Wide-spread concerns have been raised about possible bias in published surgical non-inferiority trials. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to identify the existence of bias, and provided recommendations for future non-inferiority trials.

Methods

Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched (last update on 27 April 2020) to include published phase II and phase III non-inferiority surgical trials. We collected general information and parameters associated with trial design. The association between extracted factors and establishment of non-inferiority was then analyzed.

Results

A total of 347 trials were included in this study. Only 13 (3.7%) trials reported the pre-specified non-inferiority margin in registration, and 99 (28.5%) trials justified margin selection in ultimate trial publications. A significant association was found between industry funding and increased odds of achieving non-inferiority [odds ratio (OR): 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06 to 1.30, P=0.001]. Moreover, trials which had been presented in conferences were less likely to claim non-inferiority (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.99, P=0.035).

Conclusions

Our study was the first quantitative analysis revealing the presence of biases in findings of existing surgical non-inferiority trials, which could possibly mislead surgeons’ clinical decision making. We suggest improving reporting of detailed study design especially funding sources as well as margin justification for future trials. We also encourage conference presentation of ongoing trials prior to the ultimate publication.

Introduction and adoption of innovative invasive procedures and devices in the NHS: an in-depth analysis of written policies and qualitative interviews (the INTRODUCE study protocol)

INTRODUCTION

Innovation is key to improving outcomes in healthcare. Innovative pharmaceutical products undergo rigorous phased research evaluation before they are introduced into practice. The introduction of innovative invasive procedures and devices is much less rigorous and phased research, including randomised controlled trials, is not always undertaken. While the innovator (usually a surgeon) may introduce a new or modified procedure/device within the context of formal research, they may also be introduced by applying for local National Health Service (NHS) organisation approval alone. Written policies for the introduction of new procedures and/or devices often form part of this local clinical governance infrastructure; however, little is known about their content or use in practice. This study aims to systematically investigate how new invasive procedures and devices are introduced in NHS England and Wales.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An in-depth analysis of written policies will be undertaken. This will be supplemented with interviews with key stakeholders. All acute NHS trusts in England and Health Boards in Wales will be systematically approached and asked to provide written policies for the introduction of new invasive procedures and devices. Information on the following will be captured: (1) policy scope, including when new procedures should be introduced within a formal research framework; (2) requirements for patient information provision; (3) outcome reporting and/or monitoring. Data will be extracted using a standardised form developed iteratively within the study team. Semistructured interviews with medical directors, audit and governance leads, and surgeons will explore views regarding the introduction of new invasive procedures into practice, including knowledge of and implementation of current policies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

In-depth analysis of written policies does not require ethics approval. The University of Bristol Ethics Committee (56522) approved the interview component of the study. Findings from this work will be presented at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

Quality assurance of surgery in the randomized ST03 trial of perioperative chemotherapy in carcinoma of the stomach and gastro-oesophageal junction

BACKGROUND

The UK Medical Research Council ST03 trial compared perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab (B) in gastric and oesophagogastric junctional cancer. No difference in survival was noted between the arms of the trial. The present study reviewed the standards and performance of surgery in the context of the protocol-specified surgical criteria.

METHODS

Surgical and pathological clinical report forms were reviewed to determine adherence to the surgical protocols, perioperative morbidity and mortality, and final histopathological stage for all patients treated in the study.

RESULTS

Of 1063 patients randomized, 895 (84·2 per cent) underwent resection; surgical details were available for 880 (98·3 per cent). Postoperative assessment data were available for 873 patients; complications occurred in 458 (52·5 per cent) overall, of whom 71 (8·1 per cent) developed complications deemed to be life-threatening by the responsible clinician. The most common complications were respiratory (211 patients, 24·2 per cent). The anastomotic leak rate was 118 of 873 (13·5 per cent) overall; among those who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, the rate was higher in the group receiving ECX-B (23·6 per cent versus 9·9 per cent in the ECX group). Pathological assessment data were available for 845 patients. At least 15 nodes were removed in 82·5 per cent of resections and the median lymph node harvest was 24 (i.q.r. 17-34). Twenty-five or more nodes were removed in 49·0 per cent of patients. Histopathologically, the R1 rate was 24·9 per cent (208 of 834 patients). An R1 resection was more common for proximal tumours.

CONCLUSION

In the ST03 trial, the performance of surgery met the protocol-stipulated criteria. Registration number: NCT00450203 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

The effect of perioperative probiotics treatment for colorectal cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomized controlled trial

This study was designed to mainly evaluate the anti-infective effects of perioperative probiotic treatment in patients receiving confined colorectal cancer (CRC) respective surgery. From November 2011 to September 2012, a total of 60 patients diagnosed with CRC were randomly assigned to receive probiotic (n = 30) or placebo (n = 30) treatment. The operative and post-operative clinical results including intestinal cleanliness, days to first - flatus, defecation, fluid diet, solid diet, duration of pyrexia, average heart rate, length of intraperitoneal drainage, length of antibiotic therapy, blood index changes, rate of infectious and non-infectious complications, postoperative hospital stay, and mortality were investigated. The patient demographics were not significantly different (p > 0.05) between the probiotic treated and the placebo groups. The days to first flatus (3.63 versus 3.27, p = 0.0274) and the days to first defecation (4.53 versus 3.87, p = 0.0268) were significantly improved in the probiotic treated patients. The incidence of diarrhea was significantly lower (p = 0.0352) in probiotics group (26.67%, 8/30) compared to the placebo group (53.33%, 16/30). There were no statistical differences (p > 0.05) in other infectious and non-infectious complication rates including wound infection, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, anastomotic leakage, and abdominal distension. In conclusion, for those patients undergoing confined CRC resection, perioperative probiotic administration significantly influenced the recovery of bowel function, and such improvement may be of important clinical significance in reducing the short-term infectious complications such as bacteremia.

Exploring methods the for selection and integration of stakeholder views in the development of core outcome sets: a case study in reconstructive breast surgery

Background

The development and use of core outcome sets (COSs) in trials may improve data synthesis and reduce outcome reporting bias. The selection of outcomes in COSs is informed by views of key stakeholders, yet little is known about the role and influence of different stakeholders’ views during COS development. We report an exploratory case study examining how stakeholder selection and incorporation of stakeholders’ views may influence the selection of outcomes for a COS in reconstructive breast surgery (RBS). We also make recommendations for future considerations.

Methods

Key stakeholder groups and subgroups were identified from the literature and expert opinion by the COS management group. They included health care professionals, subdivided by profession (breast and plastic surgeons, specialist nurses and psychologists) and patients, subdivided according to type of surgery received, timing of reconstruction, time since surgery and patient age. All participated in a survey in which they were asked to prioritise outcomes. Outcomes were prioritised using a 9-point scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (extremely important). The proportion of (1) all participants, ignoring stakeholder group (single heterogeneous panel analysis), (2) ‘professional’ and ‘patient’ groups separately (two heterogeneous panels), ignoring prespecified subgroups and (3) each participant subgroup separately (multiple homogeneous panel analysis) rating each item ‘extremely important’ was summarised and compared to explore how selection and integration of stakeholder views may influence outcome prioritisation.

Results

There were many overlaps between items rated as most important by all groups. Specific stakeholders, however, prioritised specific concerns and a broader range of outcomes were prioritised when the subgroups were considered separately. For example, two additional outcomes were prioritised when patient and professional groups were considered separately and eight additional outcomes were identified when the views of the individual subgroups were explored. In general, patient subgroups preferentially valued additional clinical outcomes, including unplanned surgery, whereas professional subgroups prioritised additional psychosocial issues including body image.

Conclusion

Stakeholder groups value different outcomes. Selection of groups, therefore, is important. Our recommendations for robust and transparent stakeholder selection and integration of stakeholder views may aid future COS developers in the design and conduct of their studies and improve the validity and value of future COS.