ObjectivesTo examine the numbers and patterns of patients presenting to an urban acute general hospital with acute mental health presentations and to further investigate any variation related to the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignRetrospective observational cohort study.SettingAn urban acute general hospital in London, UK, comprising of five sites and two emergency departments. The hospital provides tertiary level general acute care but is not an acute mental health services provider. There is an inpatient liaison psychiatry service.Participants358 131 patients attended the emergency departments of our acute general hospital during the study period. Of these, 14 871 patients attended with an acute mental health presentation. A further 14 947 patients attending with a physical illness were also noted to have a concurrent recorded mental health diagnosis.ResultsLarge numbers of patients present to our acute general hospital with mental health illness even though the organisation does not provide mental health services other than inpatient liaison psychiatry. There was some variation in the numbers and patterns of presentations related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient numbers reduced to a mean of 9.13 (SD 3.38) patients presenting per day during the first ‘lockdown’ compared with 10.75 (SD 1.96) patients per day in an earlier matched time period (t=3.80, p<0.01). Acute mental health presentations following the third lockdown increased to a mean of 13.84 a day.ConclusionsLarge numbers of patients present to our acute general hospital with mental health illness. This suggests a need for appropriate resource, staffing and training to address the needs of these patients in a non-mental health provider organisation and subsequent appropriate transfer for timely treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting lockdowns have resulted in variation in the numbers and patterns of patients presenting with acute mental health illness but these presentations are not new. Considerable work is still needed to provide integrated care which addresses the physical and mental healthcare needs of patients presenting to acute and general hospitals.
Background Meniscal injury is one of the most common indications for knee surgery. The advent of meniscal repair techniques has facilitated meniscal preservation in suitable cases. Meniscal substitution with scaffolds may be advantageous following partial meniscal resection. There are three main scaffolds in current clinical use; Collagen Meniscal Implant (CMI Stryker Corporation, Kalamazoo, MI, USA), Actifit (Actifit, Orteq Ltd, London, UK) and NUsurface (Active Implants, LLC). The purpose of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes and failure rates of patients who have had implantation with these meniscal scaffolds. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies that included patients who had surgical implantation with Actifit or CMI. Eligibility criteria included papers that described both clinical outcomes and failure rates of these implants, a mean follow up of 5 years and studies published in English. A Google search was also performed to identify any grey literature. Results Five Level IV studies were found for Actifit. One Level II, one Level III and four Level IV studies were found for the CMI implant. One Level II study was identified for the NUsurface scaffold with a follow-up 12 months and was included for completeness. Overall, 262 patients were treated with Actifit, 109 with CMI and 65 with NUsurface. Failure rates for Actifit were 18% (range 6.3–31.8%) with a mean follow up of 66.8 months, and for CMI 6.5% (range 0–11.8%) with a mean follow up of 97.1 months. The NUsurface failure rate was 16.9% at 12 months. Clinical outcomes such as VAS, Tegner and Lysholm scores improved significantly post-operatively. However, there was a high volume of concurrent procedures, such as anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions and high tibial osteotomies in each study group; 118 (45%) for Actifit and 53 (45%) for CMI. Conclusion The evidence for meniscal scaffold use is insufficient to suggest that they could potentially improve clinical outcomes in patients post-meniscal resection. This is largely due to the high proportion of concurrent procedures performed at index procedure for both CMI and Actifit. On the basis of current evidence, the use of meniscal scaffolds as a sole treatment for partial meniscal defects cannot be recommended, owing to the relatively high failure rate and paucity of clinical data.
Background We undertook a prospective qualitative study to ascertain the perceptions and experience of trainee doctors in the first two years of formal core surgical training related to patient safety improvement and incident reporting. We sought to explore the beliefs, knowledge and opinions of core surgical trainees related to patient safety improvement, their understanding of existing patient safety initiatives and their experience and attitudes to incident reporting. Methods We identified 1133 doctors in formal core surgical training posts in the United Kingdom at this time, and we contacted these doctors to invite them to participate in our study. We received responses from 687 (60.6%) core surgical trainees, and 612 trainees (54%) agreed to participate. The study participants underwent an interview using structured questions asked by trained assessors with an opportunity to explore any particular themes identified by the trainee in more detail. Qualitative data related to the knowledge, experience and perceptions of safety improvement and incident reporting were collected. Results Overall, 163 surgical trainees (26.6%) reported that they felt that they could impact patient safety positively. A total of 222 trainees (36.3%) had been involved in or witnessed an adverse patient safety event, while 509 trainees (83.2%) reported that they had witnessed a ‘near-miss’ event. Only 81 trainees (13.2%) had submitted a patient safety report at some point in their career. In addition, 536 trainees (87.6%) reported that they considered a patient safety or incident report to be ‘negative’ or ‘seriously negative’ and that they would be discouraged from making these because of the negative connotations associated with them. Of the 81 core surgical trainees who had submitted a patient safety report, only nine trainees (11.1%) reported that they had received a meaningful reply and update following their report. Several themes were identified during the interviews in response to open questions. These included a perception that patient safety improvement is the responsibility of senior surgeons and managers and that surgical trainees did not feel empowered to influence patient safety improvement. Trainees expressed the view that incident reporting reflected negatively on clinicians and the standard of care provided, and there were reports of culture based on blame and the fear of litigation or complaints. Surgical trainees did not feel that incident reporting was an effective tool for patient safety improvement, and those trainees who had made patient safety reports felt that these did not result in change and that they often received no feedback. Conclusions Core surgical trainees report that they are not well engaged in patient safety improvement and that their perceptions and experience of incident reporting are not positive. This represents a missed opportunity. We suggest that in order to recruit the surgical workforce...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.