AimsThis cross-sectional study aimed to assess resilience, professional quality of life and coping mechanisms in UK doctors. It also aimed to assess the impact of demographic variables, such as sex, grade and specialty on these factors.MethodsDuring October and November 2018, medical doctors in the UK were eligible to complete an online survey made up of validated psychological instruments. Royal Colleges and other medical organisations invited their membership to participate via newsletters, email invitations, websites and social media.Results1651 doctors participated from a wide range of specialties and grades across the UK. The mean resilience score was 65.01 (SD 12.3), lower than population norms. Of those who responded, 31.5% had high burnout (BO), 26.2% had high secondary traumatic stress and 30.7% had low compassion satisfaction (CS). Doctors who responded from emergency medicine were more burned out than any other specialty group (F=2.62, p=0.001, df 14). Those who responded from general practice scored lowest for CS (F=6.43, p<0.001, df 14). 120 (8%) doctors met the criteria for all three of high BO, high STS and low CS. The most frequently reported coping mechanism was the maladaptive strategy of self-distraction.ConclusionsOne-third of UK doctors who responded are burned out and suffering from STS. Those who responded from emergency medicine and general practice appear to be suffering the most. Over 100 doctors fell into the at-risk category of high BO, high STS and low CS. Future analysis of the free text responses from doctors may help to identify factors that are playing a role in the high levels of BO and STS being reported by medical staff.
IntroductionResilience can be difficult to conceptualise and little is known about resilience in medical doctors.AimsThis systematic review discusses the existing literature on influences on resilience levels of medical doctors.MethodsThe bibliographic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched from 2008 to November 2018 using keyword search terms resilience* AND (“medical physician*” OR doctor* OR surgeon* OR medical trainee* or clinician*).ResultsTwenty-four studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. A narrative synthesis was performed. The following influences on resilience in doctors were identified: demographics, personality factors, organisational or environmental factors, social support, leisure activities, overcoming previous adversity and interventions to improve resilience.ConclusionsResilience is not limited to a doctor’s own personal resource. Published studies also highlight the influence of other modifiable factors.
Background: Informed consent is an integral component of good medical practice. Many researchers have investigated measures to improve the quality of informed consent, but it is not clear which techniques work best and why. To address this problem, we propose developing a core outcome set (COS) to evaluate interventions designed to improve the consent process for surgery in adult patients with capacity. Part of this process involves reviewing existing research that has reported what is important to patients and doctors in the informed consent process. Methods: This qualitative synthesis comprises four phases: identification of published papers and determining their relevance; appraisal of the quality of the papers; identification and summary of the key findings from each paper while determining the definitiveness of each finding against the primary data; comparison of key themes between papers such that findings are linked across studies. Results: Searches of bibliographic databases returned 11,073 titles. Of these, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were published between 1996 and 2016 and included a total of 367 patients and 74 health care providers. Thirteen studies collected data using in-depth interviews and constant comparison was the most common means of qualitative analysis. A total of 94 findings were extracted from the primary papers and divided into 17 categories and ultimately 6 synthesised findings related to: patient characteristics, knowledge, communication, the model patient, trust and decision making. Conclusions: This qualitative meta-aggregation is the first to examine the issue of informed consent for surgery. It has revealed several outcomes deemed important to capture by patients and clinicians when evaluating the quality of a consent process. Some of these outcomes have not been examined previously in research comparing methods for informed consent. This review is an important step in the development of a COS to evaluate interventions designed to improve the consent process for surgery. Registration: The study protocol was registered on the international prospective register for systematic reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42017077101).
INTRODUCTION Oesophagogastric cancers are known to spread rapidly to locoregional lymph nodes and by transcoelomic spread to the peritoneal cavity. Staging laparoscopy combined with peritoneal cytology can detect advanced disease that may not be apparent on other staging investigations. The aim of this study was to determine the current value of staging laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology in light of the ubiquitous use of computed tomography in all oesophagogastric cancers and the addition of positron emission tomography in oesophageal cancer. METHODS All patients undergoing staging laparoscopy for distal oesophageal or gastric cancer between March 2007 and August 2013 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Demographic details, preoperative staging, staging laparoscopy findings, cytology and histopathology results were analysed. RESULTS A total of 317 patients were identified: 159 (50.1%) had gastric adenocarcinoma, 136 (43.0%) oesophageal adenocarcinoma and 22 (6.9%) oesophageal squamous carcinoma. Staging laparoscopy revealed macroscopic metastases in 36 patients (22.6%) with gastric adenocarcinoma and 16 patients (11.8%) with oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Positive peritoneal cytology in the absence of macroscopic peritoneal metastases was identified in a further five patients with gastric adenocarcinoma and six patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma. There was no significant difference in survival between patients with macroscopic peritoneal disease and those with positive peritoneal cytology (p=0.219). CONCLUSIONS Staging laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology should be performed routinely in the staging of distal oesophageal and gastric cancers where other investigations indicate resectability. Currently, in our opinion, patients with positive peritoneal cytology should not be treated with curative intent.
SUMMARYWe report a strikingly unusual case of traumatic intraperitoneal perforation of an augmented bladder from clean intermittent self-catheterisation (CISC), which presented a unique diagnostic challenge. This case describes a 48-year-old T1 level paraplegic, who had undergone clamshell ileocystoplasty for detrusor overactivity, presenting with abdominal distension, vomiting and diarrhoea. Initial investigations were suggestive of disseminated peritoneal malignancy with ascitic fluid collections, but the ascitic fluid was found to be intraperitoneal urine from a perforation of the urinary bladder. This was associated with an inflammatory response in the surrounding structures causing an appearance of colonic thickening and omental disease. Although the diagnostic process was complex due to this patient's medical history, the treatment plan initiated was non-operative, with insertion of an indwelling urinary catheter and radiologically guided drainage of pelvic and abdominal collections. Overdistension perforations of augmented urinary bladders have been reported, but few have described perforation from CISC. BACKGROUND
While accepted practice of pre-operative combined USS and MIBI imaging is essential in unilateral imaged-focused neck exploration for primary disease, these imaging techniques have a more limited use pre-operatively in renal failure parathyroidectomy.
Background 300 million operations and procedures are performed annually across the world, all of which require a patient’s informed consent. No standardised measure of the consent process exists in current clinical practice. We aimed to define a core outcome set for informed consent for therapy. Methods The core outcome set was developed in accordance with a predefined research protocol and the Core OutcoMes in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology comprising systematic review, qualitative semi structured interviews, a modified Delphi process and consensus webinars to ratify outcomes for inclusion in the final core outcome set. (Registration—https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1024). Participants from all key stakeholder groups took part in the process, including patients and the public, healthcare practitioners and consent researchers. Results 36 outcome domains were synthesised through systematic review and organised into a consent taxonomy. 41 semi-structured interviews were performed with all consent stakeholders groups. 164 participants from all stakeholder groups across 8 countries completed Delphi Round 1 and 125 completed Round 2. 11 outcomes met the ‘consensus in’ criteria. 6 met ‘consensus in’ all stakeholder groups and were included directly in the final core outcome set. 5 remaining outcomes meeting ‘consensus in’ were ratified over two consensus webinars. 9 core outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: Satisfaction with the quality and amount of information, Patient feeling that there was a choice, Patient feeling that the decision to consent was their own, Confidence in the decision made, Satisfaction with communication, Trust in the clinician, Patient satisfaction with the consent process, Patient rated adequacy of time and opportunity to ask questions. Conclusion This international mixed-methods qualitative study is the first of its kind to define a core outcome set for informed consent for intervention. It defines what outcomes are of importance to key stakeholders in the consent process and is a forward step towards standardising future consent research.
BackgroundThe concept of informed consent is fundamental to medical practice. Shortcomings in the process can lead to patient complaints, litigation, unmet expectations and poor outcomes. Consent research has focused on developing tools to improve patient recall and understanding. However, the definitions, methods of measurement and timing of measurement vary widely across the studies that have been done. Although a Cochrane review has reported that many of these interventions appear to work, the high level of heterogeneity in outcome reporting prevents the identification of those interventions that work best and why they do so. It is also not clear which outcomes are most important to each party involved in the consent process and why.Methods/designThis project will develop a core outcome set for assessing the effects of interventions aimed at improving informed consent for surgery and other invasive procedures for adult patients with the capacity to consent for themselves. We will conduct a systematic review of the qualitative and quantitative literature to identify outcomes used to date in consent research and map these into domains. A series of semi-structured key stakeholder interviews will also be used to identify relevant outcomes. These processes will produce a list of potential outcomes for assessing the effects of interventions to improve consent, which will be refined through an international Delphi survey and consensus webinars involving key stakeholders to produce the core outcome set.DiscussionThe ICONS study aims to develop a core outcome set for use in trials and reviews of interventions designed to improve the informed consent process for surgery and other invasive procedures. Our aim is that this core outcome set will reduce the level of selection and reporting bias in consent research and help clinicians to compare tools to improve consent.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2986-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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.