Treatment options for patients with brain metastases (BMs) have limited efficacy and the mortality rate is virtually 100%. Targeted therapy is critically under-utilized, and our understanding of mechanisms underpinning metastatic outgrowth in the brain is limited. To address these deficiencies, we investigated the genomic and transcriptomic landscapes of 36 BMs from breast, lung, melanoma and oesophageal cancers, using DNA copy-number analysis and exome-and RNA-sequencing. The key findings were as follows.

Background Regardless of the benefits associated of the Surgical Safety Checklist, adherence across its three phases remains inconsistent. The aim of this study was to systematically identify issues around workflow that impact on surgical teams’ ability to use the Surgical Safety Checklist in a large tertiary facility in Queensland, Australia. Method Observational audit of 10 surgical teams and 33 semi‐structured interviews with 70 participants from nursing, medicine and the community were conducted. Data were collected during 2014–2015. Inductive and deductive approaches were used to analyse field observations and interview transcripts. Results The domain, impact of workflow on checklist utilization, was identified. Within this domain, seven categories illustrated the causal conditions which determined the ways in which workflow influenced checklist use. These categories included: ‘busy doing the task’; ‘clashing task priorities’; ‘being pressured, running out of time’; ‘adapting processes to work patterns’; ‘doubling up on work’; ‘a domino effect, leading to delays’ and ‘reality of the workflow’. Conclusions One of the greatest systemic challenges to checklist use in surgery is workflow. Process changes in the way that surgical safety checklists are used need to incorporate the temporal demands of the workflow. Any changes made must ensure the process is reliable, is easily embedded into existing work routines and is not disruptive.

BackgroundTeam-based group communications using checklists are widely advocated to achieve shared understandings and improve patient safety. Despite the positive effect checklists have on collaborations and reduced postoperative complications, their use has not been straightforward. Previous research has described contextual factors that impact on the implementation of checklists, however there is limited understanding of the issues that impede team participation in checklist use in surgery. The aim of this prospective study was to identify and describe factors that drive team participation in safety checks in surgery.MethodsWe observed ten surgical teams and conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with 70 participants from nursing, surgery and anaesthetics, and the community. Constant comparative methods were used to analyse textual data derived from field notes and interviews. Observational and interview data were collected during 2014–15.ResultsAnalysis of the textual data generated from the field notes and interviews revealed the extent to which members of the surgical team participated in using the surgical safety checklist during each phase of patient care. These three categories included: ‘using the checklist’; ‘working independently’; and, ‘communicating checks with others’. The phases in the checking process most vulnerable to information loss or omission were sign in and sign out.ConclusionsTeam participation in safety checks depends on a convergence of intertwined factors; namely, team attributes, communication strategies and checking processes. A whole-of-team approach to participation in surgical safety checks is far more complex when considering the factors that drive participation. Strategies to increase participation in safety checks need to target professional communication practices and work processes such as workflow which curtail team members’ ability to participate.

Functional outcomes at 12 months were a secondary outcome of the randomized DECRA trial of early decompressive craniectomy for severe diffuse traumatic brain injury (TBI) and refractory intracranial hypertension. In the DECRA trial, patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to either early decompressive craniectomy or intensive medical therapies (standard care). We conducted planned secondary analyses of the DECRA trial outcomes at 6 and 12 months, including all 155 patients. We measured functional outcome using the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E). We used ordered logistic regression, and dichotomized the GOS-E using logistic regression, to assess outcomes in patients overall and in survivors. We adjusted analyses for injury severity using the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) model. At 12 months, the odds ratio (OR) for worse functional outcomes in the craniectomy group (OR 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96-2.93; p = 0.07) was no longer significant. Unfavorable functional outcomes after craniectomy were 11% higher (59% compared with 48%), but were not significantly different from standard care (OR 1.58; 95% CI: 0.84-2.99; p = 0.16). Among survivors after craniectomy, there were fewer good (OR 0.33; 95% CI: 0.12-0.91; p = 0.03) and more vegetative (OR 5.12; 95% CI: 1.04-25.2; p = 0.04) outcomes. Similar outcomes in survivors were found at 6 months after injury. Vegetative (OR 5.85; 95% CI: 1.21-28.30; p = 0.03) and severely disabled outcomes (OR 2.49; 95% CI: 1.21-5.11; p = 0.01) were increased. Twelve months after severe diffuse TBI and early refractory intracranial hypertension, decompressive craniectomy did not improve outcomes and increased vegetative survivors.

BackgroundThe surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) was introduced in 2008 to improve teamwork and reduce the mortality and morbidity associated with surgery. Although mandated in many health care institutions around the world, challenges in implementation of the SSC continue.To use Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to help understand how/why implementation of a complex intervention coined Pass The Baton (PTB) could help explain what facets of the Surgical Safety Checklist use led to its’ integration in practice, while others were not.MethodsA longitudinal multi-method study using survey and interviews was undertaken. Implementation of PTB involved; change champions, audit and feedback, education and prompts. Following implementation, surgical teams were surveyed using the NOrmalization MeAsure Development (NoMAD) and subsequently interviewed to explore the impact of PTB on their use of the checklist at 6 and 12 months respectively. Respondents’ self-reported perceptions of implementation of PTB was explained using the four NPT constructs; coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Interview data were coded inductively and content analysed using a framework derived from NPT.ResultsThe NoMAD survey response rate was 59/150 (39.3%). Many (45/59, 77.6%) survey respondents saw the value in PTB, while 50/59 (86.2%) would continue to use it; 45/59 (77.6%) believed that PTB could easily be integrated into existing workflows, and 48/59 (82.8%) thought that feedback could improve PTB in the future.A total of 8 interviews were completed with 26 surgical team members. Nurses and physicians held mixed views towards coherence while buy-in and participation relied on individuals’ investment in the implementation process and the ability to modify PTB. Participants generally recognised the benefit and value of using PTB in the ongoing implementation the checklist.ConclusionsWorkarounds and flexible co-construction in implementation designed to improve team communications in surgery may facilitate their normalisation in practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2973-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.