Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Edgbaston, United Kingdom

Chapman S.J.,University of Leeds | Glasbey J.C.D.,University of Cardiff | Khatri C.,Imperial College London | Kelly M.,University of Liverpool | And 3 more authors.
BMC Medical Education | Year: 2015

Background: Medical students often struggle to engage in extra-curricular research and audit. The Student Audit and Research in Surgery (STARSurg) network is a novel student-led, national research collaborative. Student collaborators contribute data to national, clinical studies while gaining an understanding of audit and research methodology and ethical principles. This study aimed to evaluate the educational impact of participation. Methods: Participation in the national, clinical project was supported with training interventions, including an academic training day, an online e-learning module, weekly discussion forums and YouTube® educational videos. A non-mandatory, online questionnaire assessed collaborators' self-reported confidence in performing key academic skills and their perceptions of audit and research prior to and following participation. Results: The group completed its first national clinical study ("STARSurgUK") with 273 student collaborators across 109 hospital centres. Ninety-seven paired pre- and post-study participation responses (35.5%) were received (male = 51.5%; median age = 23). Participation led to increased confidence in key academic domains including: communication with local research governance bodies (p < 0.001), approaching clinical staff to initiate local collaboration (p < 0.001), data collection in a clinical setting (p < 0.001) and presentation of scientific results (p < 0.013). Collaborators also reported an increased appreciation of research, audit and study design (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Engagement with the STARSurg network empowered students to participate in a national clinical study, which increased their confidence and appreciation of academic principles and skills. Encouraging active participation in collaborative, student-led, national studies offers a novel approach for delivering essential academic training. © 2015 Chapman et al.; licensee BioMed Central. Source


Ferguson H.J.M.,West Midlands Research Collaborative | Hall N.J.,University College London | Bhangu A.,West Midlands Research Collaborative
BMJ Quality and Safety | Year: 2014

Background: There is evidence to suggest that patients undergoing treatment at weekends may be subject to different care processes and outcomes compared with weekdays. This study aimed to determine whether clinical outcomes from weekend appendicectomy are different from those performed on weekdays. Method: Multicentre cohort study during May-June 2012 from 95 centres (89 within the UK). The primary outcome was the 30-day adverse event rate. Multilevel modelling was used to account for clustering within hospitals while adjusting for case mix to produce adjusted ORs and 95% CIs. Results: When compared with Monday, there were no significant differences for other days of the week considering 30-day adverse events in adjusted models. On Sunday, rates of simple appendicitis were highest, and rates of normal (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90) and complex appendicitis (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.93) lowest. This was accompanied by a 43% lower likelihood in use of laparoscopy on Sunday (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.69), accompanied by the lowest level of consultant presence for the week. When pooling weekends and weekdays, laparoscopy use remained less likely at the weekend (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83), with no significant difference for 30-day adverse event rate (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.29). Conclusions: This study found that weekend appendicectomy was not associated with increased 30-day adverse events. It cannot rule out smaller increases that may be shown by larger studies. It further illustrated that patients operated on at weekends were subject to different care processes, which may expose them to risk. Source


Chapman S.J.,University of Leeds | Glasbey J.C.D.,University of Cardiff | Khatri C.,Imperial College London | Kelly M.,University of Liverpool | And 3 more authors.
BMC Medical Education | Year: 2015

Background: Medical students often struggle to engage in extra-curricular research and audit. The Student Audit and Research in Surgery (STARSurg) network is a novel student-led, national research collaborative. Student collaborators contribute data to national, clinical studies while gaining an understanding of audit and research methodology and ethical principles. This study aimed to evaluate the educational impact of participation. Methods: Participation in the national, clinical project was supported with training interventions, including an academic training day, an online e-learning module, weekly discussion forums and YouTube® educational videos. A non-mandatory, online questionnaire assessed collaborators' self-reported confidence in performing key academic skills and their perceptions of audit and research prior to and following participation. Results: The group completed its first national clinical study ("STARSurgUK") with 273 student collaborators across 109 hospital centres. Ninety-seven paired pre- and post-study participation responses (35.5%) were received (male = 51.5%; median age = 23). Participation led to increased confidence in key academic domains including: communication with local research governance bodies (p < 0.001), approaching clinical staff to initiate local collaboration (p < 0.001), data collection in a clinical setting (p < 0.001) and presentation of scientific results (p < 0.013). Collaborators also reported an increased appreciation of research, audit and study design (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Engagement with the STARSurg network empowered students to participate in a national clinical study, which increased their confidence and appreciation of academic principles and skills. Encouraging active participation in collaborative, student-led, national studies offers a novel approach for delivering essential academic training. © 2015 Chapman et al.; licensee BioMed Central. Source


Singh P.,West Midlands Research Collaborative | Turner E.J.H.,London Surgical Research Group | Cornish J.,Welsh Barber Surg Research Group | Bhangu A.,West Midlands Research Collaborative
Surgery (United States) | Year: 2014

Background Resident surgeons have been identified as a risk factor for worse outcome after appendectomy. The context of grade of resident and impact of supervision require further investigation. The objective of this study was to determine whether grade and supervision level of resident-performed appendectomy affects patient outcome. Methods A multicenter, prospective cohort study was performed for consecutive patients undergoing appendectomy during May and June 2013. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the 30-day adverse event rate. Supervision was defined as resident-performed appendectomy with an attending scrubbed. Multivariable binary logistic regression was used to take into account case mix and produce adjusted odds ratios (OR). Results From 2,867 appendectomies, 87% were performed by residents, and 72% were performed unsupervised. Residents operated on significantly younger patients with lower American Society of Anesthesiologists scores. Although wound infection rates were similar between attendings, and senior and junior residents (4.1%, 3.8%, 3.4% respectively; P =.486), pelvic abscess rate was greater for attendings (5.2%, 2.7%, 2.4%; P =.045). In adjusted models, supervised senior, supervised junior, and unsupervised junior residents showed no difference in 30-day adverse event rates compared with attendings (OR, 1.07 [P =.834], 0.93 [P =.773], and 0.83 [P =.264] respectively); unsupervised senior residents had a lesser rate of adverse events (OR, 0.71; P =.045). All resident groups showed no difference for rates of histopathologically normal appendectomy compared with attendings. Conclusion Resident-performed appendectomy does not worsen patient outcomes. These findings support independent resident operating rights for selected cases. The system relies on mutual credentialing of competency between residents and supervising attendings. © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved. Source


Bhangu A.,West Midlands Research Collaborative | Singh P.,West Midlands Research Collaborative | Pinkney T.,West Midlands Research Collaborative | Blazeby J.M.,University of Bristol
Hernia | Year: 2015

Introduction: Evidence is needed to justify whether investment in an internationally agreed core outcome set for inguinal hernia surgery is needed. This study aimed to assess outcome reporting from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses in inguinal hernia surgery.Methods: RCTs and meta-analyses comparing surgical technique or mesh type for primary inguinal hernia repair were systematically identified. Verbatim details, type, frequency and definition of clinician-observed and -assessed outcomes were summarised. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analysed for instrument validity and frequency of domain reporting.Results: 40 RCTs (10,810 patients) and 7 meta-analyses (17,280 patients) were identified. No single PROM was reported by all studies. There were 58 different clinician-observed outcomes, with recurrence (n = 47, 100 %), wound infection (n = 33, 70.2 %), haematoma (n = 31, 77.5 %) and seroma formation (n = 22, 46.8 %) being most frequently reported. All studies measured patients’ views, although only 12 (30.0 %) used validated instruments. The SF36 was the most commonly used multi-dimensional valid PROM (n = 7), and a visual analogue scale assessing pain (n = 32) was the most frequently used unidimensional scale. Non-validated questionnaires assessed 25 other aspects of patients’ health. Two meta-analyses defined recurrence and three chronic pain although neither ensured that included RCTs adhered to the definitions.Conclusions: Outcome reporting from RCTs concerning inguinal hernia repair is inconsistent and poorly defined, limiting meta-analyses, which themselves do not control for the differing definitions of assessed outcomes. This study justifies investment in a standardised core outcome set for inguinal hernia surgery, to improve outcome reporting and evidence synthesis. © 2014, Springer-Verlag France. Source

Discover hidden collaborations