Use the links below to access our reports, or scroll down to use the search function to explore all of our publications including peer-reviewed papers and briefing papers.
Browse all publications
- Showing results for:
- Reset all filters
Journal articleNeves AL, Lawrence-Jones A, Naar L, et al., 2020,
Multidisciplinary teams must work together to co-develop inclusive digital primary care for older people, British Journal of General Practice, Vol: 70, Pages: 582-582, ISSN: 0960-1643
Journal articleSuwa Y, Joshi M, Poynter L, et al., 2020,
Obese patients and robotic colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis, BJS Open, Vol: 4, Pages: 1042-1053, ISSN: 2474-9842
BackgroundObesity is a major health problem, demonstrated to double the risk of colorectal cancer. The benefits of robotic colorectal surgery in obese patients remain largely unknown. This meta‐analysis evaluated the clinical and pathological outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery in obese and non‐obese patients.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and Midwives Information and Resources Service (MIDIRS) databases were searched on 1 August 2018 with no language restriction. Meta‐analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Obese patients (BMI 30 kg/m2 or above) undergoing robotic colorectal cancer resections were compared with non‐obese patients. Included outcome measures were: operative outcomes (duration of surgery, conversion to laparotomy, blood loss), postoperative complications, hospital length of stay and pathological outcomes (number of retrieved lymph nodes, positive circumferential resection margins and length of distal margin in rectal surgery).ResultsA total of 131 full‐text articles were reviewed, of which 12 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. There were 3166 non‐obese and 1420 obese patients. A longer duration of surgery was documented in obese compared with non‐obese patients (weighted mean difference −21·99 (95 per cent c.i. −31·52 to −12·46) min; P < 0·001). Obese patients had a higher rate of conversion to laparotomy than non‐obese patients (odds ratio 1·99, 95 per cent c.i. 1·54 to 2·56; P < 0·001). Blood loss, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and pathological outcomes were not significantly different in obese and non‐obese patients.ConclusionRobotic surgery in obese patients results in a significantly longer duration of surgery and higher conversion rates than in non‐obese patients. Further studies should focus on bette
Journal articleGrimes TC, Garfield S, Kelly D, et al., 2020,
Household medication safety practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive qualitative study protocol, BMJ Open, Vol: 10, Pages: 1-6, ISSN: 2044-6055
Introduction Those who are staying at home and reducing contact with other people during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to be at greater risk of medication-related problems than the general population. This study aims to explore household medication practices by and for this population, identify practices that benefit or jeopardise medication safety and develop best practice guidance about household medication safety practices during a pandemic, grounded in individual experiences.Methods and analysis This is a descriptive qualitative study using semistructured interviews, by telephone or video call. People who have been advised to ‘cocoon’/‘shield’ and/or are aged 70 years or over and using at least one long-term medication, or their caregivers, will be eligible for inclusion. We will recruit 100 patient/carer participants: 50 from the UK and 50 from Ireland. Recruitment will be supported by our patient and public involvement (PPI) partners, personal networks and social media. Individual participant consent will be sought, and interviews audio/video recorded and/or detailed notes made. A constructivist interpretivist approach to data analysis will involve use of the constant comparative method to organise the data, along with inductive analysis. From this, we will iteratively develop best practice guidance about household medication safety practices during a pandemic from the patient’s/carer’s perspective.Ethics and dissemination This study has Trinity College Dublin, University of Limerick and University College London ethics approvals. We plan to disseminate our findings via presentations at relevant patient/public, professional, academic and scientific meetings, and for publication in peer-reviewed journals. We will create a list of helpful strategies that participants have reported and share this with participants, PPI partners and on social media.
Journal articleNeves AL, Freise L, Laranjo L, et al., 2020,
Impact of providing patients access to electronic health records on quality and safety of care: a systematic review and meta-analysis, BMJ Quality and Safety, Vol: 29, Pages: 1019-1032, ISSN: 2044-5415
Objective To evaluate the impact of sharing electronic health records (EHRs) with patients and map it across six domains of quality of care (ie, patient-centredness, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, equity and safety).Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, HMIC, Medline/PubMed and PsycINFO, from 1997 to 2017.Eligibility criteria Randomised trials focusing on adult subjects, testing an intervention consisting of sharing EHRs with patients, and with an outcome in one of the six domains of quality of care.Data analysis The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Title and abstract screening were performed by two pairs of investigators and assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. For each domain, a narrative synthesis of the results was performed, and significant differences in results between low risk and high/unclear risk of bias studies were tested (t-test, p<0.05). Continuous outcomes evaluated in four studies or more (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)) were pooled as weighted mean difference (WMD) using random effects meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses were performed for low risk of bias studies, and long-term interventions only (lasting more than 12 months).Results Twenty studies were included (17 387 participants). The domain most frequently assessed was effectiveness (n=14), and the least were timeliness and equity (n=0). Inconsistent results were found for patient-centredness outcomes (ie, satisfaction, activation, self-efficacy, empowerment or health literacy), with 54.5% of the studies (n=6) demonstrating a beneficial effect. Meta-analyses showed a beneficial effect in effectiveness by reducing absolute values of HbA1c (unit: %; WMD=−0.316; 95% CI −0.540 to −0.093, p=0.005, I2=0%), which remained significant in the sensitivity analyses for low risk of bias s
ReportThompson D, Leis M, Davies N, et al., 2020,
Building healthy societies: A framework for integrating health and health promotion into education, Publisher: The World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH)
The report explores how health activities can be implemented into education systems to deliver improved health outcomes.
ReportRoland J, Lawrance E, Insel T, et al., 2020,
The digital mental health revolution: Transforming care through innovation and scale-up, Publisher: The World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH)
The report reviews how to prepare and navigate innovations and their potential to address critical health needs.
Journal articleShaw A, Flott K, Fontana G, et al., 2020,
No patient safety without health worker safety Comment, The Lancet, Vol: 396, Pages: 1541-1543, ISSN: 0140-6736
Journal articleGreenhalgh T, Thompson P, Weiringa S, et al., 2020,
What items should be included in an early warning score for remote assessment of suspected COVID-19? qualitative and Delphi study, BMJ Open, Vol: 10, Pages: 1-26, ISSN: 2044-6055
Background To develop items for an early warning score (RECAP: REmote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care) for patients with suspected COVID-19 who need escalation to next level of care.Methods The study was based in UK primary healthcare. The mixed-methods design included rapid review, Delphi panel, interviews, focus groups and software development. Participants were 112 primary care clinicians and 50 patients recovered from COVID-19, recruited through social media, patient groups and snowballing. Using rapid literature review, we identified signs and symptoms which are commoner in severe COVID-19. Building a preliminary set of items from these, we ran four rounds of an online Delphi panel with 72 clinicians, the last incorporating fictional vignettes, collating data on R software. We refined the items iteratively in response to quantitative and qualitative feedback. Items in the penultimate round were checked against narrative interviews with 50 COVID-19 patients. We required, for each item, at least 80% clinician agreement on relevance, wording and cut-off values, and that the item addressed issues and concerns raised by patients. In focus groups, 40 clinicians suggested further refinements and discussed workability of the instrument in relation to local resources and care pathways. This informed design of an electronic template for primary care systems.Results The prevalidation RECAP-V0 comprises a red flag alert box and 10 assessment items: pulse, shortness of breath or respiratory rate, trajectory of breathlessness, pulse oximeter reading (with brief exercise test if appropriate) or symptoms suggestive of hypoxia, temperature or fever symptoms, duration of symptoms, muscle aches, new confusion, shielded list and known risk factors for poor outcome. It is not yet known how sensitive or specific it is.Conclusions Items on RECAP-V0 align strongly with published evidence, clinical judgement and patient experience. The validation phase of this study is ongoing.Tria
Journal articleArezzo A, Francis N, Mintz Y, et al., 2020,
EAES recommendations for recovery plan in minimally invasive surgery amid COVID-19 pandemic, SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, Vol: 35, Pages: 1-17, ISSN: 0930-2794
BackgroundCOVID-19 pandemic presented an unexpected challenge for the surgical community in general and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) specialists in particular. This document aims to summarize recent evidence and experts’ opinion and formulate recommendations to guide the surgical community on how to best organize the recovery plan for surgical activity across different sub-specialities after the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsRecommendations were developed through a Delphi process for establishment of expert consensus. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different surgical specialities following the COVID-19 crisis. Sixty-five experts from 24 countries, representing the entire EAES board, were invited. Fifty clinicians and six engineers accepted the invitation and drafted statements based on specific key questions. Anonymous voting on the statements was performed until consensus was achieved, defined by at least 70% agreement.ResultsA total of 92 consensus statements were formulated with regard to safe resumption of surgery across eight domains, addressing general surgery, upper GI, lower GI, bariatrics, endocrine, HPB, abdominal wall and technology/research. The statements addressed elective and emergency services across all subspecialties with specific attention to the role of MIS during the recovery plan. Eighty-four of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting (91.3%) and another 8 during the following round after substantial modification, resulting in a 100% consensus.ConclusionThe recommendations formulated by the EAES board establish a framework for resumption of surgery following COVID-19 pandemic with particular focus on the role of MIS across surgical specialities. The statements have the potential for wide application in the clinical setting, education activities and research work across different healthcare systems.
ReportO'Brien N, Martin G, Grass E, et al., 2020,
Safeguarding our healthcare systems: A global framework for cybersecurity, Publisher: World Innovation Summit for Health
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.