Accuracy of the Wound Healing Questionnaire in the diagnosis of surgical-site infection after abdominal surgery in low- and middle-income countries

INTRODUCTION

Telemedicine is being adopted for postoperative surveillance but requires evaluation for efficacy. This study tested a telephone Wound Healing Questionnaire (WHQ) to diagnose surgical site infection (SSI) after abdominal surgery in low- and middle-income countries.

METHOD

A multi-centre, international, prospective study was embedded in the FALCON trial; a factorial RCT testing measures to reduce SSI in seven low- and middle-income countries (NCT03700749). It was conducted according to a pre-registered protocol (SWAT126) and reported according to STARD guidelines. The reference test was in-person review by a trained clinician at 30 postoperative days according to US Centres for Disease Control criteria. The index test was telephone administration of an adapted WHQ at 27 to 30 postoperative days by a researcher blinded to the outcome of in-person review. The sum of item response scores generated an overall score between 0 and 29. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of the WHQ, defined as the proportion of SSI correctly identified by the telephone WHQ, and summarized using the area under the receiving operator characteristic curve (AUROC) and diagnostic test accuracy statistics.

RESULTS

Patients were included from three upper-middle income (396 patients, 13 hospitals), three lower-middle income (746 patients, 19 hospitals), and one low-income country (54 patients, 4 hospitals). 90.3% (1088 of 1196) patients were successfully contacted. Those with non-midline incisions (adjusted odds ratio: 0.36, 95% c.i. 0.17 to 0.73, P=0.005) or a confirmed diagnosis of SSI on in-person assessment (odds ratio: 0.42, 95% c.i. 0.20 to 0.92, P=0.006) were harder to reach. The questionnaire correctly discriminated between most patients with and without SSI (AUROC 0.869, 95% c.i. 0.824 to 0.914), which was consistent across subgroups. A representative cut-off score of ≥4 displayed a sensitivity of 0.701 (0.610-0.792), specificity of 0.911 (0.878-0.943), positive predictive value of 0.723 (0.633-0.814) and negative predictive value of 0.901 (0.867-0.935).

CONCLUSION

SSI can be diagnosed using a telephone questionnaire (obviating in-person assessment) in low resource settings.

Supported Intervention Versus Intervention Alone for Management of Fecal Incontinence in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Multicenter Mixed-Methods Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to test a noninvasive self-management intervention supported by specialist nurses versus intervention alone in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) experiencing fecal incontinence and to conduct a qualitative evaluation of the trial.

DESIGN

Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, mixed-methods randomized controlled trial (RCT).

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

The sample comprised patients from a preceding case-finding study who reported fecal incontinence and met study requirements; the RCT was delivered via IBD outpatient clinics in 6 hospitals (5 in major UK cities, 1 rural) between September 2015 and August 2017. Sixteen participants and 11 staff members were interviewed for qualitative evaluation.

METHODS

Adults with IBD completed the study activities over a 3-month period following randomization. Each participant received either four 30-minute structured sessions with an IBD clinical nurse specialist and a self-management booklet or the booklet alone. Low retention numbers precluded statistical analysis; individual face-to-face or telephone interviews, recorded digitally and transcribed professionally, were conducted to evaluate the RCT. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using an inductive method.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven participants (36%) of the targeted 186 participants were recruited. The groups comprised 32 participants (17% of targeted participants) allocated to the nurse + booklet intervention and 35 (18.8% of targeted participants) allocated to the booklet alone. Less than one-third (n = 21, 31.3%) completed the study. Given the low recruitment and high attrition, statistical analysis of quantitative data was considered futile. Participant interviews were conducted concerning study participation and 4 themes emerged that described experiences of patients and staff. These data provided insights into reasons for low recruitment and high attrition, as well as challenges of delivering resource-heavy studies in busy health service environments.

CONCLUSIONS

Alternative approaches to trials of nurse-led interventions in hospital settings are needed as many interfering factors may prevent successful completion.

Development and initial psychometric validation of a patient-reported outcome measure for Crohn's perianal fistula: the Crohn's Anal Fistula Quality of Life (CAF-QoL) scale

INTRODUCTION

Crohn's perianal fistulas are challenging for patients and clinicians. Many do not respond to available treatments and despite recommendations by a global consensus, there are currently no specific patient-derived quality of life tools to measure response to treatment. We present a new validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for this complicated disease phenotype.

METHODS

A draft questionnaire was generated using unstructured qualitative patient interviews on the experience of living with Crohn's perianal fistula, a nationwide multidisciplinary consensus exercise, a systematic review of outcomes assessing medical/surgical/combined treatment and a patient and public involvement day. Psychometric properties were assessed including construct validity (by comparison with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (UK-IBDQ)), and reliability and responsiveness was assessed by test-retest analysis.

RESULTS

Data from 211 patients contributed to development of a final 28-item questionnaire. The Crohn's Anal Fistula Quality of Life (CAF-QoL) demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.88), excellent stability (intraclass correlation 0.98) and good responsiveness and construct validity, with positive correlation with the UK-IBDQ and HADS.

CONCLUSION

The CAF-QoL scale is ready for use as a PROM in research and clinical practice. It complements objective clinical evaluation of fistula by capturing impact on the patient.

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

BACKGROUND

80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality.

METHODS

This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494.

FINDINGS

Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70-8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39-8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11-3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26-11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08-7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications.

INTERPRETATION

Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit.

Burden of disease and adaptation to life in patients with Crohn's perianal fistula: a qualitative exploration

BACKGROUND

Perianal fistulas are a challenging manifestation of Crohn's disease. Best medical and surgical therapy results in only about a third of patients remaining in remission at one year on maintenance treatment and sustained healing is often elusive. There is little published data on patient perspective of living with the condition or coping strategies in the face of non-curative/non-definitive treatment. We aimed to understand the experience of living with perianal fistula(s) and their impact on quality of life and routine functioning.

METHODS

This exploratory qualitative study used purposive sampling to recruit participants with current / previous diagnosis of Crohn's anal fistulas, from national IBD / bowel disease charities. The "standards for reporting qualitative research" (SRQR) recommendations were followed. Unstructured individual face-to-face interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Early themes were reviewed by the study team including patient advocates, clinicians and qualitative researchers.

RESULTS

Twelve interviews were conducted, achieving apparent data saturation. Three broad themes were uncovered: Burden of symptoms; Burden of treatment; and Impact on emotional, physical and social well-being. Each included several sub-themes, with considerable interplay between these. The impact of perianal fistula(s) on patients with CD is intense and wide reaching, negatively affecting intimate, close and social relationships. Fistulas cause losses in life and work-related opportunities, and treatments can be difficult to tolerate.

CONCLUSION

Crohn's perianal fistulas exert a heavy negative physical and emotional impact on patients. These findings will inform development of a patient reported outcome measure to assess treatment effectiveness and quality of life for patients living with this challenging condition.

Early Detection for Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on the early detection of colorectal cancer in four tiers to clinicians, patients, and caregivers.

METHODS

American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (Consensus Ratings Group) for two round(s) of formal ratings.

RESULTS

Existing sets of guidelines from eight guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations form the evidence base. These guidelines, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more.

CONCLUSION

In nonmaximal settings, for people who are asymptomatic, are ages 50 to 75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the following screening options are recommended: guaiac fecal occult blood test and fecal immunochemical testing (basic), flexible sigmoidoscopy (add option in limited), and colonoscopy (add option in enhanced). Optimal reflex testing strategy for persons with positive screens is as follows: endoscopy; if not available, barium enema (basic or limited). Management of polyps in enhanced is as follows: colonoscopy, polypectomy; if not suitable, then surgical resection. For workup and diagnosis of people with symptoms, physical exam with digital rectal examination, double contrast barium enema (only in basic and limited); colonoscopy; flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy (if contraindication to latter) or computed tomography colonography if contraindications to two endoscopies (enhanced only).

Treatment of Patients With Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on the treatment and follow-up of patients with early-stage colorectal cancer.

METHODS

ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel that reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus process with additional experts for one round of formal ratings.

RESULTS

Existing sets of guidelines from 12 guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations from six guidelines form the evidence base and provide evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more on all recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For nonmaximal settings, the recommended treatments for colon cancer stages nonobstructing, I-IIA: in basic and limited, open resection; in enhanced, adequately trained surgeons and laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery, unless contraindicated. Treatments for IIB-IIC: in basic and limited, open en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles, if not possible, transfer to higher-level facility; in emergency, limit to life-saving procedures; in enhanced, laparoscopic en bloc resection, if not possible, then open. Treatments for obstructing, IIB-IIC: in basic, resection and/or diversion; in limited or enhanced, emergency surgical resection. Treatment for IIB-IIC with left-sided: in enhanced, may place colonic stent. Treatment for T4N0/T3N0 high-risk features or stage II high-risk obstructing: in enhanced, may offer adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment for rectal cancer cT1N0 and cT2n0: in basic, limited, or enhanced, total mesorectal excision principles. Treatment for cT3n0: in basic and limited, total mesorectal excision, if not, diversion. Treatment for high-risk patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: in basic, limited, or enhanced, may offer adjuvant therapy. Treatment for resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer: in enhanced, base neoadjuvant chemotherapy on preoperative factors. For post-treatment surveillance, a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy is performed. Frequency depends on setting. Maximal setting recommendations are in the guideline. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines.

NOTICE

It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guidelines are intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting (LaCeS trial): a multicentre randomized feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Approximately 30 000 people undergo major emergency abdominal gastrointestinal surgery annually, and 36 per cent of these procedures (around 10 800) are carried out for emergency colorectal pathology. Some 14 per cent of all patients requiring emergency surgery have a laparoscopic procedure. The aims of the LaCeS (laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting) feasibility trial were to assess the feasibility, safety and acceptability of performing a large-scale definitive phase III RCT, with a comparison of emergency laparoscopic versus open surgery for acute colorectal pathology.

METHODS

LaCeS was designed as a prospective, multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group, pragmatic feasibility RCT with an integrated qualitative study. Randomization was undertaken centrally, with patients randomized on a 1 : 1 basis between laparoscopic or open surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients were recruited across five centres. The overall mean steady-state recruitment rate was 1·2 patients per month per site. Baseline compliance for clinical and health-related quality-of-life data was 99·8 and 93·8 per cent respectively. The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 39 (95 per cent c.i. 23 to 58) per cent. The 30-day postoperative complication rate was 27 (13 to 46) per cent in the laparoscopic arm and 42 (25 to 61) per cent in the open arm.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic emergency colorectal surgery may have an acceptable safety profile. Registration number: ISRCTN15681041 ( http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Patient deprivation and perceived scan burden negatively impact the quality of whole-body MRI

AIM

To evaluate the association between the image quality of cancer staging whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) and patient demographics, distress, and perceived scan burden.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A sample of patients recruited prospectively to multicentre trials comparing WB-MRI with standard scans for staging lung and colorectal cancer were invited to complete two questionnaires. The baseline questionnaire, administered at recruitment, collated data on demographics, distress and co-morbidity. The follow-up questionnaire, completed after staging investigations, measured perceived WB-MRI scan burden (scored 1 low to 7 high). WB-MRI anatomical coverage, and technical quality was graded by a radiographic technician and grading combined to categorise the scan as "optimal", "sub-optimal" or "degraded". A radiologist categorised 30 scans to test interobserver agreement. Data were analysed using the chi-square, Fisher's exact, t-tests, and multinomial regression.

RESULTS

One hundred and fourteen patients were included in the study (53 lung, 61 colorectal; average age 65.3 years, SD=11.8; 66 men [57.9%]). Overall, 45.6% (n=52), scans were classified as "optimal" quality, 39.5% (n=45) "sub-optimal", and 14.9% (n=17) as "degraded". In adjusted analyses, greater deprivation level and higher patient-reported scan burden were both associated with a higher likelihood of having a sub-optimal versus an optimal scan (odds ratio [OR]: 4.465, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.454 to 13.709, p=0.009; OR: 1.987, CI: 1.153 to 3.425, p=0.013, respectively). None of the variables predicted the likelihood of having a degraded scan.

CONCLUSIONS

Deprivation and patients' perceived experience of the WB-MRI are related to image quality. Tailored protocols and individualised patient management before and during WB-MRI may improve image quality.

International Consensus Definition of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Low anterior resection syndrome is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The low anterior resection syndrome score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of low anterior resection syndrome. Although the low anterior resection syndrome score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders.

DESIGN

This international patient-provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting.

PARTICIPANTS

Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons, and other health professionals from 5 regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in 3 languages (English, Spanish, and Danish).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of low anterior resection syndrome.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96%, and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to 8 symptoms and 8 consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome.

LIMITATIONS

Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first definition of low anterior resection syndrome developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of low anterior resection syndrome. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in low anterior resection syndrome over time and with intervention.

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome

AIM

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders.

METHOD

This international patient-provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this.

CONCLUSION

This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention.

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome

BACKGROUND

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders.

METHODS

This international patient-provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS.

RESULTS

Three hundred and twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention.

Emergency general surgeons, subspeciality surgeons and the future management of emergency surgery: results of a national survey

AIM

This study aimed to survey consultants' experience of working as or with emergency general surgery (EGS) surgeons and to investigate the role they fulfil in the management of general and subspeciality emergencies.

METHOD

An electronic survey, designed to capture both quantitative and qualitative data, was piloted and then circulated to members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-two responses were received from 848 recipients (a 29% response rate) covering 104 of 135 (77%) acute NHS Trusts in England. EGS surgeons were in post in 43/141 (30%) hospitals overall and 12/24 (50%) of hospitals in London. Most respondents working in units with EGS surgeons found them to be advantageous (46/63, 73%). Consultants working with EGS surgeons were significantly more likely to support their use (49/63, 78%) than those without them (83/178, 47%) (χ²  = 16.9, P < 0.001). EGS surgeons were considered to improve the delivery of EGS (78%), create time for subspecialists (70%) and provide service (73%). However, there were concerns about the quality of surgery (43%), an insufficient standard of specialist care (54%) and compromise in the training of juniors (25%). Respondents commented on a lack of job structure with a high attrition rate (21%), the insufficient quality of applicants (18%) and that subspecialization and split on-call was preferable (17%).

CONCLUSION

Respondents were supportive of the ability of EGS surgeons to relieve pressure on subspecialists; however, there were significant concerns about the sustainability and quality of the EGS surgeon role. Emergency colorectal resections should have the input of a surgeon who performs elective colorectal resections.

National prospective cohort study of the burden of acute small bowel obstruction

Background

Small bowel obstruction is a common surgical emergency, and is associated with high levels of morbidity and mortality across the world. The literature provides little information on the conservatively managed group. The aim of this study was to describe the burden of small bowel obstruction in the UK.

Methods

This prospective cohort study was conducted in 131 acute hospitals in the UK between January and April 2017, delivered by trainee research collaboratives. Adult patients with a diagnosis of mechanical small bowel obstruction were included. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included complications, unplanned intensive care admission and readmission within 30 days of discharge. Practice measures, including use of radiological investigations, water soluble contrast, operative and nutritional interventions, were collected.

Results

Of 2341 patients identified, 693 (29·6 per cent) underwent immediate surgery (within 24 h of admission), 500 (21·4 per cent) had delayed surgery after initial conservative management, and 1148 (49·0 per cent) were managed non‐operatively. The mortality rate was 6·6 per cent (6·4 per cent for non‐operative management, 6·8 per cent for immediate surgery, 6·8 per cent for delayed surgery; P = 0·911). The major complication rate was 14·4 per cent overall, affecting 19·0 per cent in the immediate surgery, 23·6 per cent in the delayed surgery and 7·7 per cent in the non‐operative management groups (P < 0·001). Cox regression found hernia or malignant aetiology and malnutrition to be associated with higher rates of death. Malignant aetiology, operative intervention, acute kidney injury and malnutrition were associated with increased risk of major complication.

Conclusion

Small bowel obstruction represents a significant healthcare burden. Patient‐level factors such as timing of surgery, acute kidney injury and nutritional status are factors that might be modified to improve outcomes.

Developing a core outcome set for fistulising perianal Crohn's disease

OBJECTIVE

Lack of standardised outcomes hampers effective analysis and comparison of data when comparing treatments in fistulising perianal Crohn's disease (pCD). Development of a standardised set of outcomes would resolve these issues. This study provides the definitive core outcome set (COS) for fistulising pCD.

DESIGN

Candidate outcomes were generated through a systematic review and patient interviews. Consensus was established via a three-round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale based on how important they felt it was in determining treatment success culminating in a final consensus meeting. Stakeholders were recruited nationally and grouped into three panels (surgeons and radiologists, gastroenterologists and IBD specialist nurses, and patients). Participants received feedback from their panel (in the second round) and all participants (in the third round) to allow refinement of their scores.

RESULTS

A total of 295 outcomes were identified from systematic reviews and interviews that were categorised into 92 domains. 187 stakeholders (response rate 78.5%) prioritised 49 outcomes through a three-round Delphi study. The final consensus meeting of 41 experts and patients generated agreement on an eight domain COS. The COS comprised three patient-reported outcome domains (quality of life, incontinence and a combined score of patient priorities) and five clinician-reported outcome domains (perianal disease activity, development of new perianal abscess/sepsis, new/recurrent fistula, unplanned surgery and faecal diversion).

CONCLUSION

A fistulising pCD COS has been produced by all key stakeholders. Application of the COS will reduce heterogeneity in outcome reporting, thereby facilitating more meaningful comparisons between treatments, data synthesis and ultimately benefit patient care.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in surgery for inflammatory bowel disease

AIM

There is a requirement of an expansive and up to date review of surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can dovetail with the medical guidelines produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology.

METHODS

Surgeons who are members of the ACPGBI with a recognised interest in IBD were invited to contribute various sections of the guidelines. They were directed to produce a procedure based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. An editorial board was convened to ensure consistency of style, presentation and quality. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after 2 votes were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

All aspects of surgical care for IBD have been included along with 157 recommendations for management.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of IBD and will serve as a useful practical text for clinicians performing this type of surgery.

Feasibility of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting: the LaCeS feasibility trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Acute colorectal surgery forms a significant proportion of emergency admissions within the National Health Service. There is limited evidence to suggest minimally invasive surgery may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in this cohort of patients. Consequently, there is a need to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in the acute colorectal setting. However,emergency colorectal surgical trials have previously been difficult to conduct due to issues surrounding recruitment and equipoise. The LaCeS (randomised controlled trial of Laparoscopic versus open Colorectal Surgery in the acute setting) feasibility trial will determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive, phase III trial of laparoscopic versus open acute colorectal resection.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The LaCeS feasibility trial is a prospective, multicentre, single-blinded, parallel group, pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive eitherlaparoscopic or open surgery. The trial aims to recruit at least 66 patients from five acute general surgical units across the UK. Patients over the age of 18 with a diagnosis of acute colorectal pathology requiring resection on clinical and radiological/endoscopic investigations, with a National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death classification of urgent will be considered eligible for participation. The primary outcome is recruitment. Secondary outcomes include assessing the safety profile of laparoscopic surgery using intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, conversion rates and patient-safety indicators as surrogate markers. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes will also be reported. The trial will contain an embedded qualitative study to assess clinician and patient acceptability of trial processes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The LaCeS feasibility trial is approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber, Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 15/ YH/0542). The results from the trial will be presented at national and international colorectal conferences and will be submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN15681041; Pre-results.

Patient Decision-Making About Emergency and Planned Stoma Surgery for IBD: A Qualitative Exploration of Patient and Clinician Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Many inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients worry about stoma-forming surgery (SFS), sometimes enduring poor bowel-related quality of life to avoid it. Anticipation of SFS and whether expectations match experience is underreported. This qualitative study explored influences on patients' SFS decision-making and compared preoperative concerns with postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

We purposively recruited participants with IBD from UK hospital outpatient and community sources, and IBD clinicians from public hospitals. Four focus groups, 29 semistructured patient participant interviews, and 18 clinician interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Participants had a current temporary, recently-reversed, or permanent stoma, or were stoma naive.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged: Preoperative concerns and expectations, Patient decision-making, Surgery and recovery, and Long-term outcomes. Participants and clinicians agreed about most preoperative concerns, that outcomes were often better than expected, and support from others with a stoma is beneficial. Patient decision-making involves multiple factors, including disease status. Some clinicians avoid discussing SFS, and the phrase 'last resort' can bias patient perceptions; others recommend early discussion, increasing dialogue when medical management becomes ineffective. The postoperative period is particularly challenging for patients. Stoma acceptance is influenced by personal perceptions and pre- and postoperative clinical and social support.

CONCLUSION

Patients need balanced information on all treatment options, including surgery, from an early stage. Early multidisciplinary team dialogue about SFS, and contact with others living well with a stoma, could enable informed decision-making. Life with a stoma is often better than anticipated, improving quality of life and control. Ongoing specialist nursing support aids recovery and adjustment.

What Are the Top 10 Research Questions in the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease? A Priority Setting Partnership with the James Lind Alliance

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Many uncertainties remain regarding optimal therapies and strategies for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Setting research priorities addressing therapies requires a partnership between health care professionals, patients and organisations supporting patients. We aimed to use the structure of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership, which has been used in other disease areas, to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about treatments for inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

The James Lind Priority Setting Partnership uses methods agreed and adopted in other disease areas to work with patients and clinicians: to identify uncertainties about treatments; to agree by consensus a prioritised list of uncertainties for research; then to translate these uncertainties into research questions which are amenable to hypothesis testing; and finally to take results to research commissioning bodies to be considered for funding.

RESULTS

A total of 1636 uncertainties were collected in the initial survey from 531 respondents, which included 22% health care professionals and 78% patients and carers. Using the rigorously applied processes of the priority setting partnership, this list was distilled down to the top 10 research priorities for inflammatory bowel disease. The top priorities were: identifying treatment strategies to optimise efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness; and stratifying patients with regard to their disease course and treatment response. Diet and symptom control [pain, incontinence and fatigue] were also topics which were prioritised.

CONCLUSIONS

A partnership involving multidisciplinary clinicians, patients and organisations supporting patients has identified the top 10 research priorities in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

A national patient and public colorectal research agenda: integration of consumer perspectives in bowel disease through early consultation

AIM

There is a recognized need to include the views of patients and the public in prioritizing health research. This study aimed: (i) to explore patients' views on colorectal research; and (ii) to prioritize research topics with patients and the public.

METHOD

In phase 1, 12 charitable organizations and patient groups with an interest in bowel disease were invited to attend a consultation exercise. Participants were briefed on 25 colorectal research topics prioritized by members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. Focus groups were conducted and discussions were recorded with field notes. Analysis was conducted using principles of thematic analysis. In phase 2, a free public consultation was undertaken. Participants were recruited from newspaper advertisements, were briefed on the same research topics and were asked to rate the importance of each on a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were used to rank the topics. Univariable linear regression compared recorded demographic details with mean topic scores.

RESULTS

Focus groups were attended by 12 patients who highlighted the importance of patient-centred information for trial recruitment and when selecting outcome measures. Some 360 people attended the public consultation, of whom 277 (77%) were recruited. Participants rated 'What is the best way to treat early cancer in the back passage?' highest, with 227 (85%) scoring it 4 or 5. There was no correlation between participant demographics and mean topic scores.

CONCLUSION

The present study prioritized a colorectal research agenda with the input of patients and the public. Further research is required to translate this agenda into real improvements in patient care.

Faecal incontinence intervention study (FINS): self-management booklet information with or without nurse support to improve continence in people with inflammatory bowel disease: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel disease, comprising Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, is a life-long currently incurable illness. It causes bouts of acute intestinal inflammation, in an unpredictable relapsing-remitting course, with bloody diarrhoea and extreme urgency to access a toilet. Faecal incontinence is a devastating social and hygiene problem, impacting heavily on quality of life and ability to work and socialise. Faecal incontinence affects 2-10 % of adults in the general population. People with inflammatory bowel disease have a high risk of incontinence with up to 74 % affected. No previous study has explored conservative interventions for these patients.

METHODS

This randomised controlled trial will recruit 186 participants to answer the research question: does implementation of the UK nationally recommended guidance approach to stepwise management of faecal incontinence improve bowel control and quality of life in people with inflammatory bowel disease? We have worked with people with inflammatory bowel disease to translate this guidance into a condition-specific information booklet on managing incontinence. We will randomise participants to receive the booklet, or the booklet plus up to four 30-minute sessions with an inflammatory bowel disease specialist nurse. To be eligible, patients must be in disease remission and report incontinence. The primary outcome measure at 6 months after randomisation is the St Mark's incontinence score. Other outcomes include quality of life, MY-MOP (generic tool: participants set two goals for intervention, grading goals at baseline and then re-scoring after intervention) and EQ-5D-5 L to enable calculation of quality-adjusted life years. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Qualitative interviews will explore participant and health professionals' views on the interventions.

DISCUSSION

Few high-quality studies of conservative interventions in inflammatory bowel disease, and none for faecal incontinence, have been conducted. We have collaborated with patients to design this study. Blinding to this behavioural intervention is not possible, but our self-report outcome measures with a degree of objectivity. There is genuine equipoise between the booklet only and booklet plus nurse arms, and the study will determine if additional support from a nurse is a crucial element in implementing advice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinitrials.gov.uk: NCT02355834 (Date of registration: 12 December 2014). Protocol version: 4.0. 08.04.15.

Use of a modified Delphi approach to develop research priorities for the association of coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland

AIM

The modified Delphi approach is an established method for reaching a consensus opinion among a group of experts in a particular field. We have used this technique to survey the entire membership of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) to reach a consensus on prioritizing clinical research questions in colorectal disease.

METHOD

Three rounds of surveys were conducted using a web-based tool. In the first, the ACPGBI membership was invited to submit research questions. In Rounds 2 and 3 they were asked to score questions on priority. A steering group analysed the results of each round to identify those questions ranked as being of highest priority.

RESULTS

Five hundred and two questions were submitted in Round 1. Following two rounds of voting and analysis, a list of 25 priority questions was produced, including 15 cancer-related and 10 noncancer-related questions.

CONCLUSION

It is anticipated that these results will: (i) set the research agenda over the next few years for the study of colorectal disease in the United Kingdom, (ii) promote development and (iii) define funding of new research and prioritize areas of unmet clinical need where the potential clinical impact is greatest.