Time to go global: a consultation on global health competencies for postgraduate doctors

BACKGROUND: Globalisation is having profound impacts on health and healthcare. We solicited the views of a wide range of stakeholders in order to develop core global health competencies for postgraduate doctors. METHODS: Published literature and existing curricula informed writing of seven global health competencies for consultation. A modified policy Delphi involved an online survey and face-to-face and telephone interviews over three rounds. RESULTS: Over 250 stakeholders participated, including doctors, other health professionals, policymakers and members of the public from all continents of the world. Participants indicated that global health competence is essential for postgraduate doctors and other health professionals. Concerns were expressed about overburdening curricula and identifying what is 'essential' for whom. Conflicting perspectives emerged about the importance and relevance of different global health topics. Five core competencies were developed: (1) diversity, human rights and ethics; (2) environmental, social and economic determinants of health; (3) global epidemiology; (4) global health governance; and (5) health systems and health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Global health can bring important perspectives to postgraduate curricula, enhancing the ability of doctors to provide quality care. These global health competencies require tailoring to meet different trainees' needs and facilitate their incorporation into curricula. Healthcare and global health are ever-changing; therefore, the competencies will need to be regularly reviewed and updated

A Randomized Trial of Prophylactic Antibiotics for Miscarriage Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical intervention is needed in some cases of spontaneous abortion to remove retained products of conception. Antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce the risk of pelvic infection, which is an important complication of this surgery, particularly in low-resource countries. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial investigating whether antibiotic prophylaxis before surgery to complete a spontaneous abortion would reduce pelvic infection among women and adolescents in low-resource countries. We randomly assigned patients to a single preoperative dose of 400 mg of oral doxycycline and 400 mg of oral metronidazole or identical placebos. The primary outcome was pelvic infection within 14 days after surgery. Pelvic infection was defined by the presence of two or more of four clinical features (purulent vaginal discharge, pyrexia, uterine tenderness, and leukocytosis) or by the presence of one of these features and the clinically identified need to administer antibiotics. The definition of pelvic infection was changed before the unblinding of the data; the original strict definition was two or more of the clinical features, without reference to the administration of antibiotics. RESULTS: We enrolled 3412 patients in Malawi, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uganda. A total of 1705 patients were assigned to receive antibiotics and 1707 to receive placebo. The risk of pelvic infection was 4.1% (68 of 1676 pregnancies) in the antibiotics group and 5.3% (90 of 1684 pregnancies) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.04; P = 0.09). Pelvic infection according to original strict criteria was diagnosed in 1.5% (26 of 1700 pregnancies) and 2.6% (44 of 1704 pregnancies), respectively (risk ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.96). There were no significant between-group differences in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis before miscarriage surgery did not result in a significantly lower risk of pelvic infection, as defined by pragmatic broad criteria, than placebo. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and others; AIMS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN97143849.)

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection of prostate cancer in symptomatic patients.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a commonly used test to detect prostate cancer. Attention has mostly focused on the use of PSA in screening asymptomatic patients, but the diagnostic accuracy of PSA for prostate cancer in patients with symptoms is less well understood. METHODS: A systematic database search was conducted of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library. Studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of PSA for prostate cancer in patients with symptoms were included. Two investigators independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all database search hits and full texts of potentially relevant studies against the inclusion criteria, and data extracted into a proforma. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool by two investigators independently. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated with meta-analysis using bivariate mixed effects regression. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-three search hits were assessed by title and abstract after de-duplication, with 75 full text papers reviewed. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, 18 of which were conducted in secondary care settings with one from a screening study cohort. All studies used histology obtained by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS) as a reference test; usually only for patients with elevated PSA or abnormal prostate examination. Pooled data from 14,489 patients found estimated sensitivity of PSA for prostate cancer was 0.93 (95% CI 0.88, 0.96) and specificity was 0.20 (95% CI 0.12, 0.33). The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.72 (95% CI 0.68, 0.76). All studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available evidence suggests PSA is highly sensitive but poorly specific for prostate cancer detection in symptomatic patients. However, significant limitations in study design and reference test reduces the certainty of this estimate. There is very limited evidence for the performance of PSA in primary care, the healthcare setting where most PSA testing is performed

Improving the diagnostic accuracy of referrals for papilloedema (DIPP) study: protocol for a mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Papilloedema can be the first sign of life-threatening disease, for example, brain tumours. Due to the potential seriousness of this clinical sign, the detection of papilloedema would normally prompt urgent hospital referral for further investigation. The problem is that many benign structural variations of optic nerve anatomy can be mistaken for papilloedema, so-called pseudopapilloedema. The consequence is that many people are referred to hospital because they are incorrectly identified to have papilloedema when they don't. As a result, hospital referrals of people with suspected papilloedema in England have increased sharply, leading to increased demand for overstretched hospital services and potentially longer waiting times for hospital appointments for those who do have papilloedema.The work programme is aimed at the development of guidelines and educational materials that will help support health professionals to correctly identify people with papilloedema. This article describes the protocol for gathering evidence of current referral practices and pathways for people suspected to have papilloedema in England and the development of guidelines based on this evidence and extensive engagement with community- and hospital-based healthcare professionals, patients, and the public. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Both qualitative and quantitative data will be collected from Freedom of Information requests to Integrated Care Boards across England about how they organise their community and hospital services for people with suspected papilloedema, with and without headache. Surveys and qualitative interviews of relevant community and hospital healthcare professionals based in England will collect data on how and when people with papilloedema and pseudopapilloedema with or without headache are currently identified and referred to hospital, if needed. This information will be used to inform a Delphi process with the aim of reaching consensus among health professional experts, commissioners and patients on what the most evidence-based and safe diagnostic and referral practices should be for people with suspected papilloedema. The tailored guidelines will be written for healthcare professionals and patients. We will create a range of educational materials and a website designed for health professionals and patients to support the national roll-out and implementation of DIPP study guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Ethics committee (FREC reference: 12457) and Health Research Authority (IRAS no.: 320395). Results of the study will be published on our DIPP study website and disseminated to our stakeholder groups through peer-reviewed journal publications and conference presentations

The effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life-threatening emergencies in hospital

Background Preparing healthcare providers to manage relatively rare life‐threatening emergency situations effectively is a challenge. Training sessions enable staff to rehearse for these events and are recommended by several reports and guidelines. In this review we have focused on interactive training, this includes any element where the training is not solely didactic but provides opportunity for discussions, rehearsals, or interaction with faculty or technology. It is important to understand the effective methods and essential elements for successful emergency training so that resources can be appropriately targeted to improve outcomes. Objectives To assess the effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life‐threatening emergencies in hospital on patient outcomes, clinical care practices, or organisational practices, and to identify essential components of effective interactive emergency training programmes. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and ERIC and two trials registers up to 11 March 2019. We searched references of included studies, conference proceedings, and contacted study authors. Selection criteria We included randomised trials and cluster‐randomised trials comparing interactive training for emergency situations with standard/no training. We defined emergency situations as those in which immediate lifesaving action is required, for example cardiac arrests and major haemorrhage. We included all studies where healthcare workers involved in providing direct clinical care were participants. We excluded studies outside of a hospital setting or where the intervention was not targeted at practicing healthcare workers. We included trials irrespective of publication status, date, and language. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included trial. Due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity in outcome measures, we were unable to perform the planned meta‐analysis. We provide a structured synthesis for the following outcomes: survival to hospital discharge, morbidity rate, protocol or guideline adherence, patient outcomes, clinical practice outcomes, and organisation‐of‐care outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations for each outcome. Main results We included 11 studies that reported on 2000 healthcare providers and over 300,000 patients; one study did not report the number of participants. Seven were cluster randomised trials and four were single centre studies. Four studies focused on obstetric training, three on obstetric and neonatal care, two on neonatal training, one on trauma and one on general resuscitations. The studies were spread across high‐, middle‐ and low‐income settings. Interactive training may make little or no difference in survival to hospital discharge for patients requiring resuscitation (1 study; 30 participants; 98 events; low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain if emergency training changes morbidity rate, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 1778 participants; 57,193 patients, when reported). We are uncertain if training alters healthcare providers' adherence to clinical protocols or guidelines, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 156 participants; 558 patients). We are uncertain if there were improvements in patient outcomes following interactive training for emergency situations, as we assessed the evidence as very low‐certainty (5 studies, 951 participants; 314,055 patients). We are uncertain if training for emergency situations improves clinical practice outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (4 studies; 1417 participants; 28,676 patients, when reported). Two studies reported organisation‐of‐care outcomes, we are uncertain if interactive emergency training has any effect on this outcome as the certainty of the evidence is very low (634 participants; 179,400 patient population). We examined prespecified subgroups and found no clear commonalities in effect of multidisciplinary training, location of training, duration of the course, or duration of follow‐up. We also examined areas arising from the studies including focus of training, proportion of staff trained, leadership of intervention, and incentive/trigger to participate, and again identified no clear mediating factors. The sources of funding for the studies were governmental, local organisations, or philanthropic donors. Authors' conclusions We are uncertain if there are any benefits of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life‐threatening emergencies in hospital as the certainty of the evidence is very low. We were unable to identify any factors that may have allowed us to identify an essential element of these interactive training courses. We found a lack of consistent reporting, which contributed to the inability to meta‐analyse across specialities. More trials are required to build the evidence base for the optimum way to prepare healthcare providers for rare life‐threatening emergency events. These trials need to be conducted with attention to outcomes important to patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers. It is vitally important to develop high‐quality studies adequately powered and with attention to minimising the risk of bias

Clinical decision-making on lung cancer investigations in primary care: a vignette study

Objectives: To investigate the role of comorbid chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and symptom type on general practitioners’ (GP’s) symptom attribution and clinical decision-making in relation to lung cancer diagnosis. // Design: Vignette survey with a 2×2 mixed factorial design. // Setting: A nationwide online survey exploring clinical decision-making in primary care. // Participants: 109 GPs based in the United Kingdom (UK) who were registered as responders on Dynata (an online survey platform). // Interventions: GPs were presented with four vignettes which described a patient aged 75 with a smoking history presenting with worsening symptoms (either general or respiratory) and with or without a pre-existing diagnosis of COPD. // Primary and secondary outcome measures: GPs indicated the three most likely diagnoses (free-text) and selected four management approaches (20 pre-coded options). Attribution of symptoms to lung cancer and referral for urgent chest X-ray were primary outcomes. Alternative diagnoses and management approaches were explored as secondary outcomes. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was used, including random intercepts for individual GPs. // Results: 422 vignettes were completed. There was no evidence for COPD status as a predictor of lung cancer attribution (OR=1.1, 95% CI=0.5–2.4, p=0.914). There was no evidence for COPD status as a predictor of urgent chest X-ray referral (OR=0.6, 95% CI=0.3–1.2, p=0.12) or as a predictor when in combination with symptom type (OR=0.9, 95% CI=0.5–1.8, p=0.767). // Conclusions: Lung cancer was identified as a possible diagnosis for persistent respiratory by only one out of five GPs, irrespective of the patients’ COPD status. Increasing awareness among GPs of the link between COPD and lung cancer may increase the propensity for performing chest X-rays and referral for diagnostic testing for symptomatic patients

Applying a genetic risk score for prostate cancer to men with lower urinary tract symptoms in primary care to predict prostate cancer diagnosis : a cohort study in the UK Biobank

Background Prostate cancer is highly heritable, with >250 common variants associated in genome-wide association studies. It commonly presents with non-specific lower urinary tract symptoms that are frequently associated with benign conditions. Methods Cohort study using UK Biobank data linked to primary care records. Participants were men with a record showing a general practice consultation for a lower urinary tract symptom. The outcome measure was prostate cancer diagnosis within 2 years of consultation. The predictor was a genetic risk score of 269 genetic variants for prostate cancer. Results A genetic risk score (GRS) is associated with prostate cancer in symptomatic men (OR per SD increase = 2.12 [1.86-2.41] P = 3.5e-30). An integrated risk model including age and GRS applied to symptomatic men predicted prostate cancer (AUC 0.768 [0.739-0.796]). Prostate cancer incidence was 8.1% (6.7-9.7) in the highest risk quintile. In the lowest quintile, prostate cancer incidence was Conclusions This study is the first to apply GRS in primary care to improve the triage of symptomatic patients. Men with the lowest genetic risk of developing prostate cancer could safely avoid invasive investigation, whilst those identified with the greatest risk could be fast-tracked for further investigation. These results show that a GRS has potential application to improve the diagnostic pathway of symptomatic patients in primary care.Peer reviewe