PANC Study (Pancreatitis: A National Cohort Study): national cohort study examining the first 30 days from presentation of acute pancreatitis in the UK

Background Acute pancreatitis is a common, yet complex, emergency surgical presentation. Multiple guidelines exist and management can vary significantly. The aim of this first UK, multicentre, prospective cohort study was to assess the variation in management of acute pancreatitis to guide resource planning and optimize treatment. Methods All patients aged greater than or equal to 18 years presenting with acute pancreatitis, as per the Atlanta criteria, from March to April 2021 were eligible for inclusion and followed up for 30 days. Anonymized data were uploaded to a secure electronic database in line with local governance approvals. Results A total of 113 hospitals contributed data on 2580 patients, with an equal sex distribution and a mean age of 57 years. The aetiology was gallstones in 50.6 per cent, with idiopathic the next most common (22.4 per cent). In addition to the 7.6 per cent with a diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis, 20.1 per cent of patients had a previous episode of acute pancreatitis. One in 20 patients were classed as having severe pancreatitis, as per the Atlanta criteria. The overall mortality rate was 2.3 per cent at 30 days, but rose to one in three in the severe group. Predictors of death included male sex, increased age, and frailty; previous acute pancreatitis and gallstones as aetiologies were protective. Smoking status and body mass index did not affect death. Conclusion Most patients presenting with acute pancreatitis have a mild, self-limiting disease. Rates of patients with idiopathic pancreatitis are high. Recurrent attacks of pancreatitis are common, but are likely to have reduced risk of death on subsequent admissions

Future informed consent research – a step in the wrong direction!

IntroductionOver 300 million invasive procedures occur globally every year, each requiring patient informed consent. No single outcome measure exists for measurement of the informed consent process. A core outcome set (COS) for informed consent for therapy consisting of 9 outcomes has been developed to define what outcomes matter to key stakeholders in the informed consent process. We aimed to identify the frequency of uptake of the COS consent outcomes in future randomised control trials.MethodsA systematic review of prospectively registered randomised control trial protocols was performed. The online trial registries World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and the US National Library of Medicine ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. All studies assessing interventions designed to improve the informed consent process were considered.Results627 registered protocols were identified of which 22 met the inclusion criteria. Only two core outcomes were reported in any prospective interventional consent trial protocols. Patient satisfaction with the consent process and patient satisfaction with the amount of information were observed which employed unvalidated tools. Patient knowledge was the predominant primary outcome measure (n=20). Unvalidated measurement tools were used in all cases. Patient anxiety, decisional regret and decisional conflict were the only outcomes consistently measured using validated measurement tools.ConclusionThe use of unvalidated outcome measurement tools in future consent trials are widespread. This review has highlighted the clear disconnect between chosen outcomes in future consent trial protocols and an established informed consent COS, limiting the potential value of outputs in future consent trials.Take-home messageA clear disconnect exists between the outcome measures used in prospective consent randomised trials and an established core outcome set for informed consent for therapy

The patient and clinician experience of informed consent for surgery: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence

Abstract Background Informed consent is an integral component of good medical practice. Many researchers have investigated measures to improve the quality of informed consent, but it is not clear which techniques work best and why. To address this problem, we propose developing a core outcome set (COS) to evaluate interventions designed to improve the consent process for surgery in adult patients with capacity. Part of this process involves reviewing existing research that has reported what is important to patients and doctors in the informed consent process. Methods This qualitative synthesis comprises four phases: identification of published papers and determining their relevance; appraisal of the quality of the papers; identification and summary of the key findings from each paper while determining the definitiveness of each finding against the primary data; comparison of key themes between papers such that findings are linked across studies. Results Searches of bibliographic databases returned 11,073 titles. Of these, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were published between 1996 and 2016 and included a total of 367 patients and 74 health care providers. Thirteen studies collected data using in-depth interviews and constant comparison was the most common means of qualitative analysis. A total of 94 findings were extracted from the primary papers and divided into 17 categories and ultimately 6 synthesised findings related to: patient characteristics, knowledge, communication, the model patient, trust and decision making. Conclusions This qualitative meta-aggregation is the first to examine the issue of informed consent for surgery. It has revealed several outcomes deemed important to capture by patients and clinicians when evaluating the quality of a consent process. Some of these outcomes have not been examined previously in research comparing methods for informed consent. This review is an important step in the development of a COS to evaluate interventions designed to improve the consent process for surgery. Registration The study protocol was registered on the international prospective register for systematic reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42017077101). </jats:sec

The patient and clinician experience of informed consent for surgery: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is an integral component of good medical practice. Many researchers have investigated measures to improve the quality of informed consent, but it is not clear which techniques work best and why. To address this problem, we propose developing a core outcome set (COS) to evaluate interventions designed to improve the consent process for surgery in adult patients with capacity. Part of this process involves reviewing existing research that has reported what is important to patients and doctors in the informed consent process.METHODS: This qualitative synthesis comprises four phases: identification of published papers and determining their relevance; appraisal of the quality of the papers; identification and summary of the key findings from each paper while determining the definitiveness of each finding against the primary data; comparison of key themes between papers such that findings are linked across studies.RESULTS: Searches of bibliographic databases returned 11,073 titles. Of these, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were published between 1996 and 2016 and included a total of 367 patients and 74 health care providers. Thirteen studies collected data using in-depth interviews and constant comparison was the most common means of qualitative analysis. A total of 94 findings were extracted from the primary papers and divided into 17 categories and ultimately 6 synthesised findings related to: patient characteristics, knowledge, communication, the model patient, trust and decision making.CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative meta-aggregation is the first to examine the issue of informed consent for surgery. It has revealed several outcomes deemed important to capture by patients and clinicians when evaluating the quality of a consent process. Some of these outcomes have not been examined previously in research comparing methods for informed consent. This review is an important step in the development of a COS to evaluate interventions designed to improve the consent process for surgery.REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered on the international prospective register for systematic reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42017077101).</p