Dermoscopy use in UK primary care: a survey of GPs with a special interest in dermatology.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma accounts for 90% of skin cancer mortality and typically presents in primary care, where it can be challenging to distinguish from benign lesions. Dermoscopy is a tool for skin visualization that is routinely used for melanoma diagnosis in secondary care. However, the role of dermoscopy in primary care remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine views on, and use of, dermoscopy by dermatology-interested general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: An online questionnaire was emailed to the UK Primary Care Dermatology Society members in February 2018, and responses collected over the following 4 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 205 responses were analysed. Most respondents were GPs (94%), aged over 50 (53%), had a postgraduate dermatological qualification (67%) and used dermoscopy regularly when reviewing pigmented skin lesions (97%). Dermoscopy use was commoner amongst GPs who had worked longer in primary care and had experience of secondary care dermatology. Most had undertaken training in dermoscopy (91%), although one-fifth (20%) had not updated their training in over 5 years. Most of those who had received only 1 day of face-to-face training reported feeling confident using a dermatoscope. Few respondents (11%) reported access to teledermatology or teledermoscopy for urgent or routine referrals. CONCLUSIONS: UK GPs with a special interest in dermatology are routinely using dermoscopy in the primary care setting. More research is needed to establish optimal approaches to training and updating GP dermoscopy skills. When dermoscopy has been shown to be safe, effective, acceptable and cost-effective in this setting, more GPs may also be able to gain and maintain the skills to implement dermoscopy into routine primary care. Technological advances, including incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms to guide GPs, could also contribute to widening use of dermoscopy among GPs

Radiographic evaluation of calcaneal fractures: To measure or not to measure

Objective: The aim of this study was to correlate the functional outcome after treatment for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fracture with plain radiography. Design: The design was a prognostic study of a retrospective cohort with concurrent follow-up. Patients: A total of 33 patients with a unilateral calcaneal fracture and a minimum follow-up of 13 months participated. Patients filled in three disease-specific questionnaires, graded their satisfaction and the indication for an arthrodesis was noted. Standardised radiographs were made of the previously injured side and the normal (control) side. Different angles and distances were measured on these radiographs and compared with values described in the literature. The differences in values in angles and distances between the injured and uninjured (control) foot were correlated with the outcome of the questionnaires, and the indication for an arthrodesis. Results: None of the angles correlated with the disease-specific outcome scores. Of the angles only the tibiotalar angle correlated with the VAS (r=0.35, p=0.045) and only the absolute foot height correlated with the indication for an arthrodesis (odds=0.70, CI=0.50-0.99). Conclusion: In this study the radiographic evaluation correlated poorly with the final outcome. Measurements on plain radiographs seem not to be useful in determining outcome after intra-articular calcaneal fractures

Evaluation of prognostic risk models for postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and international external validation cohort study

Background Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC). Findings In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683–0·717]). Interpretation In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required. Funding British Journal of Surgery Society