ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The transfer validity of portable laparoscopy simulation is well established. However, attempts to integrate take-home simulation into surgical training have met with inconsistent engagement worldwide, as for example in our 2014-15 study of an Incentivised Laparoscopy Practice programme (ILPv1). Drawing on learning from our subsequent multi-centre study examining barriers and facilitators, we revised the programme for 2018 onwards. We now report on engagement with the 2018-2022 versions of this home-based simulation programme (ILP v2.1-2.3). METHODS: In ILP v2.1-2.3, three consecutive year-groups of new-start Core Surgical Trainees (n = 48, 46 and 53) were loaned portable simulators. The 6-month education programme included induction, technical support, and intermittent feedback. Six tasks were prescribed, with video instruction and charting of metric scores. Video uploads were required and scored by faculty. A pass resulted in an eCertificate, expected at Annual Review (but not mandatory for progression). ILP was set within a wider reform, "Improving Surgical Training". RESULTS: ILP v2.1-2.3 saw pass rates of 94%, 76% and 70% respectively (45/48, 35/46 and 37/53 trainees), compared with only 26% (7/27) in ILP v1, despite now including some trainees not intending careers in laparoscopic specialties. The ILP v2.2 group all reported their engagement with the whole simulation strategy was hampered by the COVID19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Simply providing take-home simulators, no matter how good, is not enough. To achieve trainee engagement, a whole programme is required, with motivated learners, individual and group practice, intermittent feedback, and clear goals and assessments. ILP is a complex intervention, best understood as a "reform within a reform, within a context."
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected cancer services. Our objective was to determine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on decision making and the resulting outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent intracranial tumors. METHODS: We performed a multicenter prospective study of all adult patients discussed in weekly neuro-oncology and skull base multidisciplinary team meetings who had a newly diagnosed or recurrent intracranial (excluding pituitary) tumor between 01 April and 31 May 2020. All patients had at least 30-day follow-up data. Descriptive statistical reporting was used. RESULTS: There were 1357 referrals for newly diagnosed or recurrent intracranial tumors across 15 neuro-oncology centers. Of centers with all intracranial tumors, a change in initial management was reported in 8.6% of cases (n = 104/1210). Decisions to change the management plan reduced over time from a peak of 19% referrals at the start of the study to 0% by the end of the study period. Changes in management were reported in 16% (n = 75/466) of cases previously recommended for surgery and 28% of cases previously recommended for chemotherapy (n = 20/72). The reported SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was similar in surgical and non-surgical patients (2.6% vs. 2.4%, P > .9). CONCLUSIONS: Disruption to neuro-oncology services in the UK caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was most marked in the first month, affecting all diagnoses. Patients considered for chemotherapy were most affected. In those recommended surgical treatment this was successfully completed. Longer-term outcome data will evaluate oncological treatments received by these patients and overall survival.
ABSTRACT
Background: We aimed to describe trends of excess mortality in the United Kingdom (UK) stratified by nation and cause of death, and to develop an online tool for reporting the most up to date data on excess mortality Methods: Population statistics agencies in the UK including the Office for National Statistics (ONS), National Records of Scotland (NRS), and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) publish weekly mortality data. We used mortality data up to 22nd May in the ONS and the NISRA and 24th May in the NRS. The main outcome measures were crude mortality for non-COVID deaths (where there is no mention of COVID-19 on the death certificate) calculated, and excess mortality defined as difference between observed mortality and expected average of mortality from previous 5 years. Results: There were 56,961 excess deaths, of which 8,986 were non-COVID excess deaths. England had the highest number of excess deaths per 100,000 population (85) and Northern Ireland the lowest (34). Non-COVID mortality increased from 23rd March and returned to the 5-year average on 10th May. In Scotland, where underlying cause mortality data besides COVID-related deaths was available, the percentage excess over the 8-week period when COVID-related mortality peaked was: dementia 49%, other causes 21%, circulatory diseases 10%, and cancer 5%. We developed an online tool (TRACKing Excess Deaths - TRACKED) to allow dynamic exploration and visualisation of the latest mortality trends. Conclusions: Continuous monitoring of excess mortality trends and further integration of age- and gender-stratified and underlying cause of death data beyond COVID-19 will allow dynamic assessment of the impacts of indirect and direct mortality of the COVID-19 pandemic.