Evaluation of a training programme for critical incident debrief facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Critical incident debriefs are a commonly used occupational health tool for supporting staff after traumatic work incidents. However, there is a dearth of literature evaluating training programmes for debrief facilitators. AIMS: To evaluate a 5-day training programme to equip healthcare, social care and voluntary, community and social enterprise sector staff to act as post-incident peer supporters and debrief facilitators. METHODS: A mixed-methods, single-arm, before-and-after study. Data were collected at baseline and post-training. The quantitative outcome measure was 'Confidence'; the sum of two items measuring confidence in (i) supporting peers after critical incidents and (ii) facilitating post-incident structured team discussions. At post-training, quantitative and qualitative feedback regarding experiences and perceptions of the training was also gathered. RESULTS: We recruited 45 participants between October 2021 and January 2022. Confidence in supporting peers following incidents and facilitating post-incident structured team discussions increased significantly following the training, t(35) = -6.77, P < 0.001. A majority of participants reported they would do things differently because of the training and that they found the training relevant, useful and engaging. Summative content analysis of qualitative feedback indicated that participants (i) believed the role plays were an important learning tool and (ii) thought it was important that the trainer was engaging. Some participants would have preferred in-person delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Participants valued training in post-incident peer support and debriefing skills. Organizations implementing post-incident support pathways could usefully include this training and ensure optimal uptake and engagement by (i) providing in-person and online delivery options and (ii) including role play as a learning technique.

Evaluation of Erytra® fully automated analyser for Routine Use in Transfusion Laboratory.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficiency and performance of Erytra® analyser in comparison to the reference platform of the NBT immunohaematology laboratory (Bio-Rad ID-System). BACKGROUND: Moving to automation or semi-automation is a major focus of transfusion centres. The Erytra® (Grifols) is a new fully automated walk-away analyser with high volume processing capacity for pre-transfusion testing, designed to be used with the unique 8-column DG Gel® cards. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 2201 immunohaematological tests (1041 ABO/D grouping, 1041 antibody screening, 51 antibody identification, 45 newborns (ABO/D and DAT) and 23 crossmatches were performed on 1160 donor/patient whole blood samples. Erytra®'s performance was assessed by means of a stress test replicating the routine work of a hospital laboratory. RESULTS: Concordant results between the Erytra® and the reference method were obtained in 2195 (99·73 %) of the tests. There were only three discrepancies out of 6246 reactions (0·05%) in ABO/D grouping, all in the reverse group which did not mislead to group identification. Of the 1041 samples screened for antibody presence, Erytra® detected all the relevant antibodies [9 not detected weak prophylactic anti-D were determined to be clinically nonsignificant (<0·1 IU mL(-1) )] while Bio-Rad ID-System missed one anti-e and one anti-Jk(a) . Concordance for D grouping, crossmatching and newborns was 100%. Results of the simulated stress test exercise highlighted the capacity of Erytra® for absorbing into 4 h workloads equivalent to 24 h of routine. CONCLUSIONS: Grifols' Erytra® analyser showed reliable high sensitivity, velocity and capacity to cope with high workload in the immunohaematology laboratory routine.

Psychological impact and acceptability of magnetic resonance imaging and X-ray mammography: the MARIBS Study.

BACKGROUND: As part of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Screening (MARIBS), Study women with a family history of breast cancer were assessed psychologically to determine the relative psychological impact and acceptability of annual screening using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and conventional X-ray mammography (XRM). METHODS: Women were assessed psychologically at baseline (4 weeks before MRI and XRM), immediately before, and immediately after, both MRI and XRM, and at follow-up (6 weeks after the scans). RESULTS: Overall, both procedures were found to be acceptable with high levels of satisfaction (MRI, 96.3% and XRM, 97.7%; NS) and low levels of psychological morbidity throughout, particularly at 6-week follow-up. Low levels of self-reported distress were reported for both procedures (MRI, 13.5% and XRM, 7.8%), although MRI was more distressing (P=0.005). Similarly, higher anticipatory anxiety was reported before MRI than before XRM (P=0.003). Relative to XRM, MRI-related distress was more likely to persist at 6 weeks after the scans in the form of intrusive MRI-related thoughts (P=0.006) and total MRI-related distress (P=0.014). More women stated that they intended to return for XRM (96.3%) than for MRI (88%; P<0.0005). These effects were most marked for the first year of screening, although they were also statistically significant in subsequent years. CONCLUSION: Given the proven benefits of MRI in screening for breast cancer in this population, these data point to the urgent need to provide timely information and support to women undergoing MRI.

Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer.

Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) is the most sensitive tool for screening women who are at high familial risk of breast cancer. Our aim in this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of X-ray mammography (XRM), CE MRI or both strategies combined. In total, 649 women were enrolled in the MARIBS study and screened with both CE MRI and mammography resulting in 1881 screens and 1-7 individual annual screening events. Women aged 35-49 years at high risk of breast cancer, either because they have a strong family history of breast cancer or are tested carriers of a BRCA1, BRCA2 or TP53 mutation or are at a 50% risk of having inherited such a mutation, were recruited from 22 centres and offered annual MRI and XRM for between 2 and 7 years. Information on the number and type of further investigations was collected and specifically calculated unit costs were used to calculate the incremental cost per cancer detected. The numbers of cancer detected was 13 for mammography, 27 for CE MRI and 33 for mammography and CE MRI combined. In the subgroup of BRCA1 (BRCA2) mutation carriers or of women having a first degree relative with a mutation in BRCA1 (BRCA2) corresponding numbers were 3 (6), 12 (7) and 12 (11), respectively. For all women, the incremental cost per cancer detected with CE MRI and mammography combined was pound28 284 compared to mammography. When only BRCA1 or the BRCA2 groups were considered, this cost would be reduced to pound11 731 (CE MRI vs mammography) and pound15 302 (CE MRI and mammography vs mammography). Results were most sensitive to the unit cost estimate for a CE MRI screening test. Contrast-enhanced MRI might be a cost-effective screening modality for women at high risk, particularly for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups. Further work is needed to assess the impact of screening on mortality and health-related quality of life.

Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS).

BACKGROUND: Women genetically predisposed to breast cancer often develop the disease at a young age when dense breast tissue reduces the sensitivity of X-ray mammography. Our aim was, therefore, to compare contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) with mammography for screening. METHODS: We did a prospective multicentre cohort study in 649 women aged 35-49 years with a strong family history of breast cancer or a high probability of a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 mutation. We recruited participants from 22 centres in the UK, and offered the women annual screening with CE MRI and mammography for 2-7 years. FINDINGS: We diagnosed 35 cancers in the 649 women screened with both mammography and CE MRI (1881 screens): 19 by CE MRI only, six by mammography only, and eight by both, with two interval cases. Sensitivity was significantly higher for CE MRI (77%, 95% CI 60-90) than for mammography (40%, 24-58; p=0.01), and was 94% (81-99) when both methods were used. Specificity was 93% (92-95) for mammography, 81% (80-83) for CE MRI (p<0.0001), and 77% (75-79) with both methods. The difference between CE MRI and mammography sensitivities was particularly pronounced in BRCA1 carriers (13 cancers; 92%vs 23%, p=0.004). INTERPRETATION: Our findings indicate that CE MRI is more sensitive than mammography for cancer detection. Specificity for both procedures was acceptable. Despite a high proportion of grade 3 cancers, tumours were small and few women were node positive. Annual screening, combining CE MRI and mammography, would detect most tumours in this risk group.

The UK national study of magnetic resonance imaging as a method of screening for breast cancer (MARIBS).

The UK national study of magnetic resonance imaging as a method of screening for breast cancer (MARIBS) is in progress. The study design, accrual to date, and related research projects are described. Revised accrual rates and expected recruitment are given. 15 cancers have been detected to date, from a total of 1236 screening measurements. This event rate and the tumour grades reported are compared with recent reports from other studies in women at high risk of breast cancer.

Magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer: imaging and analysis protocol for the UK multicentre study. UK MRI Breast Screening Study Advisory Group.

The imaging and analysis protocol of the UK multicentre study of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a method of screening for breast cancer in women at genetic risk is described. The study will compare the sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced MRI with two-view x-ray mammography. Approximately 500 women below the age of 50 at high genetic risk of breast cancer will be recruited per year for three years, with annual MRI and x-ray mammography continuing for up to 5 years. A symptomatic cohort will be measured in the first year to ensure consistent reporting between centres. The MRI examination comprises a high-sensitivity three-dimensional contrast-enhanced assessment, followed by a high-specificity contrast-enhanced study in equivocal cases. Multiparametric analysis will encompass morphological assessment, the kinetics of contrast agent uptake and determination of quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters. Retrospective analysis will identify the most specific indicators of malignancy. Sensitivity and specificity, together with diagnostic performance, diagnostic impact and therapeutic impact will be assessed with reference to pathology, follow-up and changes in diagnostic certainty and therapeutic decisions. Mammography, lesion localisation, pathology and cytology will be performed in accordance with the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme quality assurance standards. Similar standards of quality assurance will be applied for MR measurements and evaluation.

Rationale for a national multi-centre study of magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer.

In 1994, the UK National Health Service identified as a research priority that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be assessed as a screening tool for young, pre-menopausal women who are at a high genetic risk of developing breast cancer. In 1997 a national multicentre study was established to compare MRI with X-ray mammography as a method for screening for breast cancer in this group of women. This paper reviews the relevant literature and describes the rationale that led to the setting up of this study.

Protocol for a national multi-centre study of magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer.

The protocol of the national multicentre study of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) as a method of screening for breast cancer in women at genetic risk is described. The sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced MRI will be compared with two-view X-ray mammography in a comparative trial. Approximately 500 women below the age of 50 at high genetic risk of breast cancer will be recruited per year for 3 years, with annual MRI and X-ray examination continuing for up to 5 years. A symptomatic cohort will be measured in the initial phase of the study to ensure consistent reporting between centres. The MRI examination will comprise an initial high-sensitivity screening measurement, followed by a high-specificity measurement in equivocal cases. Retrospective analysis will identify the most specific indicators of malignancy. Sensitivity and specificity, together with diagnostic performance, diagnostic impact and therapeutic impact will be assessed with reference to pathology, follow-up and changes in diagnostic certainty and therapeutic decisions. The psychological impact of screening in this high-risk group will be ascertained.

Co-morbidity in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVES: Selection for surgery of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) depends on an assessment of risk from operation compared with risk from aneurysm rupture. A study was performed to assess the levels of co-morbidity and to see whether co-morbidity was different in people with a normal aorta after ultrasonographic examination than in those with an aneurysmal aorta. SETTING AND METHODS: Over a two year period 5392 people (2341 men, 3051 women) aged 65-80 were screened using B-mode linear ultrasound, with maximum measurements taken of transverse, anteroposterior diameters, or both. All subjects were given a questionnaire seeking a history of angina, stroke, claudication, myocardial infarct, respiratory problems, and diabetes. RESULTS: 218 men and women were found to have an AAA of 3 cm or greater. The results of the questionnaire were analysed using logistic regression whereby all the co-morbid conditions were adjusted for each other and for smoking, sex, and age. The only conditions which were significantly associated with AAA in both sexes were myocardial infarction with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 2.60) and claudication with an OR of 1.68 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.42). The association between angina and AAA was of borderline significance (OR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.30). Stroke was significantly associated only in women, with an OR of 3.71 (95% CI 1.42 to 9.69). Rates of diabetes and respiratory disease were not significantly different between people with AAA and normal aortas. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show there is significantly higher co-morbidity in people with ultrasound detected AAA, which might influence outcome from surgery and long term survival.