No abstract

Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is slowly but steadily being implemented in all phases of clinical research. As part of the European project “Building Data Rich Clinical Trials” a survey was launched to investigate the knowledge, experiences and opinions on this topic of clinicians and researchers from seven European clinical and non-clinical centers (Cancer Core Europe). Methods An invitation to take part in a cross-sectional web survey was sent to 199 clinicians and researchers working in the field of precision oncology. The questionnaire was developed ad hoc because no existing questionnaires met the purpose of this study. The analysis takes account of whether respondents had experience on PPI or not. Results On a total of 101 respondents, this survey reveals that 76.2% of them knew about PPI before answering the questionnaire, 54.5% had experience in the previous five years and 86.1% were interested in a training course on this topic. PPI knowledge grew together with career seniority (peak of 86.5% for established career professionals), while the group most interested in a course was the early-career professionals (100.0%). Finally, the majority of respondents stated they had no training or education on PPI (67.3% of experienced and 82.6% of not-experienced respondents). Conclusions This survey shows that most cancer researchers knew the term PPI, even if only a little more than half of them had any relative experience. Opinions on PPI benefits, negative effects, barriers and requirements differed between the groups of PPI experienced and not-experienced respondents, showing that experience itself can influence respondents’ opinions. Most of respondents reported they would prefer a training course based on practical rather than theoretical tools.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Blood transfusion is rarely required in laparoscopic appendicectomies. The incidence of major vessel injury is 0.04%, yet many trusts require two valid G+S samples prior to the operation. A retrospective review was conducted to assess the incidence of peri-operative blood transfusion in laparoscopic appendicectomies in a large tertiary centre, to challenge the requirement for these G+S samples in the hope to reduce clinical and financial burden. Methods A retrospective case note review of patients undergoing emergency laparoscopic appendicectomies in the Royal London Hospital was conducted from 01/06/21 – 01/12/21. Patients under 18 years and those who received an appendicectomy as a concurrent procedure during other operations were excluded. The monetary value of each G+S sample was investigated through discussion with laboratory staff, and a total saving was calculated. Results 95 patients were included. 93 patients had two valid G+S samples prior to their appendicectomy. No patients required perioperative blood transfusion (within two days pre and post op). One patient required a blood transfusion in the 5th postoperative day. An estimated total of £10,500 could be saved per year in this hospital alone, should G+S samples not be required for laparoscopic appendicectomies based on this data. Conclusions We concluded that two G+S samples are not necessary for every patient undergoing a laparoscopic appendicectomy. The incidence of transfusion is scarce throughout literature, and it appears that the financial and clinical burden of these blood samples far outweighs the population transfusion requirement in this particular surgery