RSS 1.0
Welcome to the East Midlands Evidence Repository.
The East Midlands Evidence Repository (EMER) is the official institutional research repository for; Derbyshire Community Health Services, Leicester Partnership Trust, NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire CCG, Nottinghamshire Healthcare, Sherwood Forest Hospitals, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton and the University Hospitals Of Leicester
EMER is intended to make NHS research more visible and discoverable by capturing, storing and preserving the East Midlands research output and making it available to the research community through open access protocols.
Wherever possible, full-text content is provided for all research publications in the repository. Content grows daily as new collections are added.
Communities in East Midlands Evidence Repository
Select a community to browse its collections.
Recently Added
-
Kidney care during COVID-19 in the UK: perspectives of healthcare professionals on impacts on care quality and staff well-beingIn light of the rapid changes in healthcare delivery due to COVID-19, this study explored kidney healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perspectives on the impact of these changes on care quality and staff well-being. Fifty-nine HCPs from eight NHS Trusts across England completed an online survey and eight took part in complementary semi-structured interviews between August 2020 and January 2021. Free-text survey responses and interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Themes described the rapid adaptations, concerns about care quality, benefits from innovations, high work pressure, anxiety and mental exhaustion in staff and the team as a well-being resource. Long-term retention and integration of changes and innovations can improve healthcare access and efficiency, but specification of conditions for its use is warranted. The impact of prolonged stress on renal HCPs also needs to be accounted for in quality planning. Results are further interpreted into a theoretical socio-technical framework.
-
Results of a nationally implemented cardiac screening programme in elite cricket players in England and WalesObjectives: We assessed the diagnostic yield and costs of an electrocardiogram-based national screening programme in elite cricket players and the incremental value of transthoracic echocardiography and periodic evaluation. Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Between 2008 and 2019, 1208 cricketers underwent screening with a health questionnaire, 12-lead electrocardiogram and cardiology consultation. Athletes with concerning findings underwent on-site transthoracic echocardiography and further investigations as necessary. In addition, despite a normal health questionnaire and electrocardiogram, 342 (28.3%) athletes had a transthoracic echocardiogram and 493 (40.8%) underwent repeat evaluations. Results: After initial evaluation, 47 (3.9%) athletes underwent on-site transthoracic echocardiography of whom 35 (2.8%) were referred for further evaluation. Four athletes (0.3%) were diagnosed with major cardiac conditions; hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n = 1), arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (n = 1) and Wolff-Parkinson-White pattern (n = 2). Two athletes were identified with minor valvular abnormalities. Repeat evaluation of 493 athletes identified hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in a 22-year-old athlete, two years after his initial normal screening. During a follow-up of 5.8 ± 2.9 years no additional diagnoses or adverse cardiac events were reported. The cost of the electrocardiogram-based programme was £127,844, translating to £106 per athlete and £25,569 per major cardiac condition identified.Routine transthoracic echocardiography in 342 athletes identified two athletes with major cardiac conditions (bicuspid aortic valve with severe aortopathy and aortic regurgitation and an atrial septal defect associated with right ventricular volume overload) and 10 athletes with minor abnormalities. Conclusions: An electrocardiogram-based national screening programme identified a major cardiac condition in 0.3% of athletes. Routine transthoracic echocardiography and periodic evaluation increased the diagnostic yield to 0.6%, at an incremental cost.
-
BSHI/BTS guidance on crossmatching before deceased donor kidney transplantationAll UK H&I laboratories and transplant units operate under a single national kidney offering policy, but there have been variations in approach regarding when to undertake the pre-transplant crossmatch test. In order to minimize cold ischaemia times for deceased donor kidney transplantation we sought to find ways to be able to report a crossmatch result as early as possible in the donation process. A panel of experts in transplant surgery, nephrology, specialist nursing in organ donation and H&I (all relevant UK laboratories represented) assessed evidence and opinion concerning five factors that relate to the effectiveness of the crossmatch process, as follows: when the result should be ready for reporting; what level of donor HLA typing is needed; crossmatch sample type and availability; fairness and equity; risks and patient safety. Guidelines aimed at improving practice based on these issues are presented, and we expect that following these will allow H&I laboratories to contribute to reducing CIT in deceased donor kidney transplantation.
-
Endoscopic surgical simulation using low-fidelity and virtual reality transurethral resection simulators in urology simulation boot camp course: trainees feedback assessment studyObjectives: The objective of our study was to study trainees' feedback and rating of models for training transurethral resection of bladder lesions (TURBT) and prostate (TURP) during simulation. Methods: The study was performed during the ''Transurethral resection (TUR) module" at the boot camp held in 2019. Prior to the course, all trainees were required to evaluate their experience in performing TURBT and TURP procedures. Trainees simulated resection on two different models; low-fidelity tissue model (Samed, GmBH, Dresden, Germany) and virtual reality simulator (TURPMentor, 3D Systems, Littleton, US). Following the completion of the module, trainees completed a questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate their assessment of the models for surgical training. Results: In total, 174 simulation assessments were performed by 56 trainees (Samed Bladder-40, Prostate-45, TURPMentor Bladder-51, Prostate-37). All trainees reported that they had performed < 50 TUR procedures. The Samed model median scores were for appearance (4/5), texture (5/5), feel (5/5) and conductibility (5/5). The TURPMentor median score was for appearance (4/5), texture and feel (4/5) and conductibility (4/5). The most common criticism of the Samed model was that it failed to mimic bleeding. In contrast, trainees felt that the TURPMentor haptic feedback was inadequate to allow for close resection and did not calibrate movements accurately. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that both forms of simulators (low-fidelity and virtual reality) were rated highly by urology trainees and improve their confidence in performing transurethral resection and in fact complement each other in providing lower tract endoscopic resection simulation.
