inSPIRE (Somerset NHS)
Not a member yet
683 research outputs found
Sort by
Frailty in older people and cancer investigations (evidence summary)
No full textThis is an evidence summary produced by the Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Knowledge and Library Service
Disclaimer: We will endeavour to use the best, most appropriate and most recent sources available to ensure that the information supplied is accurate, up-to-date and evidence-based. It is the responsibility of the requestor to determine the accuracy, validity and interpretation of the search results. No responsibility can be taken by the library for any action taken on the basis of this information. New evidence may have been published since the date this evidence summary was created
Mental Health & Learning Disabilities bulletin April 2025 (current awareness bulletin)
No full textThis is a bulletin produced by the Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Knowledge and Library Service. It is intended to provide a range of the most up-to-date resources, including recently published guidelines and research articles, news and policy items at the time of the production. Please note, you may not get access to full-text articles or links may be disabled
Supervised internet access in secure hospital settings (evidence summary)
No full textThis is an evidence summary produced by the Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Knowledge and Library Service
Disclaimer: We will endeavour to use the best, most appropriate and most recent sources available to ensure that the information supplied is accurate, up-to-date and evidence-based. It is the responsibility of the requestor to determine the accuracy, validity and interpretation of the search results. No responsibility can be taken by the library for any action taken on the basis of this information. New evidence may have been published since the date this evidence summary was created
Developing a platform to investigate the heterogeneity of outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer.
No full text© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.The geographical variation in treatment patterns for patients with ovarian cancer is profound, long-standing and worrying. Although these variations were highlighted in a recent UK registry audit, granular data to provide explanations for these variations have been lacking.Background: The geographical variation in treatment patterns for patients with ovarian cancer is profound, long-standing and worrying. Although these variations were highlighted in a recent UK registry audit, granular data to provide explanations for these variations have been lacking.
Methods: A consortium of six UK centres was generated to curate and submit data for all patients treated at their centre for a 2-year period. Descriptive statistics were combined with Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis to confirm the findings from the national registry audit and identify possible drivers of the heterogeneity previously described.
Results: Records for 1117 patients treated in six centres in 2018 and 2019 were collated. Although there were differences in the clinical characteristics of patients between centres, these were not enough to account for the significant variation in survival outcomes between centres (p<0.001). Treatment rates varied between centres with between 30% and 76% of patients receiving combination therapy but in Cox models 'treatment centre' remained a predictor of 1 year survival independent of patient, tumour factors and treatment choice.
Conclusion: Variations in outcome seen between UK centres are not related solely to casemix but rather to the approach and ethos of each centre towards advanced ovarian cancer treatment options. Although important, differences in treatment patterns do not completely explain the variations seen and further work is required to understand the drivers of difference seen
Cardiac toxicity following radiation therapy (evidence summary)
No full textThis is an evidence summary produced by the Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Knowledge and Library Service
Disclaimer: We will endeavour to use the best, most appropriate and most recent sources available to ensure that the information supplied is accurate, up-to-date and evidence-based. It is the responsibility of the requestor to determine the accuracy, validity and interpretation of the search results. No responsibility can be taken by the library for any action taken on the basis of this information. New evidence may have been published since the date this evidence summary was created
Physical and chemical restraint for patients with learning disabilities in a community setting (evidence summary)
No full textThis is an evidence summary produced by the Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Knowledge and Library Service
Disclaimer: We will endeavour to use the best, most appropriate and most recent sources available to ensure that the information supplied is accurate, up-to-date and evidence-based. It is the responsibility of the requestor to determine the accuracy, validity and interpretation of the search results. No responsibility can be taken by the library for any action taken on the basis of this information. New evidence may have been published since the date this evidence summary was created
Long term high freqency attenders in primary care (evidence summary)
No full textThis is an evidence summary produced by the Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Knowledge and Library Service
Disclaimer: We will endeavour to use the best, most appropriate and most recent sources available to ensure that the information supplied is accurate, up-to-date and evidence-based. It is the responsibility of the requestor to determine the accuracy, validity and interpretation of the search results. No responsibility can be taken by the library for any action taken on the basis of this information. New evidence may have been published since the date this evidence summary was created
The current state of pediatric gastroenterology in under-resourced nations.
Full text linkCopyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cBackground: Pediatric gastroenterology (GI) care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) faces substantial challenges due to limited healthcare infrastructure, inadequate resources, and a shortage of specialized healthcare professionals. These challenges lead to delayed diagnoses and treatment, exacerbating the morbidity and mortality associated with pediatric GI diseases, which include both infectious conditions like diarrhea and chronic conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and liver diseases.
Aim: The aim of this review is to examine the current state of pediatric GI care in LMICs, identify the key challenges these regions face, and propose strategies to improve healthcare outcomes for children affected by GI disorders.
Methods: This review synthesizes existing literature from a range of LMICs, analyzing factors such as the economic burden of healthcare, barriers to access, the availability of diagnostic and therapeutic services, and the state of pediatric hepatology and endoscopy. Studies included in the review were sourced from countries in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and other LMIC regions, focusing on pediatric GI disorders and healthcare delivery.
Results: Economic burden: Families in LMICs face significant economic barriers in accessing pediatric GI care, with treatment costs often exceeding household income, especially in private healthcare settings. Healthcare access: Limited access to healthcare facilities, especially in rural areas, coupled with the shortage of trained pediatric gastroenterologists and necessary medical equipment, leads to delayed diagnoses and inadequate care for conditions like Helicobacter pylori infections and chronic liver diseases. Sanitation and infectious diseases: Poor sanitation and lack of access to clean water contribute to the high prevalence of diarrheal diseases, which can be reduced through better hygiene practices and improved infrastructure. Training gaps: The shortage of trained healthcare workers, particularly pediatric specialists, hinders effective care delivery, with healthcare workers often overburdened due to workforce migration and low salaries. Hepatology and endoscopy: Pediatric hepatology, especially in the context of viral hepatitis, and the availability of pediatric GI endoscopy are severely limited in LMICs, further complicating the management of liver diseases and GI conditions in children.
Conclusion: Improving pediatric GI care in LMICs requires addressing systemic challenges such as inadequate healthcare infrastructure, limited financial resources, and a shortage of trained professionals. Prevention strategies like vaccination, sanitation improvements, and public health education campaigns are crucial for reducing the prevalence of pediatric GI diseases. In addition, enhancing access to specialized training, healthcare services, and diagnostic tools will improve outcomes for children in resource-limited settings. Continued international collaboration and investment in local healthcare systems are essential for creating sustainable solutions and bridging the gap in pediatric GI care
Risk stratification in primary care (evidence summary)
No full textThis is an evidence summary produced by the Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Knowledge and Library Service
Disclaimer: We will endeavour to use the best, most appropriate and most recent sources available to ensure that the information supplied is accurate, up-to-date and evidence-based. It is the responsibility of the requestor to determine the accuracy, validity and interpretation of the search results. No responsibility can be taken by the library for any action taken on the basis of this information. New evidence may have been published since the date this evidence summary was created
Evaluation of current and emerging endoluminal robotic platforms using the IDEAL framework.
Full text link� 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.Background: Robotic-assisted endoluminal systems are rapidly evolving within the field of minimally invasive surgery. The IDEAL framework (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Surveillance) can be used to evaluate novel technologies. This review provides a summary of current and emerging endoluminal systems using the IDEAL framework.
Methods: A scoping review was conducted to include all existing and developing robotic-assisted endoluminal systems. Data was collected via virtual interviews, questionnaires, biomedical databases, company websites, and peer-reviewed articles. Key metrics were reported, enabling the assignment of each system to an IDEAL stage.
Results: The review identified 17 distinct systems from 16 companies. Nine systems received regulatory approval in their respective countries. Our evaluation showed that two systems were at the pre-IDEAL Stage 0. Seven systems were in the Idea stage (Stage 1), six systems were in the Development stage (Stage 2) and two systems completed Stage 3. No system underwent long-term study evaluation (Stage 4).
Conclusions: There is a gap in long-term clinical data of robotic-assisted endoluminal systems, indicated by the absence of systems at Stage 4. Collaborative efforts amongst the medical community, regulatory bodies, and industry specialists are vital to ensure the delivery of evidence-based medicine in the discipline of robotics