9 research outputs found
Mentor-mentee relationships in the changing world of medical and surgical training: Do mentors still know who is who?
No full textJunior doctor titles following implementation of Modernising Medical Careers in the UK
No full textObjective Recent changes in postgraduate medical training in the UK collectively organized under the auspices of Modernising Medical Careers (MMC) have created new labels for junior doctors in training. It would appear that many nurses and other health workers do not understand the new terminology. We aimed to investigate the knowledge of nursing staff about new junior doctor titles in a district general hospital. As far as we are aware, this is the first survey to determine the views and knowledge of the new terms among staff working in the NHS. Design Questionnaire study. Setting District general hospital. West Midlands, UK. Participants Fifty-five randomly selected staff nurses working in the surgical directorate. Main outcome measure Questions were asked about their views and knowledge of the current nomenclature. To objectively assess knowledge of the new titles respondents were asked to match equivalent positions with those based on the old system. Results Only 22% ( n = 12) of respondents felt that they fully understand current terms in usage. Seventy-six percent ( n = 42) felt that it was ‘very important’ that titles accurately convey role and seniority of the doctor. The most common titles correctly matched were FY1 and House Officer ( n = 45, 81%) and FY2 and First Year Senior House Officer ( n = 35, 64%). Only 9% ( n = 5) of staff nurses correctly matched ST3 to Junior Registrar and 13% ( n = 7) correctly matched ST7 to Senior Registrar. Ward-based staff nurses demonstrated greater familiarity with titles when compared to nurses who work mainly in the outpatient clinic and theatre setting (p = 0.017). We did not identify a statistically significant association with demographic characteristics (age, gender, experience) and knowledge of the new terms (p > 0.05). Approximately 98% ( n = 54) of the staff surveyed felt that terms are confusing to nurses and need to be simplified. Conclusions Our survey revealed that nursing staff lacked knowledge of the current terminology to describe doctors in training. This may have implications for staff expectations regarding specific role of junior doctor in terms of clinical decision-making, working relationships and communication between team members, and ultimately patient care. </jats:sec
Wide local excision under local anaesthetic for early breast cancer: A surgical option for the medically unfit
No full text
Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study
No full textAbstract: Background: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions: The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown
Bridging pre-surgical endocrine therapy for breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the B-MaP-C study
No full textPurpose:
The B-MaP-C study investigated changes to breast cancer care that were necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we present a follow-up analysis of those patients commenced on bridging endocrine therapy (BrET), whilst they were awaiting surgery due to reprioritisation of resources.
Methods:
This multicentre, multinational cohort study recruited 6045 patients from the UK, Spain and Portugal during the peak pandemic period (Feb–July 2020). Patients on BrET were followed up to investigate the duration of, and response to, BrET. This included changes in tumour size to reflect downstaging potential, and changes in cellular proliferation (Ki67), as a marker of prognosis.
Results:
1094 patients were prescribed BrET, over a median period of 53 days (IQR 32–81 days). The majority of patients (95.6%) had strong ER expression (Allred score 7–8/8). Very few patients required expedited surgery, due to lack of response (1.2%) or due to lack of tolerance/compliance (0.8%). There were small reductions in median tumour size after 3 months’ treatment duration; median of 4 mm [IQR − 20, 4]. In a small subset of patients ( n = 47), a drop in cellular proliferation (Ki67) occurred in 26 patients (55%), from high (Ki67 ≥ 10%) to low (< 10%), with at least one month’s duration of BrET.
Discussion:
This study describes real-world usage of pre-operative endocrine therapy as necessitated by the pandemic. BrET was found to be tolerable and safe. The data support short-term (≤ 3 months) usage of pre-operative endocrine therapy. Longer-term use should be investigated in future trials
