To explore patient and healthcare professional perceptions about the acceptability and impact of a large-scale system for automated, real-time monitoring and feedback of shared decision-making (SDM) that has been integrated into surgical care pathways.

Qualitative, semistructured interviews were conducted with patients and healthcare professionals between June and November 2021. Data were analysed using deductive and inductive approaches.

Large-scale monitoring of SDM has been integrated in NHS surgical care across two large UK National Health Service Trusts.

Adult surgical patients (N=18, 56% female), following use of an SDM real-time monitoring and feedback system, and healthcare professionals (N=14, 36% female) involved in their surgical care. Patient recruitment was conducted through hospital research nurses and professionals by direct approach from the study team to sample individuals purposively from seven surgical specialties (general, vascular, urology, orthopaedics, breast, gynaecology and urgent cardiac).

10 themes were identified within three areas of exploration that described factors underpinning: (1) the acceptability of large-scale automated, real-time monitoring of SDM experiences, (2) the acceptability of real-time feedback and addressing SDM deficiencies and (3) the impact of real-time monitoring and feedback. There was general support for real-time monitoring and feedback because of its perceived ability to efficiently address deficiencies in surgical patients’ SDM experience at scale, and its perceived benefits to patients, surgeons and the wider organisation. Factors potentially influencing acceptability of large-scale automated, real-time monitoring and feedback were identified for both stakeholder groups, for example, influence of survey timing on patient-reported SDM scores, disease-specific risks, patients’ dissatisfaction with hospital processes. Factors particularly important for patients included concerns over digital exclusion exacerbated by electronic real-time monitoring. Factors unique to professionals included the need for detailed, qualitative feedback of SDM to contextualise patient-reported SDM scores.

This study explored factors influencing the acceptability of automated, real-time monitoring and feedback of patients’ experiences of SDM integrated into surgical practice, at scale among key stakeholders. Findings will be used to guide refinement and implementation of SDM monitoring and feedback prior to formal development, evaluation and implementation of an SDM intervention in the NHS.

ISRCTN17951423.

doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079155.

Gaps in research evidence lead to research waste. In burns treatment, there is a paucity of reliable evidence or data. This contributes to inconsistent patient care, especially on a global scale, where low-resource countries often lack access to the latest research advancements. This umbrella review was undertaken as part of the James Lind Alliance Priorities in Global Burns Research Prioritisation Setting Partnership (PSP) and aimed to identify and assess the quality of evidence in thermal burns care. The objective was to map which interventions in thermal burns care are supported by a reliable evidence base and for which the evidence is lacking.

Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials in thermal burns were identified and assessed using reliability criteria determined a priori. Multiple systematic review databases were searched in June 2023, including the Cochrane Library, KSR Evidence database and NIHR Journals Library. Summary of findings and, where available, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to assess certainty of evidence. Reliable reviews were mapped onto clinical categories identified by patients, carers and healthcare professionals as part of the PSP.

232 systematic reviews were identified, of which 83 met reliability criteria and were included. The main reason for not meeting reliability criteria was poorly defined eligibility criteria (n=128). Of the 83 reliable reviews, most were conducted in pain (n=28) or wound management (n=14) and acute care (n=13). Certainty of evidence was mixed. Reviews mapped onto nine of the 17 clinical categories identified by the PSP.

This review summarises the available high-quality evidence in burns care and identifies evidence gaps, indicating that many important clinical questions remain unanswered. There is a discrepancy between the treatments investigated in high-quality research and the clinical areas considered as most important to stakeholders. These findings provide direction for future research to improve global burns care.