Is there a difference between short and long operating list waiters?

• Research type

  Research Study

• Full title

  Is there a difference between those who wait a short and a long time on an operating list? A pilot study to allow design of a novel trial for rectal prolapse.

• IRAS ID

  209531

• Contact name

  Steven Brown

• Contact email

  steven.brown@sth.nhs.uk

• Sponsor organisation

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS FT

• Duration of Study in the UK

  0 years, 6 months, 1 days

• Research summary

  Rectal prolapse is a distressing condition where the bowel lining prolapses outside the anal canal. Only surgery can cure the problem and surgeons have invented many operations but no-one knows which is best.
  
  To try to find out what is best is difficult. Surgeons and patients have preconceived ideas and are not willing to try other options. We are therefore designing a trial where patients can have whatever they or the surgeon wants but we can still show which is best. The patient simply answers regular questions about how they feel and whether the prolapse has gone whilst on an operating waiting list and after surgery is done. Some people will be operated on sooner than others allowing us to compare how patients feel who have had one operation with those who have not had the operation yet or have had another type of procedure.

  For the trial to be fair, people having to wait a long time for surgery should be similar to the ‘short waiters’. They may not be. For example people a long wait may be due to other health problems. Shorter waiters may be fitter. This would potentially make the study conclusions incorrect. In order to find out if there is a difference we need to do another simple questionnaire survey first essentially to prove the ‘short waiters’ and ‘long waiters’ are the same. Patients will be asked 5 simple quality of life questions on being listed and at the time of surgery. A health assessment will also be obtained from information gathered as part of routine operation pre-assessment.

  Such a trial will give us important information in its own right but will allow us to develop the design of a bigger trial on rectal prolapse.

• REC name

  London - Chelsea Research Ethics Committee

• REC reference

  16/LO/1363

• Date of REC Opinion

  20 Jul 2016

• REC opinion

  Favourable Opinion