Nerve Injury Patient Related Outcomes

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    A study into patient related outcomes from nerve injury recovery. Including an assessment of Minimal clinical important difference (MCID) for recovery of motor function after renervation.

  • IRAS ID

    202847

  • Contact name

    Tom Quick

  • Contact email

    t.quick@ucl.ac.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    1 years, 11 months, 31 days

  • Research summary

    This is a no harm clinical study designed to create a dialogue between clinicians, scientists and patients. The study will provide an insight in to the patient experience following nerve injury.
    As clinicians we have numerous clinician rated outcome measures which we can apply to assess a patient's outcome. We also apply some general patient rated outcome measures which give us a global perspective on the patient's experience or quality of life.
    This project will collect data on motor renervation from the patients view point. The final stage will be to develop a specific patient related outcome measure for motor renervation. Specifically it will explore the concepts of minimal clinical important difference (MCID) for motor recovery, expectations for recovery and the relative importance of other aspects of motor recovery such as co-contraction, fatiguability, proprioception, pain and sensory change.
    The process to arrive at this aim is multimodal and will utilise input from specialist clinicians , therapists, scientists and at the centre the paint voice.
    We will record the force characteristics of motor recovery and relate this to pre recovery expectation and explore with the individual patients their MCID and impressions for a hierachy of symptomology of motor recovery. We will also explore MCID from a statistical and population approach and perform a Delphi exercise with a panel of international expert professionals.

  • REC name

    London - Surrey Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    16/LO/0623

  • Date of REC Opinion

    31 Mar 2016

  • REC opinion

    Favourable Opinion