A prospective randomised comparison of minor surgery in primary and secondary care. The MISTIC trial

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 12, Issue 23, 2008, Pages

  George, S ^a   Pockney, P ^a   Primrose, J ^a   Smith, H ^b   Little, P ^a   Kinley, H ^a   Kneebone, R ^c   Lowy, A ^d   Leppard, B ^e   Jayatilleke, N ^a   McCabe, C ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b BRIGHTON AND SUSSEX MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d Swiss Institute for Applied Cancer Research   (Switzerland)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL SOUTHAMPTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALLERGY; ARTICLE; CHI SQUARE TEST; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ELECTIVE SURGERY; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INGROWN NAIL; KAPPA STATISTICS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINOR SURGERY; OBSERVER VARIATION; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT REFERRAL; PATIENT SAFETY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHOTOGRAPHY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; PRECANCER; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SKIN CANCER; SKIN DISCOMFORT; SKIN DISEASE; SKIN SURGERY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SURGICAL TRAINING; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; WOUND HEALING; WOUND INFECTION; AMBULATORY CARE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HOSPITALIZATION; MEDICAL STAFF; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; SAFETY; STANDARD; UNITED KINGDOM;

AMBULATORY CARE; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL STAFF, HOSPITAL; MIDDLE AGED; NAILS, INGROWN; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PHYSICIANS, FAMILY; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; SAFETY; SKIN DISEASES; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, ELECTIVE; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINOR;

EID: 47849122681     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta12230     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Wall DW. Beware the pitfalls. Physician 1987;6: 71-2.
2. Brown JS. Minor operations in general practice. BMJ 1979; i:1609-10.
3. Jackson AD. Treatment of skin cancers in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 1991;41:213.
4. Menon NK. Minor surgery in general practice. Practitioner 1986; 230:917-19.
5. Department of Health and the Welsh Office. General practice in the National Health Service, the 1990 contract. The government's program for changes to general practitioners' terms and conditions of service and remunerative systems. London: HMSO; 1989.
6. Coid DR. General practitioner minor surgery facilitated by a Fife District General Hospital. Evaluation of a pilot project. Health Bull (Edinb) 1990;48:132-6.
7. Coopers and Lybrand Associates. The cost effectiveness of general practice. A general medical services discussion document. London: British Medical Association; 1983.
8. Berry DP, Harding KG. Potential pitfalls of minor surgery in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 1993; 43:358-9.
9. Chew CA, Black CN. Training for the new contract. Br J Gen Pract 1991;41:35-6.
10. Kneebone RL. Training general practitioners in minor surgery. Br J Gen Pract 1994;44:103-4.
11. Milne R. Minor surgery in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 1990; 40:175-6.
12. Pringle M, Hasler J, De Marco P. Training for minor surgery in general practice during preregistration surgical posts. BMJ 1991; 302:830-2.
13. Thompson AM, Park KG, Kelly DR, MacNamara I, Munro A. Training for minor surgery in general practice: is it adequate? J R Coll Surg Edinb 1997; 42:89-91.
14. Brown PA, Kernohan NM, Smart LM, Savargaonkar P, Atkinson P, Robinson S, et al. Skin lesion removal: practice by general practitioners in Grampian Region before and after April 1990. Scott Med J 1992; 37:144-6.
15. Lowy A, Brazier J, Fall M, Thomas K, Jones N, Williams BT. Minor surgery by general practitioners under the 1990 contract: effects on hospital workload. BMJ 1993;307:413-17.
16. Morrison JM, Murray TS. Survey of minor surgery in general practice in the west of Scotland. Br J Surg 1993;80:202-4.
17. Brazier J, Lowy A. Performance of skin biopsies by general practitioners. BMJ 1991;303:1472.
18. Bricknell MC. Skin biopsies of pigmented skin lesions performed by general practitioners and hospital specialists. Br J Gen Pract 1993;43: 199-201.
19. Bull AD, Silcocks PB, Start RD, Kennedy A. Performance of skin biopsies by general practitioners. BMJ 1991;303:1373.
20. Cox NH, Wagstaff R, Popple AW. Using clinicopathological analysis of general practitioner skin surgery to determine educational requirements and guidelines. BMJ 1992;304:93-6.
21. Cross P. Is histological examination of tissue removed by GPs always necessary? Even specialists get the clinical diagnosis wrong. BMJ 1998; 316:778.
22. Khorshid SM, Pinney E, Bishop JA. Melanoma excision by general practitioners in north-east Thames region, England. Br J Dermatol 1998;138: 412-17.
23. Kirby B, Harrison P, Blewitt R. Is histological examination of tissue removed by GPs always necessary. More skin carcinomas might be detected with routine histological examination. BMJ 1998;316:779.
24. Lowy A, Willis D, Abrams K. Is histological examination of tissue removed by general practitioners always necessary? Before and after comparison of detection rates of serious skin lesions. BMJ 1997; 315:406-8.
25. Lowy A, Abrams K, Willis D. Is histological examination of tissue removed by general practitioners always necessary? BMJ 1998; 316:779.
26. McWilliam LJ, Knox F, Wilkinson N, Oogarah P. Performance of skin biopsies by general practitioners. BMJ 1991;303:1177-9.
27. Paraskevopoulos JA, Hosking SW, Johnson AG. Do all minor excised lesions require histological examination? Discussion paper. J R Soc Med 1988;81:583-4.
28. Suvarna SK, Shortland JR, Smith JH. Is histological examination of tissue removed by GPs always necessary? Over 10 days two important lesions were sent to histopathologists in Sheffield. BMJ 1998; 316:778-9.
29. Leese B, Taylor C, Bosanquet N. A stitch in time? Minor surgery in general practice. York: University of York; 1995.
30. Makuch R, Simon R. Sample size requirements for evaluating a conservative therapy. Cancer Treat Rep 1978;62:1037-40.
31. Machin D, Campbell MJ, Fayers P, Pinol A. Sample size tables for clinical studies. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell; 1997.
32. Gibbs S, Harvey I, Sterling J, Stark R. Local treatments for cutaneous warts: systematic review. BMJ 2002;325:461.
33. O'Cathain A, Brazier JE, Milner PC, Fall M. Cost effectiveness of minor surgery in general practice: a prospective comparison with hospital practice. Br J Gen Pract 1992;42:13-17.
34. Quinn JV, Wells GA. An assessment of clinical wound evaluation scales. Acad Emerg Med 1998; 5:583-6.
35. Singer AJ, Church AL, Forrestal K, Werblud M, Valentine SM, Hollander JE. Comparison of patient satisfaction and practitioner satisfaction with wound appearance after traumatic wound repair. Acad Emerg Med 1997;4:133-7.
36. Singer AJ, Quinn JV, Thode HC Jr, Hollander JE. Determinants of poor outcome after laceration and surgical incision repair. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;110:429-35.
37. Quinn J, Wells G, Sutcliffe T, Jarmuske M, Maw J, Stiell I, et al. Tissue adhesive versus suture wound repair at 1 year: randomized clinical trial correlating early, 3-month, and 1-year cosmetic outcome. Ann Emerg Med 1998;32:645-9.
38. Kinley H. The development of a questionnaire to measure patient satisfaction with the process and outcome of minor surgery. MSc project, University of Southampton; 2002. URL: http://www.som.soton.ac.uk/ research/cancersciences/Research_Groups/Surgery/Kinley%20Thesis.pdf
39. Culyer A, NHS Research and Development Task Force. Supporting research and development in the NHS. London: HMSO; 1994.
40. Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2005. London: Department of Health; 2005. URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/ OrganisationPolicy/FinanceAndPlanning/NHSReferenceCosts/fs/en
41. Crystal Ball [computer program]. Version 7.0. Denver, Colorado: Decisioneering; 2000.
42. Gold MR. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
43. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004. URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf
44. Chaudhary MA, Stearns SC. Estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an example from a randomized trial. Stat Med 1996;15: 1447-58.
45. Efron B. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1993.
46. Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 1998;7:723-40.
47. van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, Rutten FF. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994;3:309-19.
48. Champion RH, Burton JL, Burns DA, Breathnach SM. Rook/Wilkinson/ Ebling textbook of dermatology. 6th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific; 1998.
49. Fleiss JL. Measurement of inter-rater agreement. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1981.
50. Salisbury C, Noble A, Horrocks S, Crosby Z, Harrison V, Coast J, et al. Evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2005; 331:1441-6.
51. Coast J, Noble S, Noble A, Horrocks S, Asim O, Peters TJ, et al. Economic evaluation of a general practitioner with special interests led dermatology service in primary care. BMJ;331: 1444-9.
52. Diffey BL. The future incidence of cutaneous melanoma within the UK. Br J Dermatol 2004; 151:868-72.
53. Department of Health. Our health, our care, our say: a new direction for community services. London: Stationery Office; 2006.