Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) are highly prevalent among surgeons. Despite growing awareness, there remains a lack of detailed data on the specific postures that contribute to ergonomic risk, particularly within General Surgery. This study aims to characterise postures encountered during open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrointestinal procedures using wearable sensor technology and video analysis, to inform future ergonomic interventions and training.
A single-centre, prospective observational study of 30 surgical cases will be conducted at University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust. Participating surgeons will wear inertial measurement units (IMUs) to record real-time body segment position data whilst performing live surgery. A biomechanical model will then be used to calculate joint angles and whole body posture. Video recordings will be synchronised with IMU data to map posture to surgical tasks. Static and dynamic postures will be analysed using standard ergonomic assessment tools. Alternative tools tailored to surgery will be assessed and proposed. Surgeons will complete questionnaires pre- and post-operatively to report musculoskeletal symptoms. Outcomes will compare ergonomic risk across surgical techniques, identify high-risk procedural steps, and assess the acceptability of wearable technologies in the operating theatre. The data generated will also be used to evaluate, train or refine artificially intelligent camera-based pose estimation models for the operating theatre environment in order to make future ergonomics research and assessment more accessible.

Older people falling from a standing height is the most common cause of hospital admission for head injury. Up to 1 in 3 patients admitted are taking a tablet medication which thins the blood, known as an oral anticoagulant. This type of medication can increase the likelihood of bleeding in the brain. Many patients are taking oral anticoagulation due to having an irregular heartbeat (called atrial fibrillation) or because of having a previous stroke or blood clots. When a scan shows blood in the brain, oral anticoagulation is nearly always stopped. However, this leaves the question of when it is safe to restart them. The risk of making the bleeding in the brain worse must be balanced against the risk of having a stroke or blood clots. There is no clear evidence on the safest time to restart oral anticoagulation, but most neurosurgeons advise restarting them 1-4 weeks after head injury. The number of people who have a bleed on their brain after a head injury is increasing and further brain bleeding or a stroke can have a serious effect on patients' lives and their on-going healthcare needs. Public and patient groups have highlighted that many patients want to stop taking oral anticoagulation after a bleed but they may be unaware of the vital importance of restarting this medication to prevent strokes and blood clots. The most popular oral anticoagulation prescribed has changed in recent years from warfarin to newer medications called Direct Oral Anti-Coagulants (DOACs).
This trial will recruit 1084 people who are admitted to hospital with a bleed on the brain caused by a head injury who were taking oral anticoagulation before their head injury and have been prescribed a Direct Oral Anti-Coagulant (DOAC) for previously diagnosed medical condition. Patients on other Oral Anti-Coagulants, such as Warfarin may also be able to take part. The main purpose of the trial is to determine when is most beneficial time for people to start or restart a DOAC after their head injury. People will be asked to start the medication either 1 week or 4 weeks after their head injury. They will be then followed closely for 12 weeks and any major bleeding events or a blood clots (thrombotic events) such as a stroke or heart attack will be recorded. The study will also look at the person's overall quality of life, how they recover physically, the number of people who die, the costs of the treatment, and the attitudes of people and their caregivers to starting or restarting a DOAC.

Severe asthma is a disease characterised by respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms. The respiratory symptoms can include breathlessness, wheeze and asthma attacks. The disease can come to dominate patients' lives, impacting their social, working and personal lives, leading to depression, anxiety and feelings of social isolation.
There are now 7 different biologic treatments available on the NHS in the UK for severe asthma. These treatments have dramatically changed how severe asthma can be treated. Research has typically focused on the benefits of these drugs from a clinical perspective, e.g., improvements in lung function, blood tests and reduction in frequency of asthma attacks and use of steroid tablets.
While these are important outcomes, they do not reflect the experiences of patients receiving these treatments, which can vary greatly. First, not all patients benefit to the same degree. Second for patients who do respond, some respond slower than others. Third while these treatments target respiratory symptoms, some patients report wider benefits, such as reductions in fatigue, depression, ability to engage in family life and other daily activities. Fourth, patients report different side effects when starting these treatments and sometimes for months afterwards, including headaches, fatigue, mental fog and joint pain. These experiences are reported by clinicians and patients, but the extent of these four variations is poorly understood, and potential reasons for them have not been explored.
To describe these differences between patients' experiences and begin understanding why they are present, we have co-designed a survey with people who have lived experience of severe asthma who are members of the European Lung Foundation's (ELF) Patient Advisory Group (PAG). This process has resulted in a survey that contains content important to patients and is worded in a way that avoids confusion regarding the meaning of the questions.