Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41181838›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025

A national review of NHS policies and patient perspectives on surgical video: a prospective, mixed methods qualitative analysis.

Andrew Yiu, Kyle Lam, Catherine Simister, Amy Silver, Chloe Hicks, Marcus Vass, James Kinross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Andrew YiuDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK.
Kyle LamDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK.
Catherine SimisterDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK.
Amy SilverGastrointestinal Medicine and Surgery, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Chloe HicksGastrointestinal Medicine and Surgery, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Marcus VassOsborne Clarke LLP, UK.
James KinrossDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Robust governance policy is a fundamental requirement for the adoption of routine surgical video recording at scale. The true extent of existing local National Health Service (NHS) policies relevant to the recording of surgical video is currently not known, as are patient attitudes to the use of these videos by healthcare providers. Methods: This was a prospective, mixed methods qualitative analysis. All 144 NHS trusts/boards in England and Wales were asked to provide policies relating to surgical video between 20th February and 20th March 2023. Policies were assessed in accordance with United Kingdom (UK) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) principles. A patient and public questionnaire was performed on 14th September 2024 to analyse public views on the role of surgical video within healthcare and to identify issues surrounding video recording of surgical procedures within the NHS. Findings: 143/144 (97.9%) NHS trusts/boards responded to the request. Relevant policies were provided by 43/144 (29.9%) trusts/boards. 35/43 (81.4%) addressed consent processes clearly, 21/43 (48.8%) provided clear statements regarding patient access, and 35/43 (81.4%) policies asserted the trust/board's copyright. 19/43 (44.2%) clearly stated data minimisation and data accuracy requirements. 11/43 (25.6%) stated storage duration and 20/43 (46.5%) specified storage location. 255 members of the public completed our surgical video questionnaire. Identified expected uses of video were education, record keeping, and research; benefits were its use as an educational tool, objective evidence of the procedure, and patient satisfaction; concerns were raised about data privacy, consent, and security. 80/255 (31.4%) of participants agreed that all surgical procedures should be recorded. 186/255 (72.9%) would be interested in their own procedure. Video use for surgical quality assurance (236/255, 92.5%), education (241/255, 94.5%), and research (242/255, 94.9%) was supported. Interpretation: The majority of NHS trusts/boards do not have policies governing surgical video recording, use, and/or storage. The supplied policies addressed UK GDPR principles variably, focusing mainly on consent. Patients strongly support the use of surgical video for quality assurance and education, but there is disagreement if this should be performed routinely. The discordance between patient expectation and current NHS practice for the routine recording of surgical video must be addressed when policy is revised. Funding: KL is supported by an NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship and acknowledges infrastructure support from the NIHR Imperial BRC.

Indexed as

Data governanceHealth policyMinimally invasive surgeryOperative recordingsSurgical video

Identifiers

PMID41181838
PMCPMC12572805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.