Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction This study implemented MendelScan, a primary care rare disease case-finding tool, into a UK National Health Service population. Rare disease diagnosis is challenging due to disease complexity and low physician awareness. The 2021 UK Rare Diseases Framework highlights as a key priority the need for faster diagnosis to improve clinical outcomes. Methods and results A UK primary care locality with 68,705 patients was examined. MendelScan encodes diagnostic/screening criteria for multiple rare diseases, mapping clinical terms to appropriate SNOMED CT codes (UK primary care standardised clinical terminology) to create digital algorithms. These algorithms were applied to a pseudo-anonymised structured data extract of the electronic health records (EHR) in this locality to \"flag\" at-risk patients who may require further evaluation. All flagged patients then underwent internal clinical review (a doctor reviewing each EHR flagged by the algorithm, removing all cases with a clear diagnosis/diagnoses that explains the clinical features that led to the patient being flagged); for those that passed this review, a report was returned to their GP. 55 of 76 disease criteria flagged at least one patient. 227 (0.33%) of the total 68,705 of EHR were flagged; 18 EHR were already diagnosed with the disease (the highlighted EHR had a diagnostic code for the same RD it was screened for, e.g. Behcet’s disease algorithm identifying an EHR with a SNOMED CT code Behcet's disease). 75/227 (33%) EHR passed our internal review. Thirty-six reports were returned to the GP. Feedback was available for 28/36 of the reports sent. GP categorised nine reports as \"Reasonable possible diagnosis\" (advance for investigation), six reports as \"diagnosis has already been excluded\", ten reports as \"patient has a clear alternative aetiology\", and three reports as \"Other\" (patient left study locality, unable to re-identify accurately). All the 9 cases considered as \"reasonable possible diagnosis\" had further evaluation. Conclusions This pilot demonstrates that implementing such a tool is feasible at a population level. The case-finding tool identified credible cases which were subsequently referred for further investigation. Future work includes performance-based validation studies of diagnostic algorithms and the scalability of the tool.

ObjectivesHearing loss is an area of unmet need, and industry is targeting this field with a growing range of surgically implanted hearing devices. Currently, there is no comprehensive UK registry capturing data on these devices; in its absence, it is difficult to monitor clinical and cost-effectiveness and develop national policy. Recognising that developing such a registry faces considerable challenges, it is important to gather opinions from stakeholders and patients. This paper builds on our systematic review on surgical registry development and aims to identify the specific requirements for developing a successful national registry of auditory implants.DesignQualitative study.ParticipantsData were collected in two ways: (1) semistructured interviews with UK professional stakeholders; and (2) focus groups with patients with hearing loss. The interview and focus group schedules were informed by our systematic review on registry development. Data were analysed using directed content analysis. Judges mapped the themes obtained against a conceptual framework developed from our systematic review on registry development. The conceptual framework consisted of five categories for successful registry development: (1) planning, (2) registry governance, (3) registry dataset, (4) anticipating challenges, (5) implementing solutions.ResultsTwenty-seven themes emerged from 40 semistructured interviews with professional stakeholders and 18 themes emerged from three patient focus groups. The most important factor for registry success was high rates of data completion. Benefits of developing a successful registry of auditory implants include: strengthening the evidence base and regulation of auditory implants, driving quality and safety improvements, increased transparency, facilitating patient decision-making and informing policy and guidelines development.ConclusionsThis study identifies the requirements for developing a successful national registry of auditory implants, benefiting from the involvement of numerous professional stakeholder groups and patients with hearing loss. Our approach may be used internationally to inform successful registry development.