Preventable hospital patient harm events disproportionally affect certain patient populations. For some, harm extends beyond physical injury to include cultural, emotional or spiritual impacts. While these disparities are linked to socio-demographics (eg, race, education), they are driven by structural factors (eg, procedures and policies). Patient safety monitoring systems (eg, incident reporting, patient concerns) were not originally designed to identify equity-related harms and may inadvertently obscure or reinforce the injustices they should address. This study will examine how equity is currently considered within hospital incident reporting and patient concerns systems across Canada and will identify opportunities to strengthen these systems’ responsiveness to inequities in patient safety.

This 3-year exploratory sequential mixed-method study began in September 2024. Phase one involves qualitative interviews with patient safety and equity leads, patients/families/caregivers and leaders of innovative initiatives to explore current practices, gaps and innovations in how equity-related factors are identified and addressed within incident reporting and patient concerns systems. Findings will inform Phase 2, a modified Delphi process with patient safety and equity experts and persons with lived experience of equity-related harm events to refine and reach consensus on key equity-promoting features, considerations and recommendations for these systems. In Phase 3, consensus items will be used to develop a national cross-sectional survey assessing the extent to which equity is integrated into hospital incident reporting and patient concerns systems in Canada. A patient advisory committee will inform data collection, interpretation of findings and dissemination.

Ethics approval has been received for Phase 1, with subsequent approvals to be sought for later phases. Dissemination plans include peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences and knowledge exchange activities to inform patient engagement, the design of incident reporting and patient concerns systems and policy development.

To compare costs and health consequences and to assess the cost-effectiveness of using low-dose oral long-acting morphine in people with chronic breathlessness.

Within-trial planned cost-consequences and cost-effectiveness analysis of data from a multisite, parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of low-dose, long-acting morphine.

11 hospital outpatients across the UK.

Consenting adults with chronic breathlessness due to long-term cardiorespiratory conditions.

5–10 mg two times a day oral long-acting morphine with a blinded laxative for 56 days.

Mean and SD of healthcare resource use (HRU) by trial arm; mean differences and 95% CI of costs between trial arms.

Mean differences in 28- and 56-day quality-adjusted life years (QALYs based on EuroQol five-dimension five-level score), Short Form-six dimensional scores and ICEpop CAPability-Supportive Care Measure scores; cost-utility of long-acting morphine for chronic breathlessness.

143 participants (75 morphine and 67 placebo) were randomised; 140 (90% power, males 66%, mean age 70.5 (SD 9.4)) formed the modified intention-to-treat population (participants receiving at least one dose of study medication). There were more inpatient and fewer outpatient services used by the morphine group versus the placebo. In the base-case analysis at 56 days, long-acting morphine was associated with similar mean per-patient costs and QALYs. There was an increase of £24 (95% CI –£395 to £552) and 0.002 (95% CI –0.004 to 0.008) QALYs. Hospitalisations were the main driver of cost differences. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £12 000/QALY, with a probability of cost-effectiveness of 54% at a £20 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. In the scenario analysis that excluded costs of adverse events considered unrelated to long-acting morphine by site investigators and researchers, the probability of cost-effectiveness increased to 73%.

Oral morphine for chronic breathlessness is likely to be a cost-effective intervention provided adverse events are minimised, but the effect on outcome is small and cautious interpretation is warranted.

ISRCTN87329095.

Cellulitis is a common bacterial skin infection causing significant pain, swelling and impact on daily activities, frequently leading to emergency department presentations and hospital admissions. While antibiotics are the mainstay of treatment, they do not directly address inflammation, often resulting in persisting or worsening symptoms in the initial days. Corticosteroids, with their potent anti-inflammatory effects, have shown benefit in other acute infections but are not currently standard care for patients with cellulitis. This trial aims to determine if adjunctive oral dexamethasone can reduce pain and improve outcomes in adults with cellulitis presenting to UK urgent secondary care settings.

This is a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, parallel group, phase 3 superiority trial, with an internal pilot and parallel health economic evaluation. Adult patients (≥16 years) with a clinical diagnosis of cellulitis (at any body site except the orbit) presenting to urgent secondary care will be screened for eligibility. 450 participants will be randomised (1:1) to receive either two 8 mg doses of oral dexamethasone or matched placebo, administered approximately 24 hours apart, in addition to standard antibiotic therapy. The primary outcome is total pain experienced over the first 3 days postrandomisation, calculated using the standardised area under the curve from pain scores (Numerical Rating Scale 0–10) across up to seven timepoints. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level), patient global impression of improvement, analgesia and antibiotic usage, hospital (re)admissions, complications, unscheduled healthcare use, cellulitis recurrence and cost-effectiveness at 90 days. The primary estimand will apply a treatment policy approach to intercurrent events.

The trial has received ethical approval from South Central—Oxford B Research Ethics Committee (reference: 24/SC/0289) and will be conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice and applicable regulations. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. A model consent form can be seen in . Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, and to patient groups and relevant clinical guideline committees.

ISRCTN76873478.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), an unknown aetiology type of interstitial lung disease (ILD), carries the poorest prognosis and is more common in males and the elderly. Gender differences in baseline presentation, lung function and comorbidities may have an impact on prognostic outcomes.

The aim of this study was to explore gender differences in clinical features, comorbidities and outcomes in IPF in a UK cohort.

This was a retrospective cohort study analysing data from the British Thoracic Society UK IPF ILD Registry from January 2013 to February 2024. We compared baseline characteristics between males and females, and a survival analysis in both genders was performed using the Cox proportional hazards model.

We identified 6666 IPF patients with a mean age at diagnosis of 74.1±8.1. Our cohort was predominantly male (5197, 78%), with a higher proportion of current and ex-smokers compared with females (69.9% vs 59.9%, p

Gender differences in baseline characteristics and prognostic factors were observed in IPF. A gender-based approach in managing IPF is warranted, and further studies are needed to clarify these differences and their impact on IPF management.