Skip to main content

Table 2 OAKS centre characteristics, centre activity and data completeness at one-year postoperatively

From: Challenges of one-year longitudinal follow-up of a prospective, observational cohort study using an anonymised database: recommendations for trainee research collaboratives

 

Centre active in OAKS

Centre ≥95% completeness in OAKS

Active (n = 126)

Inactive (n = 47)

p-value

Yes (n = 73)

No (n = 53)

p-value

UK Countries

England

95 (72.5)

36 (27.5)

0.045

53 (55.8)

42 (44.2)

< 0.001

Ireland

11 (78.6)

3 (21.4)

 

4 (36.4)

7 (63.6)

 

Scotland

16 (88.9)

2 (11.1)

 

16 (100.0)

0 (0.0)

 

Wales

4 (40.0)

6 (60.0)

 

0 (0.0)

4 (100.0)

 

Total number of patients to be followed up

< 15 patients

31 (70.5)

13 (29.5)

0.491

24 (77.4)

7 (22.6)

0.030

15–29 patients

39 (72.2)

15 (27.8)

 

23 (59.0)

16 (41.0)

 

30–59 patients

37 (69.8)

16 (30.2)

 

19 (51.4)

18 (48.6)

 

> 60 patients

19 (86.4)

3 (13.6)

 

7 (36.8)

12 (63.2)

 

Percentage of patients with complete follow-up

Mean (SD)

28.3 (21.6)

27.9 (21.9)

0.877

Junior doctor present in OAKS mini-teama

Yes

108 (80.6)

26 (19.4)

< 0.001

63 (58.3)

45 (41.7)

0.825

No

18 (46.2)

21 (53.8)

 

10 (55.6)

8 (44.4)

 

Central storage of patient hospital identifiers

Yes

51 (83.6)

10 (16.4)

0.019

37 (72.5)

14 (27.5)

0.006

No

75 (67.0)

37 (33.0)

 

36 (48.0)

39 (52.0)

 

Survey respondents

Yes

125 (84.5)

23 (15.5)

< 0.001

72 (57.6)

53 (42.4)

0.392

No

1 (4.0)

24 (96.0)

 

1 (100.0)

0 (0.0)

 
  1. aJunior doctors are present in each mini-team over a data collection period