Introduction. The cancellation of elective procedures has been shown to waste resources and to have the potential to increase morbidity and mortality among patients. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of the cancellation of elective surgical procedures and to identify the factors associated with these cancellations at Mulago Hospital, a large public hospital in Kampala, Uganda. Methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted from January 10, 2018, to February 20, 2018. We recruited patients of all ages who were admitted to surgical wards and scheduled for elective surgery. Data on patients’ demographic characteristics and diagnosis, as well as the specialty of the surgery, the planned procedure, the specific operating theatre, cancellation, and the reasons for cancellation were extracted and analyzed using logistic regression. Results. Of a total of 400 cases, 115 procedures were canceled—a cancellation prevalence of 28.8%. Orthopedic surgery had the highest cancellation rate, at 40.9% (n = 47). Facility-related factors were responsible for 67.8% of all cancellations. The most common reason for cancellation was insufficient time in the theatre to complete the procedure on the scheduled day. No procedures were canceled because of a lack of intensive care unit beds. There was a significant association between surgical specialty and cancellation (P<0.05) at multivariate analysis. Conclusion. The prevalence of cancellation of elective surgical procedures at Mulago Hospital was 28.8%, with orthopedic surgery having the highest cancellation rate. Two-thirds of the factors causing cancellations were facility-related, and more than 50% of all cancellations were potentially preventable. Quality-improvement strategies are necessary in the specialties that are susceptible to procedure cancellation because of facility factors.

Introduction. The prevalence rates of head injury have been shown to be as high as 25% among trauma patients with severe head injury contributing to about 31% of all trauma deaths. Triage utilizes numerical cutoff points along the scores continuum to predict the greatest number of people who would have a poor outcome, “severe” patients, when scoring below the threshold and a good outcome “non severe” patients, when scoring above the cutoff or numerical threshold. This study aimed to compare the predictive value of the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Kampala Trauma Score for mortality and length of hospital stay at a tertiary hospital in Uganda. Methods. A diagnostic prospective study was conducted from January 12, 2018 to March 16, 2018. We recruited patients with head injury admitted to the accidents and emergency department who met the inclusion criteria for the study. Data on patient’s demographic characteristics, mechanisms of injury, category of road use, and classification of injury according to the GCS and KTS at initial contact and at 24 hours were collected. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis and logistic regression analysis were used for comparison. Results. The GCS predicted mortality and length of hospital stay with the GCS at admission with AUC of 0.9048 and 0.7972, respectively (KTS at admission time, AUC 0.8178 and 0.7243). The GCS predicted mortality and length of hospital stay with the GCS at 24 hours with AUC of 0.9567 and 0.8203, respectively (KTS at 24 hours, AUC 0.8531 and 0.7276). At admission, the GCS at a cutoff of 11 had a sensitivity of 83.23% and specificity of 82.61% while the KTS had 88.02% and 73.91%, respectively, at a cutoff of 13 for predicting mortality. At admission, the GCS at a cutoff of 13 had sensitivity of 70.48% and specificity of 66.67% while the KTS had 68.07% and 62.50%, respectively, at a cutoff of 14 for predicting length of hospital stay. Conclusion. Comparatively, the GCS performed better than the KTS in predicting mortality and length of hospital stay. The GCS was also more accurate at labelling the head injury patients who died as severely injured as opposed to the KTS that categorized most of them as moderately injured. In general, the two scores were sensitive at detection of mortality and length of hospital stay among the study population.

Background SIRS and qSOFA are two ancillary scoring tools that have been used globally, inside and outside of ICU to predict adverse outcomes of infections such as secondary peritonitis. A tertiary teaching hospital in Uganda uses SIRS outside the ICU to identify patients with secondary peritonitis, who are at risk of adverse outcomes. However, there are associated delays in decision making given SIRS partial reliance on laboratory parameters which are often not quickly available in a resource limited emergency setting. In response to the practical limitations of SIRS, the sepsis-3 task force recommends qSOFA as a better tool. However, its performance in patients with secondary peritonitis in comparison to that of SIRS has not been evaluated in a resource limited setting of a tertiary teaching hospital in a low and middle income country like Uganda. Objective To compare the performance of qSOFA and SIRS scores in predicting adverse outcomes of secondary peritonitis among patients on the adult surgical wards in a tertiary teaching hospital in Uganda. Methods This was a prospective cohort study of patients with clinically confirmed secondary peritonitis, from March 2018 to January 2019 at the Accident and Emergency unit and the adult surgical wards of a tertiary teaching hospital in Uganda. QSOFA and SIRS scores were generated for each patient, with a score of ≥2 recorded as high risk, while a score of < 2 recorded as low risk for the adverse outcome respectively. After surgery, patients were followed up until discharge or death. In-hospital mortality and prolonged hospital stay were the primary and secondary adverse outcomes, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy at 95% confidence interval were calculated for each of the scores using STATA v.13. Results A total of 153 patients were enrolled. Of these, 151(M: F, 2.4:1) completed follow up and were analysed, 2 were excluded. Mortality rate was 11.9%. Fourty (26.5%) patients had a prolonged hospital stay. QSOFA predicted in-hospital mortality with AUROC of 0.52 versus 0.62, for SIRS. Similarly, qSOFA predicted prolonged hospital stay with AUROC of 0.54 versus 0.57, for SIRS. Conclusion SIRS is superior to qSOFA in predicting both mortality and prolonged hospital stay among patients with secondary peritonitis. However, overall, both scores showed a poor discrimination for both adverse outcomes and therefore not ideal tools.

Introduction: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common and life-threatening complication of major trauma. Recognition is often delayed and management is frequently sub-optimal. We determined the incidence, risk factors and immediate outcomes of AKI in patients with major trauma at Mulago National Referral Hospital.Methods: This was a prospective study. We recruited adult patients with ISS of > 16. The KDIGO criteria was used to stage AKI. Serum creatinine was measured at baseline, 24, 48, 72 hours and on discharge from the study. Participants were followed up for seven days if not yet discharged. Bivariate and multivariate analysis was done using modified Poisson regression with robust standard errors.Results: 224 patients were recruited. The incidence was 67/1000 persons per day. The risk factors were male sex, delayed presentation, hypoglycemia at admission, RR=1.62 (95%CI 1.24-2.12) and non-operative management RR=1.39 (95%CI 1.02-1.89). Out of the 62 patients that died, 34 (54.8%) had AKI. The overall mortality rate was 39.5 patients per thousand per day.Conclusion: There was a high incidence of AKI among patients with major trauma. Efforts to reduce morbidity and mortality should be prioritized.Keywords: AKI=Acute kidney injury; major trauma; ISS = injury severity score.

Background: SIRS and qSOFA are two ancillary scoring tools that have been used globally, inside and outside of ICU to predict adverse outcomes of infections such as secondary peritonitis. Mulago hospital uses SIRS outside the ICU to identify patients with secondary peritonitis, who are at risk of adverse outcomes. However it’s associated with delays in decision making given its partial reliance on laboratory parameters. In response to the practical limitations of SIRS, the sepsis-3 task force recommends qSOFA as a better tool, however its performance in patients with secondary peritonitis in comparison to that of SIRS has not been evaluated in Mulago hospital, Uganda.Objective: To compare the performance of qSOFA and SIRS scores in predicting adverse outcomes of secondary peritonitis in Mulago hospital, Uganda.Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of patients with clinically confirmed secondary peritonitis, from March 2018 to January 2019 at the A&E, Mulago hospital. QSOFA and SIRS scores were generated for each of the patient, with a score of ≥ 2 recorded as high risk, while a score of ≤ 2 recorded as low risk for the adverse outcome respectively. After surgery, patients were followed up until discharge or death. In-hospital mortality and prolonged hospital stay were the primary and secondary adverse outcomes, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy at 95% confidence interval were calculated for each of the scores using STATA v.13Results: A total of 153 patients were enrolled. Of these, 151(M: F, 2.4:1) completed follow up and were analysed, 2 were excluded. Mortality rate was 11.9%. Fourty (26.5%) patients had a prolonged hospital stay. QSOFA predicted in-hospital mortality with AUROC of 0.52 versus 0.62, for SIRS. Similarly, qSOFA predicted prolonged hospital stay with AUROC of 0.54 versus 0.57, for SIRS.Conclusion: SIRS is superior to qSOFA in predicting both mortality and prolonged hospital stay among patients with secondary peritonitis. However, overall, both scores showed a poor discrimination for both adverse outcomes and therefore not ideal tools.