Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality ). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.

Bio-medical waste has a higher potential of infection and injury to the healthcare worker, patient and the surrounding community. Awareness programmes on their proper handling and management to healthcare workers can prevent the spread of infectious diseases and epidemics. This study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital to assess the impact of training, audits and education/implementations from 2009 to 2012 on awareness and practice of biomedical waste segregation. Our study reveals focused training, strict supervision, daily surveillance, audits inspections, involvement of hospital administrators and regular appraisals are essential to optimise the segregation of biomedical waste.

Introduction Accreditation ensures the standard of healthcare, yet accreditation effects on service quality are much debated. Some perceive it as improving quality and organizational performance, whereas others see it as overly bureaucratic and time-consuming, so adding it has limited advantage. The aim of the present study was to understand the perception of hospital staff working in quality management (i.e., doctors, nurses, and administrators) on accreditation, and determine whether years of accreditation have had any impact on their perception. Methods This was a cross-sectional, descriptive, data-based study initiated by the Consortium of Accredited Healthcare Organizations. It consisted of primary data obtained in form of responses to a 30-item questionnaire and collected from 415 respondents. A probability (p) value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results For all 30 items, a significantly greater number of participants had a favorable response (p < 0.001). A greater number of administrators, as compared with doctors and nurses, responded positively on the impact of accreditation (p < 0.05). Participants from hospitals with 1–4 years of accreditation, as compared with participants from hospitals with 4–12 years of accreditation, gave a favorable response (p < 0.05). Conclusion One of the most important hurdles to implementing accreditation programs is the dilemma of healthcare professionals, especially senior hospital staff, regarding the positive impact of accreditation. The need to educate healthcare professionals about the potential benefits of accreditation, which should resolve any cynical attitude of healthcare professionals towards accreditation, is of utmost importance.