Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

No abstract

PurposeThe daily surgical ward round (WR) is a complex process. Key aspects of patient assessment can be missed or not be documented in case notes. Safety checklists used outside of medicine help standardize performance and minimize errors. Its implementation has been beneficial in the National Health Service. A structured WR checklist standardizes key aspects of care that need to be addressed on a daily surgical WR. To improve patient safety and documentation, we implemented a surgical WR checklist for daily surgical WRs at our hospital. We describe our experience of its implementation within the general surgical department of a teaching hospital in the UK.MethodsA retrospective review of case note entries from surgical WRs (including Urology and Vascular surgery) was conducted between April 2015 and January 2016. WR entries of 72 case notes were audited for documentation of six parameters from the surgical WR checklist. A WR checklist label with the parameters was designed for use for each WR entry. A post-checklist implementation audit of 61 case notes was performed between Jan 2016 and August 2016. To assess outcome on patient safety, adverse events relating to these six parameters reported to the local clinical governance team were reviewed pre – and post-checklist implementation.ResultsOverall documentation of the six parameters improved following implementation of the WR checklist (pre-checklist=26% vs post-checklist=79%). Documentation of assessment of fluid balance improved from 8% to 76%. Subsequent audit at 3 months post-checklist implementation maintained improvement with documentation at 72%.ConclusionThe introduction of the surgical WR checklist has improved documentation of key aspects of patient care. The WR checklist benefits patient safety. It improves communication, documentation and ensures that key issues are not missed at patient assessment on WRs. A crucial factor for successful documentation is engagement by the senior clinicians and nursing staff on its benefits which ensures appropriate use of WR checklist labels occurs as doctors rotate through the surgical placement.

No abstract

Background This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January–October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P &lt; 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P &lt; 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background: Evidence-based interventions may reduce mortality in surgical patients. This study documented the prevalence of sepsis, adherence to guidelines in its management, and timing of source control in general surgical patients presenting as an emergency.Methods: Patients aged 16 years or more presenting with emergency general surgery problems were identified over a 7-day period and then screened for sepsis compliance (using the Sepsis Six standards, devised for severe sepsis) and the timing of source control (whether radiological or surgical). Exploratory analyses examined associations between the mode (emergency department or general practitioner) and time of admission, adherence to the sepsis guidelines, and outcomes (complications or death within 30 days).Results: Of a total of 5067 patients from 97 hospitals across the UK, 911 (18⋅0 per cent) fulfilled the criteria for sepsis, 165 (3⋅3 per cent) for severe sepsis and 24 (0⋅5 per cent) for septic shock. Timely delivery of all Sepsis Six guidelines for patients with severe sepsis was achieved in four patients. For patients with severe sepsis, 17⋅6-94⋅5 per cent of individual guidelines within the Sepsis Six were delivered. Oxygen was the criterion most likely to be missed, followed by blood cultures in all sepsis severity categories. Surgery for source control occurred a median of 19⋅8 (i.q.r. 10⋅0-35⋅4) h after diagnosis. Omission of Sepsis Six parameters did not appear to be associated with an increase in morbidity or mortality. Conclusion:Although sepsis was common in general surgical patients presenting as an emergency, adherence to severe sepsis guidelines was incomplete in the majority. Despite this, no evidence of harm was apparent. * Members of the UK National Surgical Research Collaborative are co-authors of this study and can be found under the heading Collaborators Paper accepted 25 October 2016Published online in Wiley Online Library (www.bjs.co.uk). DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10432 IntroductionGeneral surgical patients presenting as an emergency account for over 7 per cent of hospital episodes in the USA and 14 000 ICU admissions per year in the UK 1 -3 . Sepsis is prevalent in this patient group. Early diagnosis of severe sepsis and initiation of goal-directed therapy can reduce mortality, irrespective of the need for surgery 4,5 . This evidence was used to develop a care bundle known as the Sepsis Six for managing patients with severe sepsis (Table 1) 6,7 . These standards have been endorsed by many professional organizations, including the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of England and Ireland 1,2,8,9 . Complete application of these interventions is thought to be associated with as much as a one-third reduction in mortality from sepsis, although uptake is uncertain amongst surgical patients presenting as an emergency 4,6 .The main aims of the present study were to assess adherence to the Sepsis Six guidelines and identify the timing of source control in general su...

No abstract

Background: NHS hospitals currently have limited capacity in emergency theatres for emergency Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC). A pathway was introduced in this Trust allowing for emergency LC to be performed on an elective operating list. This study aims to assess its impact on patient care.Methods: Acute admissions with biliary complaints from April to September 2014 were identified prospectively (Group 1). Mode of referral for patients undergoing elective LC during the same period along with other data was collected retrospectively (Group 2). The two groups were compared for readmission rates, length of hospital stay (LOS) and conversions.Results: Of the 207 acute admissions, 115 (56%) were eligible for emergency surgery. Thirty-three patients (28.7%) had emergency surgery; 20 in emergency theatre and 13 on the pathway. One of 13 was converted to an open procedure. Average LOS for these 13 patients was 8 days. 11 (13.4%) of the remaining 82 patients were readmitted whilst awaiting surgery.Of the 131 patients undergoing elective LC, 38 (29%) were listed for surgery following acute admission prior to introduction of the pathway. Five of the 38 (13.1%) had readmissions whilst awaiting surgery, but none required conversion to open surgery. Average LOS for these 5 patients (including previous readmissions) was 6 days and that for 38 patients was 8 days. Conclusions:The use of elective lists to perform emergency LC is a feasible option. This model of care has facilitated participation in the Chole-QuIC initiative. Expansion and sustained use of this model has enabled more patients to undergo emergency LC. It may prevent readmission in those undergoing delayed LC, although its impact on total LOS, other elective surgeries and conversions remains to be assessed.