This is a repository copy of Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH) : a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH) : a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. The Lancet. ISSN 0140-6736 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32521-2 eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ ReuseThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can't change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Implications of all the available evidenceDespite the success of some smaller projects, there was no survival benefit from a national quality improvement programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. To succeed, large national quality improvement programmes need to allow for differences between hospitals and ensure teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care.

The EQ-5D index is less responsive than instruments specific to pain measurement, although it is capable of indicating clinically important changes. The lower responsiveness arises from EQ-5D's more limited gradation of severity and its multidimensionality.

The introduction of two-person confirmation to the NHS would have a significant impact on the existing working practices. Issues related to resources and a cultural change will need to be addressed. Electronic confirmation was more feasible, but the technological aspects of its integration into the operating theatre environment, and learning, will require further attention.

Background: Postoperative delirium has eluded attempts to define its complex aetiology and describe specific risk factors. The role of neuroinflammation as a risk factor, determined by measuring blood levels of preoperative 'innate' inflammatory mediator levels, has been investigated. However, results have been conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on associations between preoperative blood levels of inflammatory mediators and postoperative delirium in the older person. Influence of type of surgery was also assessed. Methods: Original, low risk of bias studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, which fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included. Seventeen articles fulfilled study criteria. Data extraction, synthesis, and risk of bias analysis were guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and quality in prognostic studies guidelines. Meta-analyses used a random-effects model. Inflammatory mediators included C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, -8, and -10, tumour necrosis factor-a, insulin-like growth factor-1, cortisol, and neopterin. Surgical groups were cardiac, noncardiac, and hip fracture. Results: Higher preoperative interleukin-6 was associated with postoperative delirium with a standardised mean difference (95% confidence interval) of 0.33 (0.11e0.56) and P¼0.003. Higher neopterin was also associated with postoperative delirium. Conclusions: The association of preoperative blood levels of inflammatory mediators with postoperative delirium may be influenced by the type of surgery and the specific mediator. The potential modulating effect of type of surgery, intrinsic brain vulnerability, and the complex interactions between inflammatory mediators and binding proteins will need to be considered in future studies. Clinical trial registration: CRD42019159471 (PROSPERO).

SummaryThe question as to what constitutes the ideal epidural steroid injection remains unresolved. We performed a prospective, randomised, double-blind, AB ⁄ BA 2 · 2 crossover study of caudal 40 vs 80 mg methylprednisolone acetate (in 20 ml levobupivacaine 0.125%) in outpatients with chronic low back pain. Data from 33 participants were analysed. The Oswestry Disability Index improved in both dose groups over time following injection. However, a statistically significant improvement was only observed in the 40 mg methylprednisolone acetate group (40 mg: p < 0.001; 80 mg: p = 0.33). There was no statistically significant difference between the dose groups in change in the Oswestry Disability Index with respect to time. Methylprednisolone acetate 40 mg appears to be as effective as 80 mg in improving disability associated with chronic low back pain, and should be considered in preference to the 80 mg dose for outpatients with chronic low back pain attending for repeat caudal steroid injection.

Distracting events involving the anaesthetist are common, but approximately two-thirds of these events have no externally visible effect. Another anaesthetist was the most common recipient of a distracting event initiated by the anaesthetist. Anaesthetists need to address themselves as causes of distractions and the potential impact on patient safety.

Drug errors in the anaesthetic domain remain a serious cause of iatrogenic harm. To help reduce this issue, we explored the potential safety impact of using a simple colour-coded tray for anaesthetic drug preparation and storage. Over a six-month period, three different trained researchers observed 30 cases at three NHS Trusts. Ten observations involved standard drug trays in 'normal' practice, and 20 observations, involved 'Rainbow trays' before and after their introduction. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews immediately after completing the Rainbow tray observation with the anaesthetists involved. All discussions and detailed notes taken were transcribed, qualitatively analysed using line-by-line coding and then synthesised into narrative themes. We found that using standard, single compartment trays enabled quick, cheap, and portable drug preparation and storage, but was linked to potential or actual harmful errors, such as syringe swaps. Rainbow trays were perceived to be easy to use and effective at all three sites, aiding drug identification and separation, and hence likely to reduce drug error and increase patient safety. We have demonstrated that it is feasible to introduce a new colour-coded compartmentalised Rainbow drugs tray into clinical practice at three NHS hospitals in England. Further research is needed into their effect on the prevalence of drug error.

Background Simulation has been used to investigate clinical questions in anesthesia, surgery, and related disciplines, but there are few data demonstrating that results apply to clinical settings. We asked “would results of a simulation-based study justify the same principal conclusions as those of a larger clinical study?” Methods We compared results from a randomized controlled trial in a simulated environment involving 80 cases at three centers with those from a randomized controlled trial in a clinical environment involving 1,075 cases. In both studies, we compared conventional methods of anesthetic management with the use of a multimodal system (SAFERsleep®; Safer Sleep LLC, Nashville, Tennessee) designed to reduce drug administration errors. Forty anesthesiologists each managed two simulated scenarios randomized to conventional methods or the new system. We compared the rate of error in drug administration or recording for the new system versus conventional methods in this simulated randomized controlled trial with that in the clinical randomized controlled trial (primary endpoint). Six experts were asked to indicate a clinically relevant effect size. Results In this simulated randomized controlled trial, mean (95% CI) rates of error per 100 administrations for the new system versus conventional groups were 6.0 (3.8 to 8.3) versus 11.6 (9.3 to 13.8; P = 0.001) compared with 9.1 (6.9 to 11.4) versus 11.6 (9.3 to 13.9) in the clinical randomized controlled trial (P = 0.045). A 10 to 30% change was considered clinically relevant. The mean (95% CI) difference in effect size was 27.0% (−7.6 to 61.6%). Conclusions The results of our simulated randomized controlled trial justified the same primary conclusion as those of our larger clinical randomized controlled trial, but not a finding of equivalence in effect size.