Background: Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery is associated with improved outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The HIP ATTACK trial assessed whether accelerated surgery could reduce mortality and major complications. Methods:We randomised 2970 patients from 69 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with a hip fracture that required surgery and were ≥45 years of age were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to accelerated surgery (goal of surgery within 6 hours of diagnosis; 1487 patients) or standard care (1483 patients). The co-primary outcomes were 1.) mortality, and 2.) a composite of major complications (i.e., mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. Outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation, and patients were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02027896. Findings:The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 4-9) in the accelerated-surgery group and 24 hours (IQR 10-42) in the standard-care group, p<0.0001. Death occurred in 140 patients (9%) assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 patients (10%) assigned to standard care; hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.72-1.14; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1%, 95% CI -1-3%; p=0.40. The primary composite outcome occurred in 321 patients (22%) randomised to accelerated surgery and 331 patients (22%) randomised to standard care; HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83-1.13; ARR 1%, 95% CI -2-3%; p=0.71.Interpretation: Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not significantly lower the risk of mortality or a composite of major complications compared to standard care.

Background:Post-operative pain is often inadequately treated. Optimal utilization of the available resources is essential for improving pain management.Aims:The aim of our study was to determine pain management strategies employed after major abdominal surgeries at our institute and their efficacy and safety.Settings and Design:Prospective observational study conducted at a tertiary care hospital.Materials and Methods:Patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgeries were included. Post-operative analgesic strategy, co-analgesics used, pain and sedation scores, motor block, nausea and vomiting were recorded and patient satisfaction was determined.Results:Data was collected on 100 patients. Epidural analgesia was used in 61, patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) in 25 and opioid infusion in 14 patients. Multimodal analgesia was employed in 98 patients. The level of epidural was between L1-L3 in 31, T10-L1 in 20 and T8-T10 in 10 patients. Pethidine was used in 80% of patients receiving PCIA. Patients with epidurals at T8-T10 had lower pain scores. Fifteen patients had motor block, 73% of which were with epidural at L1-L3. Fourteen patients complained of nausea. Ninety nine out of 100 patients were satisfied with their analgesia.Conclusion:Epidural, PCIA and opioid infusions are used for pain relief after major abdominal surgeries at our hospital. Although there is limited drug availability, regular assessments and appropriate dose adjustments by acute pain management service (APMS) and use of multimodal analgesia led to a high level of patient satisfaction. We recommend that feedback to the primary anesthesiologists by APMS is of utmost importance to enable improvement in practice.

Pakistan is a developing country of South East Asia, with all the incumbent difficulties currently being faced by the region. Insufficient public healthcare facilities, poorly regulated private health sector, low budgetary allocation for health, improper priority setting while allocating limited resources, have resulted essentially in an absence of palliative care from the healthcare scene. Almost 90% of healthcare expenditure is out of the patient's pocket with more than 45% of population living below the poverty line. All these factors have a collective potential to translate into an end-of-life care disaster as a large percentage of population is suffering from chronic debilitating/terminal diseases. So far, such a disaster has not materialised, the reason being a family based culture emphasising the care of the sick and old at home, supported by religious teachings. This culture is not limited to Pakistan but subsists in the entire sub-continent, where looking after the sick/elderly at home is considered to be the duty of the younger generation. With effects of globalisation, more and more older people are living alone and an increasing need for palliative care is being realised. However, there does not seem to be any plan on the part of the public or private sectors to initiate palliative care services. This paper seeks to trace the social and cultural perspectives in Pakistan with regards to accessing palliative care in the context of healthcare facilities available.

No abstract

Background and Aims:Assessment of patient satisfaction is an important tool for monitoring the quality of care in hospitals. The aim of this survey was to develop a reliable tool to assess patient satisfaction with acute pain management service (APMS) and identify variables affecting this so that care can be improved.Methods:A questionnaire was developed and administered to patients after being discharged from APMS care by an unbiased person. Data collected from record included patient demographics, surgical procedure, analgesic modality, co-analgesics and dynamic and static pain scores. Questions included pain expected and pain experienced, APMS response time, quality of pain relief with treatment, professionalism of APMS team, overall experience of pain relief and choosing/suggesting same modality for themselves/family/friends again. Five-point Likert scale was used for most of the options. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS 19.Results:Frequency and percentages were computed for qualitative observation and presented on pie chart and histogram. Seventy-one per cent patients expected severe pain while 43% actually experienced it. About 79.4% would choose same analgesia modality in future for self/family/friends. Ninety-nine per cent found APMS staff courteous and professional. About 89% rated their experience of pain management as excellent to very good.Conclusion:The survey of patients’ satisfaction to monitor the quality of care provided by APMS provided positive inputs on its role. This also helps to identify areas requiring improvement in care and as a tool to gauge the quality of care.