The Maslach Burnout Inventory for healthcare professionals (MBI-HSS) and its abbreviated version (aMBI), are the most common tools to detect burnout in clinicians. A wide range in burnout prevalence is reported in anesthesiology, so this study aimed to ascertain which of these two tools most accurately detected burnout in our anesthesiology residents. The MBI-HSS and aMBI were distributed amongst 86 residents across three hospitals, with a total of 58 residents completing the survey (67.4% response rate; 17 male and 41 female). Maslach-recommended cut-offs for the MBI-HSS and the aMBI with standard cut-offs were used to estimate burnout prevalence, and actual prevalence was established clinically by a thorough review of multiple data sources. Burnout proportions reported by the MBI-HSS and aMBI were found to be significantly different; 22.4% vs. 62.1% respectively (p < 0.0001). Compared to the actual prevalence of burnout in our cohort, the MBI-HSS detected burnout most accurately; area under receiver operating characteristic of 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92–1.0). Although there was a good correlation between the MBI-HSS and aMBI subscale scores, the positive predictive value of the aMBI was poor; 33.3% (95% CI:27.5–39.8%), therefore caution and clinical correlation are advised when using the aMBI tool because of the high rates of false-positives.

Serum metabolomics profile changes complemented the physiological changes observed during the transition from hyperthyroidism to euthyroidism. This study provides a comprehensive and integrated view of the changes in fuel metabolism and energy balance that occur following the treatment of hyperthyroidism.

ObjectiveThe scale of burnout in UK gastroenterology trainees and the feasibility to determine its prevalence using the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) tool are unknown. The primary objective of this region-wide pilot study was to evaluate the response rate to a 31-item questionnaire. The secondary objectives were to estimate the prevalence of burnout in gastroenterology trainees within the East of England deanery (EoE) and identify common stressors that trainees experience.DesignThis was a cross-sectional study involving gastroenterology trainees from 16 hospitals across the EoE using a 31-item questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of the 22-item MBI-HSS and nine additional free-text questions. All gastroenterology trainees in the EoE were invited to complete the anonymised survey online. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively.ResultsThe response rate for the survey was acceptable: 44.0% (40/91). 57.5% (23/40) of gastroenterology trainees reported emotional exhaustion. 23.5% (8/34) had depersonalisation and 63.9% (23/36) experienced low professional accomplishment. Burnout prevalence was 35.3% (12/34). 48.4% (15/31) of gastroenterology trainees were aware of professional support services within EoE. Stressors related to service requirements (eg, workload, staffing levels) and professional relationships with colleagues and patients were commonly reported: 65.6% and 25.0%, respectively.ConclusionsIt is feasible to use a 31-item questionnaire in a national cohort of UK gastroenterology trainees for future burnout studies. Burnout in EoE gastroenterology trainees was high and this may reflect a national prevalence within the specialty. More extensive studies, greater awareness of burnout and improved access to professional support services are required.

Background: Preoperative anaemia is associated with blood transfusion and longer hospital length of stay.Preoperative iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) can be treated with oral or intravenous (IV) iron. IV iron can raise haemoglobin faster compared with oral iron. However, its ability to reduce blood transfusion and length of stay in clinical trials is inconclusive. This study aims to compare blood transfusion and hospital length of stay between anemic patients who received preoperative IV iron versus standard care, after implementation of a protocol in 2017 to screen patients for preoperative IDA, and its treatment with IV iron.Methods: Retrospective before-after cohort study comparing 89 patients who received IV iron preoperatively in 2017, with historic patients who received oral iron therapy (selected by propensity score matching (PSM) from historic cohort of 7,542 patients who underwent surgery in 2016). Propensity score was calculated using ASA status, age, gender, surgical discipline, surgical risk and preoperative haemoglobin concentration. Both 1:1 and 1:2 matching were performed as sensitivity analysis.Results: After PSM, there was no statistically significant difference in distribution of preoperative clinical variables. There was no significant difference in proportion of cases requiring transfusion nor a difference in average units transfused per patient. IV iron cohort stayed in hospital on average 8.0 days compared to non-IV iron cohort 14.1-15.1 days (P=0.006, P=0.013 respectively). Average time from IV iron therapy to surgery was 10.5 days.Conclusions: Preoperative IV iron therapy for patients with IDA undergoing elective surgery may not reduce perioperative blood transfusion, but this could be due to the short time between therapy and surgery.Implementation of IV iron therapy may reduce hospital length of stay compared to standard care for anemic patients, although this may be enhanced by concomitant improvement in perioperative care.

No abstract

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic challenged health systems globally and prompted the publication of many guidelines. Experiences of our international colleagues should be utilized to protect and benefit patients and healthcare workers. The primary aim of this article is to evaluate and appraise national guidelines for the perioperative anesthetic management of patients with COVID-19 so that guidelines could be enhanced to manage any resurgence of the epidemic. PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched to identify guidelines and studies related to SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, the World Federation Society of Anesthesiologists COVID-19 resource webpage was searched for national guidelines and expanded to include countries that experienced a high incidence of SARS-CoV. Guidelines were evaluated using the

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is caused by a coronavirus that is transmitted primarily via aerosol, droplets or direct contact. This may place anesthetists at higher risk of infection due to their frequent involvement in aerosolgenerating airway interventions. Many anesthethetic COVID-19 guidelines have emerged, whose underlying management principles include minimizing aerosol contamination and protecting healthcare workers. These guidelines originate from Australia and