Perceptions of UK clinicians towards postoperative critical care

Abstract

Summary Postoperative critical care is a finite resource that is recommended for high‐risk patients. Despite national recommendations specifying that such patients should receive postoperative critical care, there is evidence that these recommendations are not universally followed. We performed a national survey aiming to better understand how patients are risk‐stratified in practice; elucidate clinicians’ opinions about how patients should be selected for critical care; and determine factors which affect the actual provision of postoperative critical care. As part of the second Sprint National Anaesthesia Project, epidemiology of critical care after surgery study, we distributed a paper survey to anaesthetists, surgeons and intensivists providing peri‐operative care during a single week in March 2017. We collected data on respondent characteristics, and their opinions of postoperative critical care provision, potential benefits and real‐world challenges. We undertook both quantitative and qualitative analyses to interpret the responses. We received 10,383 survey responses from 237 hospitals across the UK. Consultants used a lower threshold for critical care admission than other career grades, indicating potentially more risk‐averse behaviour. The majority of respondents reported that critical care provision was inadequate, and cited the value of critical care as being predominantly due to higher nurse: patient ratios. Use of objective risk assessment tools was poor, and patients were commonly selected for critical care based on procedure‐specific pathways rather than individualised risk assessment. Challenges were highlighted in the delivery of peri‐operative critical care services, such as an overall lack of capacity, competition for beds with non‐surgical cases and poor flow through the hospital leading to bed ‘blockages’. Critical care is perceived to provide benefit to high‐risk surgical patients, but there is variation in practice about the definition and determination of risk, how patients are referred and how to deal with the lack of critical care resources. Future work should focus on evaluating ‘enhanced care’ units for postoperative patients, how to better implement individualised risk assessment in practice, and how to improve patient flow through hospitals.

Critical care and pandemic preparedness and response

“…The continued development of enhanced perioperative ‘Level 1.5’ care facilities represents an ongoing pathway to develop pandemic (and later endemic) surgical continuity in the absence of available critical care beds. 128 , 129 In addition to ring-fencing beds, the benefits of dedicated enhanced perioperative care units (amongst other terminology), 130 the use of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and ERAS-type pathways reduces length of stay allowing higher turnover; ergo in theory, more patient flow through limited bed stock. 131 Given that elective surgery is a core pillar of healthcare not only in the developed world, but also in low- and middle-income countries, work has begun for the assessment of surgical preparedness across a range of socioeconomic realities in preparation for the next external shock inclusive of ring-fencing of electrical and oxygen supplies, theatre space, and critical care beds.…”

Análise comparativa das tendências de morbimortalidade entre duas coortes multicêntricas brasileiras de pacientes cirúrgicos de alto risco no período de 10 anos

“…Um estudo recente em forma de survey, com médicos britânicos intensivistas, anestesiologistas e cirurgiões que tinham como metas principais analisar os critérios de seleção para se internar pacientes cirúrgicos de alto risco nas UTIs e as práticas adotadas durante o perioperatório. Concluiu-se que há grande dificuldade de se adotar práticas homogêneas de seleção desses pacientes para o internamento na UTIs, com restrição de leitos e recursos, além de falta de definições claras que tratam do tema 99 .…”