Search

Background: Interhospital transfers in Australia facilitate access to acute surgical services, however transfer delays can occur. The aims of this study were to examine Australian mortality audit data on acute surgical patients who were transferred after presenting with a surgical emergency, and to identify modifiable predictors of transfer delay. Methods: Surgical admissions between 1 January 2001 and 18 August 2020 were retrospectively extracted from the Australian and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality database. Relevant factors and themes of interest were collated. Results were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with statistical significance defined as P <0.05. Results: After exclusion, a final 8270 cases were analysed. Non‐modifiable predictors identified were female gender (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.05–1.70, P = 0.0184), comorbidities (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.40–161, P <0.0001) and major non‐trauma non‐vascular specialty (OR 1.54 to 7.77, depending on specialty, P < 0.05). Modifiable predictors were inadequate clinical assessment (OR 49.48, 95% CI 32.91–74.38, P <0.0001), poor communication (OR 6.62, 95% CI 3.70–11.85, P <0.0001) and multiple transfers (OR 6.30, OR 95% 4.31–9.21, P <0.0001). Age, lack of bed and after‐hours transfer did not predict transfer delays. Metropolitan transfers was protective against transfer delays (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47–0.86, P = 0.0035). Conclusion: In the view of the receiving surgeon or assessor, all transfer delays potentially contributed to patient deaths, and may have been preventable. Strategies directed at modifiable factors could minimize delays. Increased surgical services in non‐metropolitan regions could reduce need for transfer. Prospective data is required to examine if the same predictors are observed in surgical patients who survive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preoperative screening for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) aims to preserve surgical safety for both patients and surgical teams. This rapid review provides an evaluation of current evidence with input from clinical experts to produce guidance for screening for active COVID‐19 in a low prevalence setting. Methods: An initial search of PubMed (until 6 May 2020) was combined with targeted searches of both PubMed and Google Scholar until 1 July 2020. Findings were streamlined for clinical relevance through the advice of an expert working group that included seven senior surgeons and a senior medical virologist. Results: Patient history should be examined for potential exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). Hyposmia and hypogeusia may present as early symptoms of COVID‐19, and can potentially discriminate from other influenza‐like illnesses. Reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction is the gold standard diagnostic test to confirm SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, and although sensitivity can be improved with repeated testing, the decision to retest should incorporate clinical history and the local supply of diagnostic resources. At present, routine serological testing has little utility for diagnosing acute infection. To appropriately conduct preoperative testing, the temporal dynamics of SARS‐CoV‐2 must be considered. Relative to other thoracic imaging modalities, computed tomography has the greatest utility for characterizing pulmonary involvement in COVID‐19 patients who have been diagnosed by reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction. Conclusion: Through a rapid review of the literature and advice from a clinical expert working group, evidence‐based recommendations have been produced for the preoperative screening of surgical patients with suspected COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]