Search

Background This is the first Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline for primary and secondary hospitals in low–middle-income countries (LMIC’s) for elective abdominal and gynecologic care. Methods The ERAS LMIC Guidelines group was established by the ERAS® Society in collaboration with different representatives of perioperative care from LMIC’s. The group consisted of seven members from the ERAS® Society and eight members from LMIC’s. An updated systematic literature search and evaluation of evidence from previous ERAS® guidelines was performed by the leading authors of the Colorectal (2018) and Gynecologic (2019) surgery guidelines (Gustafsson et al in World J Surg 43:6592–695, Nelson et al in Int J Gynecol Cancer 29(4):651–668). Meta-analyses randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies from both HIC’s and LMIC’s were considered for each perioperative item. The members in the LMIC group then applied the current evidence and adapted the recommendations for each intervention as well as identifying possible new items relevant to LMIC’s. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE) methodology was used to determine the quality of the published evidence. The strength of the recommendations was based on importance of the problem, quality of evidence, balance between desirable and undesirable effects, acceptability to key stakeholders, cost of implementation and specifically the feasibility of implementing in LMIC’s and determined through discussions and consensus. Results In addition to previously described ERAS® Society interventions, the following items were included, revised or discussed: the Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC), preoperative routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing in countries with a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS (CD4 and viral load for those patients that are HIV positive), delirium screening and prevention, COVID 19 screening, VTE prophylaxis, immuno-nutrition, prehabilitation, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and a standardized postoperative monitoring guideline. Conclusions These guidelines are seen as a starting point to address the urgent need to improve perioperative care and to effect data-driven, evidence-based care in LMIC’s.

Background Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications and costs for a large number of elective surgical procedures. A similar, structured approach appears to improve outcomes, including mortality, for patients undergoing high-risk emergency general surgery, and specifically emergency laparotomy. These are the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of these patients using an ERAS approach. Methods Experts in aspects of management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on non-emergency patients when appropriate. The Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. The guideline has been divided into two parts: Part 1—Preoperative Care and Part 2—Intraoperative and Postoperative management. This paper provides guidelines for Part 1. Results Twelve components of preoperative care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds. Conclusions These guidelines are based on the best available evidence for an ERAS approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Initial management is particularly important for patients with sepsis and physiological derangement. These guidelines should be used to improve outcomes for these high-risk patients.

Providing patients with timely care from the appropriate unit involves both correct clinical evaluation of patient needs and making admission decisions to effectively manage a unit with limited capacity in the face of stochastic patient arrivals and lengths of stay. We study human decision behavior in the latter operations management task. Using behavioral models and controlled experiments in which physicians and MTurk workers manage a simulated hospital unit, we identify cognitive and environmental factors that drive systematic admission decision bias. We report on two main findings. First, seemingly innocuous “occupancy information hurdles” (e.g., having to type a password to view current occupancy) can cause a chain of events that leads physicians to maintain systematically lower unit utilization. Specifically, these hurdles cause physicians to make most admission decisions without checking the current unit occupancy. Then—between the times that they do check—physicians underestimate the number of available beds when occupancy increases from admissions are more salient than occupancy decreases from discharges. Second, decision-related random error or “noise” leads to higher- or lower-than-optimal utilization of hospital units in predictable patterns, depending on the system parameters. We provide evidence that these patterns are due to some settings providing more opportunity for physicians to mistakenly admit patients and other settings that provide more opportunity to mistakenly reject patients. These findings help identify when and why clinicians are likely to make inefficient decisions because of human cognitive limitations and suggest mitigation strategies to help hospital units improve their capacity management. This paper was accepted by Charles Corbett, operations management.

The IMPROVE study describes a large perioperative quality improvement project with reporting of both compliance with improvement activities and patient outcomes. It highlights the importance of such projects, as well as the challenges in implementing change and proving benefit. Challenges identified include the importance of effective training in practice change, selection of trial design and relevant quality measures, and how the context of quality improvement initiatives may influence outcomes. Quality improvement programmes of this nature, despite the difficulties with implementation and trial design, remain a high priority because of their positive influence on improving clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Frailty and cognitive impairment are associated with postoperative delirium but are rarely assessed preoperatively. The study was designed to test the hypothesis that preoperative screening for frailty or cognitive impairment identifies patients at risk for postoperative delirium (primary outcome). METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we administered frailty and cognitive screening instruments to 229 patients ≥ 70 years old presenting for elective spine surgery. Screening for frailty (5-item FRAIL scale) and cognition (Mini-Cog, Animal Verbal Fluency) were performed at the time of the preoperative evaluation. Demographic data, perioperative variables, and postoperative outcomes were gathered. Delirium was the primary outcome detected by either the Confusion Assessment Method, assessed daily from postoperative day 1 to 3 or until discharge, if patient was discharged sooner, or comprehensive chart review. Secondary outcomes were all other-cause complications, discharge not to home, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: The cohort was 75 [73 to 79 years] years of age, 124/219 (57%) were male. Many scored positive for pre-frailty (117/218; 54%), frailty (53/218; 24%), and cognitive impairment (50 – 82/219; 23–37%). Fifty-five patients (25%) developed delirium postoperatively. On multivariable analysis, frailty (scores 3 to 5) (OR 6.6; 95% CI 1.96 to 21.9; P = 0.002) versus robust (score 0) on the FRAIL scale, lower animal fluency scores (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01 to1.51; P = 0.036) for each point decrease in the number of animals named, and more invasive surgical procedures (OR 2.69; 95% CI 1.31 to 5.50; P = 0.007) versus less invasive procedures were associated with postoperative delirium. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for frailty and cognitive impairment preoperatively using the FRAIL scale and the Animal Verbal Fluency test in older elective spine surgery patients identifies those at high risk for the development of postoperative delirium.

Background While specific practices for perioperative care of older adults have been recommended, little is known regarding adherence by US physician anesthesiologists to such practices. To address this gap in knowledge, the ASA Committee on Geriatric Anesthesia and the ASA Perioperative Brain Health Initiative undertook a survey of ASA members to characterize current practices related to perioperative care of older adults. Methods We administered a web-based questionnaire with items assessing the proportion of practice focused on delivery of care to older adults, adherence to recommended practices for older surgical patients, resource needs to improve care, and practice characteristics. Results Responses were collected between May 24, 2018, and June 29, 2018. A total of 25,587 ASA members were invited to participate, and 1737 answered at least one item (6.8%). 96.4% of respondents reported that they had cared for a patient aged 65 or older within the last year. 47.1% of respondents (95% confidence interval, 44.6%, 49.7%) reported using multimodal analgesia among patients aged 65 and older at least 90% of the time, and 25.5% (95% CI, 23.3%, 27.7%) provided preoperative information regarding postoperative cognitive changes at least 90% of the time. Over 80% of respondents reported that preoperative screening for frailty or dementia, postoperative screening for delirium, and preoperative geriatric consultation occurred in fewer than 10% of cases. Development of practice guidelines for geriatric anesthesia care and expansion of web-based resources were most frequently prioritized by respondents as initiatives to improve care in this domain. Discussion Most survey respondents reported providing anesthesia care to older adults, but adherence to recommended practices varied across the six items assessed. Reported rates of screening for common geriatric syndromes, such as frailty, delirium, and dementia, were low among survey respondents. Respondents identified multiple opportunities for ASA initiatives to support efforts to improve care for older surgical patients.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of the literature around emergency general surgery in older patients. Emergency general surgery has a high mortality rate and with the population ageing at an unprecedented rate, older patients have an increased mortality risk due to their age alone. Complications are higher and older patients are more likely not to be discharged home following surgery. However, accurately predicting risk of surgery in elderly patients is very difficult. Simple measures such as concurrent comprehensive geriatric assessment with surgical assessment may help care for the older surgical patient more holistically and offer improved outcomes. With the increasing ageing population and life expectancy, there needs to be a more focus on developing comprehensive programmes for older patients undergoing emergency surgery, to ensure they do not develop complications and to reduce mortality rates.

BackgroundHip fractures often occur in frail patients with several comorbidities. In those undergoing emergency surgery, determining the optimal anesthesia modality may be challenging, with equipoise concerning outcomes following either spinal or general anesthesia. In this study, we investigated the association between mode of anesthesia and postoperative morbidity and mortality with subgroup analyses.MethodsThis is a retrospective study using all consecutive adult patients who underwent emergency hip fracture surgery in Orebro County, Sweden, between 2013 and 2017. Patients were extracted from the Swedish National Hip Fracture Registry, and their electronic medical records were reviewed. The association between the type of anesthesia and 30-day and 90-day postoperative mortality, as well as in-hospital severe complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥3a), was analyzed using Poisson regression models with robust SEs, while the association with 1-year mortality was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. All analyses were adjusted for potential confounders.ResultsA total of 2437 hip fracture cases were included in the study, of whom 60% received spinal anesthesia. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of 30-day postoperative mortality (adjusted incident rate ratio (IRR) (95% CI): 0.99 (0.72 to 1.36), p=0.952), 90-day postoperative mortality (adjusted IRR (95% CI): 0.88 (0.70 to 1.11), p=0.281), 1-year postoperative mortality (adjusted HR (95% CI): 0.98 (0.83 to 1.15), p=0.773), or in-hospital severe complications (adjusted IRR (95% CI): 1.24 (0.85 to 1.82), p=0.273), when comparing general and spinal anesthesia.ConclusionsMode of anesthesia during emergency hip fracture surgery was not associated with an increased risk of postoperative mortality or in-hospital severe complications in the study population or any of the investigated subgroups.Level of evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management, level III

ObjectivesThe Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) is a tool that can be used to evaluate the 30-day risk of postoperative myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest and mortality. This study aims to confirm its association with postoperative mortality in patients who underwent hip fracture surgery.MethodsAll adults who underwent primary emergency hip fracture surgery in Sweden between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2017 were included in this study. The database was retrieved by cross-referencing the Swedish National Quality Register for hip fractures with the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare registers. The outcomes of interest were the association between the RCRI score and mortality at 30 days, 90 days and 1 year postoperatively.Results134 915 cases were included in the current study. There was a statistically significant linear trend in postoperative mortality with increasing RCRI scores at 30 days, 90 days and 1 year. An RCRI score ≥4 was associated with a 3.1 times greater risk of 30-day postoperative mortality (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 3.13, pConclusionAn increasing RCRI score is strongly associated with an elevated risk 30-day, 90-day and 1-year postoperative mortality after primary hip fracture surgery. The objective and easily retrievable nature of the variables included in the RCRI calculation makes it an appealing choice for risk stratification in the clinical setting.Levels of evidenceLevel III.

BACKGROUND: The United States population is aging and projected to undergo an increasing number of general surgical procedures. However, recent trends in the frequency of major abdominal procedures in older adults are currently unknown as improvements in non-operative interventions may obviate the need for major surgery. Thus, we evaluated the trends of major abdominal surgical procedures in older adults in the United States. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample from 2002–2014 with trend analysis using National Cancer Institute’s Joinpoint Trend Analysis Software. We identified the average annual percent change (AAPC) in yearly frequency of major abdominal surgical procedures in older adults (≥50 years of age). RESULTS: Our cohort included a total of 3,951,947 survey-weighted discharges that included a major abdominal surgery in adults ≥50 years of age between 2002 and 2014. Of these discharges, 2,529,507 (64.0%) were for elective abdominal surgeries, 2,062,835 (52.0%) were for female patients, and mean (SD) age was 61.4(15.9) years. The frequency of major abdominal procedures (elective and emergent) decreased for adults age 65–74 (AAPC: −1.43, −1.75, −1.11, P85 (AAPC= −3.53; −4.57, −2.48: P

As population age, healthcare systems and providers are likely to experience a substantial increase in the proportion of elderly patients requiring emergency surgery. Emergency surgery, compared with planned surgery, is strongly associated with increased risks of adverse postoperative outcomes due to the short time available for diagnosis, optimization, and intervention in patients presenting with physiological derangement. These patient populations, who are often frail and burdened with a variety of co-morbidities, have lower reserves to deal with the stress of the acute condition and the required emergency surgical intervention. In this review article, we discuss topical areas where mitigation of the physiological stress posed by the acute condition and asociated surgical intervention may be feasible. We consider the impact of the adrenergic response and use of beta blockers for these high-risk patients and discuss common risk factors such as frailty and delirium. A proactive multidisciplinary approach to peri-operative care aimed at mitigation of the stress response and proactive management of common conditions in the older emergency surgical patient could yield more favorable outcomes.

Summary Delirium and postoperative neurocognitive disorder are the commonest perioperative complications in patients more than 65 yr of age. However, data suggest that we often fail to screen patients for preoperative cognitive impairment, to warn patients and families of risk, and to take preventive measures to reduce the incidence of perioperative neurocognitive disorders. As part of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Perioperative Brain Health Initiative, an international group of experts was invited to review published best practice statements and guidelines. The expert group aimed to achieve consensus on a small number of practical recommendations that could be implemented by anaesthetists and their partners to reduce the incidence of perioperative neurocognitive disorders. Six statements were selected based not only on the strength of the evidence, but also on the potential for impact and the feasibility of widespread implementation. The actions focus on education, cognitive and delirium screening, non-pharmacologic interventions, pain control, and avoidance of antipsychotics. Strategies for effective implementation are discussed. Anaesthetists should be key members of multidisciplinary perioperative care teams to implement these recommendations.

BackgroundChronic diseases are increasingly prevalent in Western countries. Once hospitalised, the chance for another hospitalisation increases sharply with large impact on well-being of patients and costs. The pattern of readmissions is very complex, but poorly understood for multiple chronic diseases.MethodsThis cohort study of administrative discharge data between 2009-2014 from 21 tertiary hospitals (eight USA, five UK, four Australia, four continental Europe) investigated rates and reasons of readmissions to the same hospital within 30 days after unplanned admission with one of the following chronic conditions; heart failure; atrial fibrillation; myocardial infarction; hypertension; stroke; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); bacterial pneumonia; diabetes mellitus; chronic renal disease; anaemia; arthritis and other cardiovascular disease. Proportions of readmissions with similar versus different diseases were analysed.ResultsOf 4,901,584 admissions, 866,502 (17.7%) were due to the 12 chronic conditions. In-hospital, 43,573 (5.0%) patients died, leaving 822,929 for readmission analysis. Of those, 87,452 (10.6%) had an emergency 30-day readmission, rates ranged from 2.8% for arthritis to 18.4% for COPD. One third were readmitted with the same condition, ranging from 53% for anaemia to 11% for arthritis. Reasons for readmission were due to another chronic condition in 10% to 35% of the cases, leaving 30% to 70% due to reasons other than the original 12 conditions (most commonly, treatment related complications and infections). The chance of being readmitted with the same cause was lower in the USA, for female patients, with increasing age, more co-morbidities, during study period and with longer initial length of stay.ConclusionReadmission in chronic conditions is very common and often caused by diseases other than the index hospitalisation. Interventions to reduce readmissions should therefore focus not only on the primary condition but on a holistic consideration of all the patient's comorbidities.

Emergency laparotomy is associated with high mortality. Implementation of an evidence-based care bundle has been shown to improve patient outcomes. A quality improvement project to implement a six-component care bundle was undertaken between July 2015 and May 2018. As part of this project, we worked with 27 hospitals in the Emergency Laparotomy Collaborative. Previous pilot implementation of the same bundle in our hospital between December 2012 and July 2013 had shown marked improvement, maintained until April 2014, but then deterioration. Understanding the reasons for this deterioration informed our work to re-implement the bundle and sustain improvement. A cohort of 930 consecutive patients requiring emergency laparotomy between October 2014 and April 2019 were included. Baseline data were collected between October 2014 and June 2015, and the bundle was re-implemented in July 2015. Thirty-day mortality decreased from 11% in the baseline group to 7.3% after bundle implementation. Hospital length of stay decreased from 19.5 to 17.9 days. Full bundle compliance improved from 60% to 80% for all patients, with improvement in application of all individual bundle components. This study provides further evidence that outcomes for high-risk surgical patients can be improved with an evidence-based care bundle, but attention must be paid to maintaining bundle compliance. Issues around sustaining improvement must be considered from project initiation.

This article reviews of some of the key topics and challenges in quality, safety, and the measurement and improvement of outcomes in anaesthesia. The topics were selected based on the perspective of an individual with quality and safety expertise and recent experience of the specialty in both the UK and USA. The review does not seek to be exhaustive or systematic, but to highlight current areas of concern and potential solutions. The topic is subdivided into sections where the system of health care is viewed from different levels. These levels are as follows: the microsystem or patient and individual clinician perspective; the meso or hospital perspective; and the macro or government and policy perspective. Topics covered include medication safety, changes in approaches to patient safety, payment reform, longer term measurement of outcomes, large-scale improvement programmes, the ageing population, and burnout. The article begins with a section on the success of the specialty of anaesthesia in improving the quality, safety, and outcomes for our patients, and ends with a look to future developments, including greater use of technology and patient engagement.

Article 25 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the right to health and well-being for every individual. However, universal access to high-quality healthcare remains the purview of a handful of wealthy nations. This is no more apparent than in peri-operative care, where an estimated five billion individuals lack access to safe, affordable and timely surgical care. Delivery of surgery and anaesthesia in low-resource environments presents unique challenges that, when unaddressed, result in limited access to low-quality care. Current peri-operative research and clinical guidance often fail to acknowledge these system-level deficits and therefore have limited applicability in low-resource settings. In this manuscript, the authors priority-set the need for equitable access to high-quality peri-operative care and analyse the system-level contributors to excess peri-operative mortality rates, a key marker of quality of care. To provide examples of how research and investment may close the equity gap, a modified Delphi method was adopted to curate and appraise interventions which may, with subsequent research and evaluation, begin to address the barriers to high-quality peri-operative care in low- and middle-income countries.

Emergency laparotomy is a high-risk surgical procedure with a mortality much higher than that of comparable procedures performed electively. Care of these high-risk patients has been characterized by variability in management and, until relatively recently, a lack of defined standards for best practice. An enhanced recovery approach appears to improve outcomes for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy as pathway components are defined and delivered within set time frames. The importance of timely action on key steps, such as rapid review and management of sepsis, is of particular importance in this group of patients, many of whom are elderly and present in a state of physiological derangement. This chapter will discuss recent developments in management of emergency laparotomy with reference to major studies and pathways with wide applicability. Large-scale audits of process delivery and outcomes have helped support awareness of the issues in delivering high-quality care for emergency laparotomy, and the role of audit and reliable process delivery will be discussed in relation to emergency laparotomy and enhanced recovery.

Background Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. Objectives The objectives were to assess whether or not the QI programme improves 90-day survival after emergency abdominal surgery; to assess effects on 180-day survival, hospital stay and hospital readmission; and to better understand these findings through an integrated process evaluation, ethnographic study and cost-effectiveness analysis. Design This was a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial. Hospitals were organised into 15 geographical clusters, and commenced the QI programme in random order over 85 weeks. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was analysed using a mixed-effects parametric survival model, adjusting for time-related effects. Ethnographic and economics data were collected in six hospitals. The process evaluation included all hospitals. Setting The trial was set in acute surgical services of 93 NHS hospitals. Participants Patients aged ≥ 40 years who were undergoing emergency abdominal surgery were eligible. Intervention The intervention was a QI programme to implement an evidence-based care pathway. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were mortality within 180 days, length of hospital stay and hospital readmission within 180 days. The main economic measure was the quality-adjusted life-years. Data sources Data were obtained from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit database; qualitative interviews and ethnographic observations; quality-of-life and NHS resource use data were collected via questionnaires. Results Of 15,873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 participants in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. The primary outcome occurred in 1393 participants in the usual care group (16%), compared with 1210 patients in the QI group (16%) [QI vs. usual care hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.28]. No differences were found in mortality at 180 days or hospital readmission; there was a small increase in hospital stay in the QI group (HR for discharge 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97). There were only modest improvements in care processes following QI implementation. The ethnographic study revealed good QI engagement, but limited time and resources to implement change, affecting which processes teams addressed, the rate of change and eventual success. In some sites, there were challenges around prioritising the intervention in busy environments and in obtaining senior engagement. The intervention is unlikely to be cost-effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds, but may be cost-effective over the lifetime horizon. Limitations Substantial delays were encountered in securing data access to national registries. Fewer patients than expected underwent surgery and the mortality rate was lower than anticipated. Conclusions There was no survival benefit from a QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. The modest impact of the intervention on process measures, despite good clinician engagement, may have been limited by the time and resources needed to improve patient care. Future work Future QI programmes must balance intervention complexity with the practical realities of NHS services to ensure that such programmes can be delivered with the resources available. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80682973 and The Lancet protocol 13PRT/7655. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Purpose: Previous work has demonstrated a survival improvement following the introduction of an enhanced recovery protocol in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (the emergency laparotomy pathway quality improvement care (ELPQuiC) bundle). Implementation of this bundle increased the use of intra-operative goal directed fluid therapy and ICU admission, both evidence-based strategies recommended to improve kidney outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine if the observed mortality benefit could be explained by a difference in the incidence of AKI pre- and post-implementation of the protocol. Method: The primary outcome was the incidence of AKI in the pre- and post-ELPQuiC bundle patient population in four acute trusts in the United Kingdom. Secondary outcomes included the KDIGO stage specific incidence of AKI. Serum creatinine values were obtained retrospectively at baseline, in the post-operative period and the maximum recorded creatinine between day 1 and day 30 were obtained. Results: A total of 303 patients pre-ELPQuiC bundle and 426 patients post-ELPQuiC bundle implementation were identified across the four centres. The overall AKI incidence was 18.4% in the pre-bundle group versus 19.8% in the post bundle group p = 0.653. No significant differences were observed between the groups. Conclusions: Despite this multi-centre cohort study demonstrating an overall survival benefit, implementation of the quality improvement care bundle did not affect the incidence of AKI.

ObjectivesThis study aimed to examine the prevalence of frailty coding within the Dr Foster Global Comparators (GC) international database. We then aimed to develop and validate a risk prediction model, based on frailty syndromes, for key outcomes using the GC data set.DesignA retrospective cohort analysis of data from patients over 75 years of age from the GC international administrative data. A risk prediction model was developed from the initial analysis based on seven frailty syndrome groups and their relationship to outcome metrics. A weighting was then created for each syndrome group and summated to create the Dr Foster Global Frailty Score. Performance of the score for predictive capacity was compared with an established prognostic comorbidity model (Elixhauser) and tested on another administrative database Hospital Episode Statistics (2011-2015), for external validation.Setting34 hospitals from nine countries across Europe, Australia, the UK and USA.ResultsOf 6.7 million patient records in the GC database, 1.4 million (20%) were from patients aged 75 years or more. There was marked variation in coding of frailty syndromes between countries and hospitals. Frailty syndromes were coded in 2% to 24% of patient spells. Falls and fractures was the most common syndrome coded (24%). The Dr Foster Global Frailty Score was significantly associated with in-hospital mortality, 30-day non-elective readmission and long length of hospital stay. The score had significant predictive capacity beyond that of other known predictors of poor outcome in older persons, such as comorbidity and chronological age. The score’s predictive capacity was higher in the elective group compared with non-elective, and may reflect improved performance in lower acuity states.ConclusionsFrailty syndromes can be coded in international secondary care administrative data sets. The Dr Foster Global Frailty Score significantly predicts key outcomes. This methodology may be feasibly utilised for case-mix adjustment for older persons internationally.

Socioeconomic circumstances can influence access to healthcare, the standard of care provided, and a variety of outcomes. This study aimed to determine the association between crude and risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and socioeconomic group after emergency laparotomy, measure differences in meeting relevant perioperative standards of care, and investigate whether variation in hospital structure or process could explain any difference in mortality between socioeconomic groups.This was an observational study of 58 790 patients, with data prospectively collected for the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit in 178 National Health Service hospitals in England between December 1, 2013 and November 31, 2016, linked with national administrative databases. The socioeconomic group was determined according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile of each patient's usual place of residence.Overall, the crude 30-day mortality was 10.3%, with differences between the most-deprived (11.2%) and least-deprived (9.8%) quintiles (P0.001). The more-deprived patients were more likely to have multiple comorbidities, were more acutely unwell at the time of surgery, and required a more-urgent surgery. After risk adjustment, the patients in the most-deprived quintile were at significantly higher risk of death compared with all other quintiles (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: Q1 [most deprived]: reference; Q2: 0.83 [0.76-0.92]; Q3: 0.84 [0.76-0.92]; Q4: 0.87 [0.79-0.96]; Q5 [least deprived]: 0.77 [0.70-0.86]). We found no evidence that differences in hospital-level structure or patient-level performance in standards of care explained this association.More-deprived patients have higher crude and risk-adjusted 30-day mortality after emergency laparotomy, but this is not explained by differences in the standards of care recorded within the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit.

Inefficient clinic systems leading to prolonged wait times at primary care clinics are a source of frustration for patients, physicians, staff and administration. Measuring and shortening cycle time has the potential to improve patient experience, staff satisfaction and patient access by moving more patients through in a shorter cycle time. Limited studies have demonstrated that improvements can be made to cycle time and may result in improved patient satisfaction. Most of these studies have focused their efforts on improving efficiency at the front end of the cycle. Our aim was to improve cycle time for the whole visit to less than 60 min within 1 year by engaging our team in brainstorming solutions, presenting regular measurements to our team for review and holding regular meetings to plan rapid improvement cycles. Over the course of 1 year (2017), we were able to reduce cycle time by 12% from 71 to 65 min and to improve patient satisfaction with care. Despite the reduction in cycle time, we maintained high satisfaction scores from patients who felt that the doctor spent enough time with them. We learnt the value of engaging our team, frequent measurement for reporting, adequate staffing at the beginning of clinic, and the value of MA staff acting in a flow coordinator role. We have not only maintained this improvement but also made further small gains over the subsequent 2 years, and by April 2019, our cycle time is at 60 min, despite a marked increase in patient volume. Additional work on the time after the patient is roomed and waiting for a doctor, and further analysis of the physician workflow would be important next steps to drive further improvement.

The timing, causes, and quality of care for patients who die after emergency laparotomy have not been extensively reported. A large database of 13,953 patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, between July 2014 and March 2017, from 28 hospitals in England was studied. Anonymized data was extracted on day of death, patient demographics, operative details, compliance with standards of care, and 30-day and in-patient mortality. Thirty-day mortality was 8.9%, and overall inpatient mortality was 9.8%. Almost 40% of postoperative deaths occurred within three days of surgery, and 70% of these early deaths occurred on the day of surgery or the first postoperative day. Such early deaths could be considered nonbeneficial surgery. Patients who died within three days of surgery had a significantly higher preoperative lactate, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) grade, and Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM). Compliance with perioperative standards of care based on the Emergency Laparotomy Collaborative care bundle was high overall and better for those patients who died within three days of surgery. Multidisciplinary team involvement from intensive care, care of the elderly physicians, and palliative care may help both the communication and the burden of responsibility in deciding on the risk&ndash, benefit of operative versus nonoperative approaches to care.