Search

BACKGROUND: This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care. METHODS: Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical 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 elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL. RESULTS: Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

BACKGROUND: This is Part 3 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses organizational aspects of care. METHODS: Experts in 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 were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. RESULTS: Components of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on best current available evidence for organizational aspects of an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and include discussion of less common aspects of care for the surgical patient, including end-of-life issues. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between surgeon gender and stress during the Covid-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: Although female surgeons face difficulties integrating work and home in the best of times, the Covid-19 pandemic has presented new challenges. The implications for the female surgical workforce are unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional, multi-center telephone survey study of surgeons was conducted across 5 academic institutions (May 15-June 5, 2020). The primary outcome was maximum stress level, measured using the validated Stress Numerical Rating Scale-11. Mixed-effects generalized linear models were used to estimate the relationship between surgeon stress level and gender. RESULTS: Of 529 surgeons contacted, 337 surgeons responded and 335 surveys were complete (response rate 63.7%). The majority of female respondents were housestaff (58.1%), and the majority of male respondents were faculty (56.8%) (P = 0.008). A greater proportion of male surgeons (50.3%) than female surgeons (36.8%) had children ≤18 years (P = 0.015). The mean maximum stress level for female surgeons was 7.51 (SD 1.49) and for male surgeons was 6.71 (SD 2.15) (P < 0.001). After adjusting for the presence of children and training status, female gender was associated with a significantly higher maximum stress level (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings that women experienced more stress than men during the Covid-19 pandemic, regardless of parental status, suggest that there is more to the gendered differences in the stress experience of the pandemic than the added demands of childcare. Deliberate interventions are needed to promote and support the female surgical workforce during the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the stress levels and experience of academic surgeons by training status (eg, housestaff or faculty). BACKGROUND: Covid-19 has uniquely challenged and changed the United States healthcare system. A better understanding of the surgeon experience is necessary to inform proactive workforce management and support. METHODS: A multi-institutional, cross-sectional telephone survey of surgeons was conducted across 5 academic medical centers from May 15 to June 5, 2020. The exposure of interest was training status. The primary outcome was maximum stress level, measured using the validated Stress Numerical Rating Scale-11 (range 0-10). RESULTS: A total of 335 surveys were completed (49.3% housestaff, 50.7% faculty; response rate 63.7%). The mean maximum stress level of faculty was 7.21 (SD 1.81) and of housestaff was 6.86 (SD 2.06) (P = 0.102). Mean stress levels at the time of the survey trended lower amongst housestaff (4.17, SD 1.89) than faculty (4.56, SD 2.15) (P = 0.076). More housestaff (63.6%) than faculty (40.0%) reported exposure to individuals with Covid-19 (P < 0.001). Subjects reported inadequate personal protective equipment in approximately a third of professional exposures, with no difference by training status (P = 0.557). CONCLUSIONS: During the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic, the personal and professional experiences of housestaff and faculty differed, in part due to a difference in exposure as well as non-work-related stressors. Workforce safety, including adequate personal protective equipment, expanded benefits (eg, emergency childcare), and deliberate staffing models may help to alleviate the stress associated with disease resurgence or future disasters.

BACKGROUND: Older patients compose approximately 30% of trauma patients treated in the USA but make up nearly 50% of deaths from trauma. To help standardize and elevate care of these patients, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Trauma Quality Improvement Programs best practice guidelines for geriatric trauma management was published in 2013 and that for palliative care was published in 2017. Here, we discuss how palliative care and geriatrics quality metrics can be tracked and used for performance improvement and leveraged as a strength for trauma verification. METHODS: We discuss the viewpoint of the ACS Verification, Review, and Consultation and three case studies, with practical tips and takeaways, of how these measures have been implemented at different institutions. RESULTS: We describe the use of (1) targeted educational initiatives, (2) development of a consultation tool based on institutional resources, and (3) application of a nurse-led frailty screen. DISCUSSION: Specialized care and attention to these vulnerable populations is recommended, but the implementation of these programs can take many shapes.Level of evidence V.

Summary: Background: Understanding how patients' frailty and the physiological stress of surgical procedures affect postoperative outcomes may inform risk stratification of older patients undergoing surgery. The objective of the study was to examine the association of peri‐operative frailty with mortality, 30‐day readmission and days at home after non‐cardiac surgical procedures of different physiological stress. Methods: This retrospective study used Medicare claims data from a 7.125% random sample of Medicare fee‐for‐service beneficiaries from 2015 to 2019 who were aged ≥ 65 years and underwent non‐cardiac surgical procedure listed in the Operative Stress Score categories. The exposure of the study was claims‐based frailty index (robust, < 0.15; pre‐frail, 0.15 to < 0.25; mildly frail, 0.25 to < 0.35; and moderate‐to‐severely frail, ≥ 0.35) with Operative Stress Score categories being 1, very low stress to 5, very high stress. The primary outcome was all‐cause mortality at 30 days and 365 days after the surgical procedure. Results: In total, 1,019,938 patients (mean (SD) age of 76.1 (7.3) years; 52.3% female; 16.8% frail) were included. The cumulative incidence of mortality generally increased with Operative Stress Score category, ranging from 5.0% (Operative Stress Score 2) to 24.9% (Operative Stress Score 4) at 365 days. Within each category, increasing frailty was associated with mortality at 30 days (hazard ratio comparing moderate‐to‐severe frailty vs. robust ranged from 1.59–3.91) and at 365 days (hazard ratio 1.30–4.04). The variation in postoperative outcomes by patients' frailty level was much greater than the variation by the operative stress category. Conclusions: These results emphasise routine frailty screening before major and minor non‐cardiac procedures and the need for greater clinician awareness of postoperative outcomes beyond 30 days in shared decision‐making with older adults with frailty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]