Search

Background: Quality performance indicators for the management of oesophagogastric cancer can be used to objectively measure and compare the performance of individual units and capture key elements of patient care to improve patient outcomes. Methods: Two systematic reviews were completed to identify evidence‐based quality performance indicators for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer. Based on the indicators identified, a two‐round modified Delphi process with invitations was sent to all members of the Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand Gastric and Oesophageal Surgery Association. The expert working group discussed each suggested indicator and either removed, added, or adjusted the list of indicators of oesophagogastric cancer. Results: The final list of both OG cancer indicators included Specialized Multi‐disciplinary team discussion, Endoscopy documentation, Staging Contrast CT Chest/Abdomen and Pelvis, Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant chemo/radiotherapy administered in accordance with the Local multi‐disciplinary team, Pathological margin clearance (R0 Resection), Lymphadenectomy retrieving 15 or more nodes, Formal review of pathological findings and documentation, Postoperative complications, 30‐day and 90‐day postoperative mortality, clinical surveillance and Specialized Dietetic guidance. Indicators specific to gastric cancer included Preoperative biopsy for pathological diagnosis and Staging Laparoscopy. Indicators specific to oesophageal cancer include positron emission tomography scan if CT negative for metastasis, Perioperative Oesophagectomy Care Pathway, length of stay of 21 days or more, and Unplanned readmission within 30 days. Conclusions: The results of this study present a core set of indicators for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer that can be used to measure quality and compare performance between different units. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare systems globally face the issue of resource constraints and need for prioritization of elective surgery. Inclusive, explicit prioritization tools are important in improving consistency and equity of access to surgery across health systems. The General Surgical Prioritization Tool developed by New Zealand's Ministry of Health scores patients for elective non‐cancer surgery based on surgeon's clinical judgement and patient derived Impact on Life (IoL) scores. This study aims to measure the changes in patient derived IoL scores after common general surgical procedures to enable direct comparison and inform future prioritization. Method: This longitudinal observational study enrolled 322 participants who had undergone elective general surgical procedures. Participants were contacted 3 to 9 months after their procedures and requested to complete the IoL questionnaire. The primary endpoint was the change in IoL scores after surgery among the different procedures. Results: Overall, 229/304 (75%) participants responded to the questionnaire and there were no significant baseline differences between responders and non‐responders. Patients in the gallbladder treatment group had the greatest improvement in IoL scores. Patients across all ethnic groups had similar changes in IoL scores. Multivariate analysis showed that gallbladder surgery (relative to hernia surgery) and pre‐surgery IoL scores significantly predicted improvement. Conclusion: The patient reported IoL score recorded at prioritization for surgery all reduced, albeit to varying amounts, after common general surgical procedures. This, combined with the fact that IoL scores predicted post‐operative improvement support their inclusion in prioritization tools in addition to surgeon derived components. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Emergency laparotomy has high morbidity and mortality rates. Frailty assessment remains underutilized in this setting, in part due to time constraints and feasibility. The Clinical Frailty Scale has been identified as the most appropriate tool for frailty assessment in emergency laparotomy patients and is recommended for all older patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The prognostic impact of measured frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale on short- and long-term mortality and morbidity rates remains to be determined. Methods Observational cohort studies were identified by systematically searching Medline, Embase, Scopus and CENTRAL databases up to February 2024, comparing outcomes following emergency laparotomy for frail and non-frail participants defined according to the Clinical Frailty Scale. The primary outcomes were short- and long-term mortality rates. A random-effects model was created with pooling of effect estimates and a separate narrative synthesis was created. Risk of bias was assessed. Results Twelve articles comprising 5704 patients were included. Frailty prevalence was 25% in all patients and 32% in older adults (age ≥55 years). Older patients with frailty had a significantly greater risk of postoperative death (30-day mortality rate OR 3.84, 95% c.i. 2.90 to 5.09, 1-year mortality rate OR 3.03, 95% c.i. 2.17 to 4.23). Meta-regression revealed that variations in cut-off values to define frailty did not significantly affect the association with frailty and 30-day mortality rate. Frailty was associated with higher rates of major complications (OR 1.93, 95% c.i. 1.27 to 2.93) and discharge to an increased level of care. Conclusion Frailty is significantly correlated with short- and long-term mortality rates following emergency laparotomy, as well as an adverse morbidity rate and functional outcomes. Identifying frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale may aid in patient-centred decision-making and implementation of tailored care strategies for these 'high-risk' patients, with the aim of reducing adverse outcomes following emergency laparotomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An increasing number of older patients are undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL). Frailty is thought to contribute to adverse outcomes in this group. The best method to assess frailty and impacts on long‐term mortality and other important functional outcomes for older EL patients have not been fully explored. Methods: A prospective multicenter study of older EL patients was conducted across four hospital sites in New Zealand from August 2017 to September 2022. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was used to measure frailty—defined as a CFS of ≥5. Primary outcomes were 30‐day and one‐year mortality. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity, admission for rehabilitation, and increased care level on discharge. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted, adjusting for age, sex, and ethnicity. Results: A total of 629 participants were included. Frailty prevalence was 14.6%. Frail participants demonstrated higher 30‐day and 1‐year mortality—20.7% and 39.1%. Following adjustment, frailty was directly associated with a significantly increased risk of short‐ and long‐term mortality (30‐day aRR 2.6, 95% CI 1.5, 4.3, p = <0.001, 1‐year aRR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5, 2.8, p < 0.001). Frailty was correlated with a 2‐fold increased risk of admission for rehabilitation and propensity of being discharged to an increased level of care, complications, and readmission within 30 days. Conclusion: Frailty was associated with increased risk of postoperative mortality up to 1‐year and other functional outcomes for older patients undergoing EL. Identification of frailty in older EL patients aids in patient‐centered decision‐making, which may lead to improvement in outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aims to assess whether the rate of readmissions after ureterorenoscopy (URS) is dependent on results of urine microscopy, culture and sensitivity (MC&S) or nitrite dipstick test performed before the procedure. Patients and Methods: All patients attending for ureteroscopy for stone disease over 12 months were included and had urine dipstick performed immediately prior to the surgery with mid-stream urine (MSU) sample sent for culture. Asymptomatic bacteriuria (ABU) was not treated before ureteroscopy. All included patients received standard antibiotic prophylaxis. Readmissions within 30 days of the procedure were evaluated. Results: A total 120 ureteroscopies were included, of which 20% had ABU. Eight patients (6.67%) were readmitted due to all procedure-related complications; among them, five (4.17%) were readmitted with urinary tract infection (UTI). Readmission rates with UTIs were similar for patients with sterile urine and those who had untreated ABU. Of those patients who were readmitted with UTI, all had a negative nitrite result on preoperative urine dipstick specimens. Most patients (54.17%) who had ABU also had a negative urinary nitrite test. Conclusions: Screening and routine treatment of ABU before ureteroscopy for urolithiasis may be unnecessary provided patients have standard antibiotic prophylaxis. Moreover, urine nitrite testing before ureteroscopy may not be a useful screening test for ABU before ureteroscopy. Level of evidence: 2 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bariatric surgery is a proven effective method of reducing obesity and reversing or preventing obesity‐related comorbidities. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool to assist with the prioritization of patients with obesity for bariatric surgery. The tool would meet the criteria for being evidence‐based, fair, implementable and transparent. Methods: The development of the tool involved a validated step‐by‐step process based on the consensus of clinical judgement of the New Zealand Ministry of Health working party. The process involved elicitation of criteria, clinical ranking of vignettes and creation of weightings using the 1000Minds® tool. The concurrent validity was tested by comparing tool rankings of vignettes to clinical judgement rankings. Results: Four major criteria (impact on life, likelihood of achieving maximum benefit with respect to control of diabetes, duration of benefit and surgical risk) are used to characterize the need and potential to benefit. The impact on life criterion has the largest weighting (up to 44.3%). There was good concurrent validity with a correlation coefficient r = 0.67. Conclusion: The tool as presented is evidence‐based, transparent and internally valid. The next step is to assess the predictive validity of the tool using real patient data to evaluate the effectiveness of the tool and determine what modifications may be required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The length of a patient's stay (LOS) in a hospital is one metric used to compare the quality of care, as a longer LOS may flag higher complication rates or less efficient processes. A meaningful comparison of LOS can only occur if the expected average length of stay (ALOS) is defined first. This study aimed to define the expected ALOS of primary and conversion bariatric surgery in Australia and to quantify the effect of patient, procedure, system, and surgeon factors on ALOS. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of prospectively maintained data from the Bariatric Surgery Registry of 63 604 bariatric procedures performed in Australia. The primary outcome measure was the expected ALOS for primary and conversion bariatric procedures. The secondary outcome measures quantified the change in ALOS for bariatric surgery resulting from patient, procedure, hospital, and surgeon factors. Results: Uncomplicated primary bariatric surgery had an ALOS (SD) of 2.30 (1.31) days, whereas conversion procedures had an ALOS (SD) of 2.71 (2.75) days yielding a mean difference (SEM) in ALOS of 0.41 (0.05) days, P < 0.001. The occurrence of any defined adverse event extended the ALOS of primary and conversion procedures by 1.14 days (CI 95% 1.04–1.25), P < 0.001 and 2.33 days (CI 95% 1.54–3.11), P < 0.001, respectively. Older age, diabetes, rural home address, surgeon operating volume and hospital case volume increased the ALOS following bariatric surgery. Conclusions: Our findings have defined Australia's expected ALOS following bariatric surgery. Increased patient age, diabetes, rural living, procedural complications and surgeon and hospital case volume exerted a small but significant increase in ALOS. Study type: Retrospective observational study of prospectively collected data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]