The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on 397 631 elective dental admissions among the under-25s in England: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 caused widespread disruptions to health services worldwide, including reductions in elective surgery. Tooth extractions are among the most common reasons for elective surgery among children and young people (CYP). It is unclear how COVID-19 affected elective dental surgeries in hospitals over multiple pandemic waves at a national level. METHODS: Elective dental tooth extraction admissions were selected using Hospital Episode Statistics. Admission trends for the first 14 pandemic months were compared with the previous five years and results were stratified by age (under-11s, 11-16s, 17-24s). RESULTS: The most socioeconomically deprived CYP comprised the largest proportion of elective dental tooth extraction admissions. In April 2020, admissions dropped by >95%. In absolute terms, the biggest reduction was in April (11-16s: -1339 admissions, 95% CI -1411 to -1267; 17-24s: -1600, -1678 to -1521) and May 2020 (under-11s: -2857, -2962 to -2752). Admissions differed by socioeconomic deprivation for the under-11s (P < 0.0001), driven by fewer admissions than expected by the most deprived and more by the most affluent during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Elective tooth extractions dropped most in April 2020, remaining below pre-pandemic levels throughout the study. Despite being the most likely to be admitted, the most deprived under-11s had the largest reductions in admissions relative to other groups.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical management trends for acute appendicitis among the under-25s: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on acute appendicitis management on children and young people (CYP). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: All English National Health Service hospitals. PATIENTS: Acute appendicitis admissions (all, simple, complex) by CYP (under-5s, 5-9s, 10-24s). EXPOSURE: Study pandemic period: February 2020-March 2021. Comparator pre-pandemic period: February 2015-January 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monthly appendicectomy and laparoscopic appendicectomy rate trends and absolute differences between pandemic month and the pre-pandemic average. Proportions of appendicitis admissions comprising complex appendicitis by hospital with or without specialist paediatric centres were compared. RESULTS: 101 462 acute appendicitis admissions were analysed. Appendicectomy rates fell most in April 2020 for the 5-9s (-18.4% (95% CI -26.8% to -10.0%)) and 10-24s (-28.4% (-38.9% to -18.0%)), driven by reductions in appendicectomies for simple appendicitis. This was equivalent to -54 procedures (-68.4 to -39.6) and -512 (-555.9 to -467.3) for the 5-9s and 10-24s, respectively. Laparoscopic appendicectomies fell in April 2020 for the 5-9s (-15.5% (-23.2% to -7.8%)) and 10-24s (-44.8% (-57.9% to -31.6%) across all types, which was equivalent to -43 (-56.1 to 30.3) and -643 (-692.5 to -593.1) procedures for the 5-9s and 10-24s, respectively. A larger proportion of complex appendicitis admissions were treated within trusts with specialist paediatric centres during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: For CYP across English hospitals, a sharp recovery followed a steep reduction in appendicectomy rates in April 2020, due to concerns with COVID-19 transmission. This builds on smaller-sized studies reporting the immediate short-term impacts.

Evaluating the impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in patients with COVID-19 assessed in emergency departments in England: a retrospective matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To identify the impact of enrolment onto a national pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme for COVID-19 (COVID-19 Oximetry @home; CO@h) on health service use and mortality in patients attending Emergency Departments (EDs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study of patients enrolled onto the CO@h pathway from EDs in England. We included all patients with a positive COVID-19 test from 1 October 2020 to 3 May 2021 who attended ED from 3 days before to 10 days after the date of the test. All patients who were admitted or died on the same or following day to the first ED attendance within the time window were excluded. In the primary analysis, participants enrolled onto CO@h were matched using demographic and clinical criteria to participants who were not enrolled. Five outcome measures were examined within 28 days of first ED attendance: (1) Death from any cause; (2) Any subsequent ED attendance; (3) Any emergency hospital admission; (4) Critical care admission; and (5) Length of stay. RESULTS: 15 621 participants were included in the primary analysis, of whom 639 were enrolled onto CO@h and 14 982 were controls. Odds of death were 52% lower in those enrolled (95% CI 7% to 75%) compared with those not enrolled onto CO@h. Odds of any ED attendance or admission were 37% (95% CI 16% to 63%) and 59% (95% CI 32% to 91%) higher, respectively, in those enrolled. Of those admitted, those enrolled had 53% (95% CI 7% to 76%) lower odds of critical care admission. There was no significant impact on length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that for patients assessed in ED, pulse oximetry remote monitoring may be a clinically effective and safe model for early detection of hypoxia and escalation. However, possible selection biases might limit the generalisability to other populations.

Population-level impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in the people with COVID-19 in England: a national analysis using a stepped wedge design.

BACKGROUND: To identify the population-level impact of a national pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme for COVID-19 (COVID Oximetry @home (CO@h)) in England on mortality and health service use. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a stepped wedge pre-implementation and post-implementation design, including all 106 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England implementing a local CO@h programme. All symptomatic people with a positive COVID-19 PCR test result from 1 October 2020 to 3 May 2021, and who were aged ≥65 years or identified as clinically extremely vulnerable were included. Care home residents were excluded. A pre-intervention period before implementation of the CO@h programme in each CCG was compared with a post-intervention period after implementation. Five outcome measures within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test: (i) death from any cause; (ii) any ED attendance; (iii) any emergency hospital admission; (iv) critical care admission and (v) total length of hospital stay. RESULTS: 217 650 people were eligible and included in the analysis. Total enrolment onto the programme was low, with enrolment data received for only 5527 (2.5%) of the eligible population. The period of implementation of the programme was not associated with mortality or length of hospital stay. The period of implementation was associated with increased health service utilisation with a 12% increase in the odds of ED attendance (95% CI: 6% to 18%) and emergency hospital admission (95% CI: 5% to 20%) and a 24% increase in the odds of critical care admission in those admitted (95% CI: 5% to 47%). In a secondary analysis of CO@h sites with at least 10% or 20% of eligible people enrolled, there was no significant association with any outcome measure. CONCLUSION: At a population level, there was no association with mortality before and after the implementation period of the CO@h programme, and small increases in health service utilisation were observed. However, lower than expected enrolment is likely to have diluted the effects of the programme at a population level.

Patient-level and hospital-level variation and related time trends in COVID-19 case fatality rates during the first pandemic wave in England: multilevel modelling analysis of routine data.

BACKGROUND: A report suggesting large between-hospital variations in mortality after admission for COVID-19 in England attracted much media attention but used crude rates. We aimed to quantify these variations between hospitals and over time during England's first wave (March to July 2020) and assess available patient-level and hospital-level predictors to explain those variations. METHODS: We used administrative data for England, augmented by hospital-level information. Admissions were extracted with COVID-19 codes. In-hospital death was the primary outcome. Risk-adjusted mortality ratios (standardised mortality ratios) and interhospital variation were calculated using multilevel logistic regression. Early-wave (March to April) and late-wave (May to July) periods were compared. RESULTS: 74 781 admissions had a primary diagnosis of COVID-19, with 21 984 in-hospital deaths (29.4%); the 30-day total mortality rate was 28.8%. The crude in-hospital death rate fell in all ages and overall from 32.9% in March to 13.4% in July. Patient-level predictors included age, male gender, non-white ethnic group (early period only) and several comorbidities (obesity early period only). The only significant hospital-level predictor was daily COVID-19 admissions in the late period; we did not find a relation with staff absences for COVID-19, mechanical ventilation bed occupancies, total bed occupancies or bed occupancies for COVID-19 admissions in either period. Just 4 (3%) and 2 (2%) hospitals were high, and 5 (4%) and 0 hospitals were low funnel plot mortality outliers at 3 SD for early and late periods, respectively, after risk adjustment. We found no strong correlation between early and late hospital-level mortality (r=0.17, p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: There was modest variation in mortality following admission for COVID-19 between English hospitals after adjustment for risk and random variation, in marked contrast to early media reports. Early-period mortality did not predict late-period mortality.

Socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity inequalities in disruption to NHS hospital admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital admissions in many countries fell dramatically at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Less is known about how care patterns differed by patient groups. We sought to determine whether areas with higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation or larger ethnic minority populations saw larger falls in emergency and planned admissions in England. METHODS: We conducted a national observational study of hospital care in the English National Health Service (NHS) in 2019-2020. Weekly volumes of elective (planned) and emergency admissions in 2020 compared with 2019 were calculated for each census area. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to estimate the reductions in volumes for areas in different quintiles of socioeconomic deprivation and ethnic minority populations after controlling for national time trends and local area composition. RESULTS: Between March and December 2020, there were 35.5% (3.0 million) fewer elective admissions and 22.0% (1.2 million) fewer emergency admissions with a non-COVID-19 primary diagnosis than in 2019. Areas with the largest share of ethnic minority populations experienced a 36.7% (95% CI 24.1% to 49.3%) larger reduction in non-primary COVID-19 emergency admissions compared with those with the smallest. The most deprived areas experienced a 10.1% (95% CI 2.6% to 17.7%) smaller reduction in non-COVID-19 emergency admissions compared with the least deprived. These patterns are not explained by differential prevalence of COVID-19 cases by area. CONCLUSIONS: Even in a healthcare system founded on the principle of equal access for equal need, the impact of COVID-19 on NHS hospital care for non-COVID patients has not been spread evenly by ethnicity and deprivation in England. While we cannot conclusively determine the mechanisms behind these differences, they risk exacerbating prepandemic health inequalities.

Five-year outcomes following left ventricular assist device implantation in England.

OBJECTIVE: Implant rates of mechanical circulatory supports such as left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have steadily increased in the last decade. We assessed the utility of administrative data to provide information on hospital use and outcomes. METHODS: Using 2 years of national hospital administrative data for England linked to the death register, we identified all patients with an LVAD and extracted hospital activity for 5 years before and after the LVAD implantation date. RESULTS: In the two index years April 2011 to March 2013, 157 patients had an LVAD implanted. The mean age was 50.9 (SD 15.4), and 78.3% were men. After 5 years, 92 (58.6%) had died; the recorded cause of death was noncardiovascular in 67.4%. 42 (26.8%) patients received a heart±lung transplantation. Compared with the 12 months before implantation, the 12 months after but not including the month of implantation saw falls in total inpatient and day case admissions, a fall in admissions for heart failure (HF), a rise in non-HF admissions, a fall in emergency department visits not ending in admission and a rise in outpatient appointments (all per patient at risk). Postimplantation complications were common in the subsequent 5 years: 26.1% had a stroke, 23.6% had a device infection and 13.4% had a new LVAD implanted. CONCLUSIONS: Despite patients' young age, their mortality is high and their hospital use and complications are common in the 5 years following LVAD implantation. Administrative data provide important information on resource use in this patient group.

Characteristics of frequent paediatric users of emergency departments in England: an observational study using routine national data.

BACKGROUND: Frequent attendances of the same users in emergency departments (ED) can intensify workload pressures and are common among children, yet little is known about the characteristics of paediatric frequent users in EDs. AIM: To describe the volume of frequent paediatric attendance in England and the demographics of frequent paediatric ED users in English hospitals. METHOD: We analysed the Hospital Episode Statistics dataset for April 2014-March 2017. The study included 2 308 816 children under 16 years old who attended an ED at least once. Children who attended four times or more in 2015/2016 were classified as frequent users. The preceding and subsequent years were used to capture attendances bordering with the current year. We used a mixed effects logistic regression with a random intercept to predict the odds of being a frequent user in children from different sociodemographic groups. RESULTS: One in 11 children (9.1%) who attended an ED attended four times or more in a year. Infants had a greater likelihood of being a frequent attender (OR 3.24, 95% CI 3.19 to 3.30 vs 5 to 9 years old). Children from more deprived areas had a greater likelihood of being a frequent attender (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.54 to 1.59 vs least deprived). Boys had a slightly greater likelihood than girls (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.06). Children of Asian and mixed ethnic groups were more likely to be frequent users than those from white ethnic groups, while children from black and 'other' had a lower likelihood (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.05; OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06; OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.90; OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.92, respectively). CONCLUSION: One in 11 children was a frequent attender. Interventions for reducing paediatric frequent attendance need to target infants and families living in deprived areas.

Frequent attendances at emergency departments in England.

BACKGROUND: A small proportion of patients referred to as 'frequent attenders' account for a large proportion of hospital activity such as ED attendances and admissions. There is a lack of recent, national estimates of the volume of frequent ED attenders. We aimed to estimate the volume and age distribution of frequent ED attenders in English hospitals. METHOD: We included all attendances at all major EDs across England in the financial year 2016-2017. Patients who attended three times or more were classified as frequent attenders. We used a logistic regression model to predict the odds of being a frequent attender by age group. RESULTS: 14 829 519 attendances were made by 10 062 847 patients who attended at least once. 73.5% of ED attenders attended once and accounted for 49.8% of the total ED attendances. 9.5% of ED attenders attended three times or more; they accounted for 27.1% of the ED attendances. While only 1.2% attended six times or more, their contribution was 7.6% of the total attendances. Infants and adults aged over 80 years were significantly more likely to be frequent attenders than adults aged 30-59 years (OR=2.11, 95% CI 2.09 to 2.13, OR=2.22, 95% CI 2.20 to 2.23, respectively). The likelihood of hospital admission rose steeply with the number of attendances a patient had. CONCLUSION: One in 10 patients attending the ED are frequent attenders and account for over a quarter of attendances. Emergency care systems should consider better ways of reorganising health services to meet the needs of patients who attend EDs frequently.

Adherence to guidelines in management of symptoms suggestive of heart failure in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical guidelines on heart failure (HF) suggest timings for investigation and referral in primary care. We calculated the time for patients to achieve key elements in the recommended pathway to diagnosis of HF. METHODS: In this observational study, we used linked primary and secondary care data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a database of anonymised electronic records from UK general practices) between 2010 and 2013. Records were examined for presenting symptoms (breathlessness, fatigue, ankle swelling) and key elements of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended pathway to diagnosis (serum natriuretic peptide (NP) test, echocardiography, specialist referral). RESULTS: 42 403 patients were diagnosed with HF, of whom 16 597 presented in primary care with suggestive symptoms. 6464 (39%) had recorded NP or echocardiography, and 6043 (36%) specialist referral. Median time from recorded symptom(s) to investigation (NP or echocardiography) was 292 days (IQR 34-844) and to referral 236 days (IQR 42-721). Median time from symptom(s) to diagnosis was 972 days (IQR 337-1468) and to treatment with HF-relevant medication 803 days (IQR 230-1364). Factors significantly affecting timing of referral, treatment and diagnosis included patients' sex (p=0.001), age (p<0.001), deprivation score (p=0.001), comorbidities (p<0.001) and presenting symptom type (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Median times to investigation or referral of patients presenting in primary care with symptoms suggestive of HF considerably exceeded recommendations. There is a need to support clinicians in the diagnosis of HF in primary care, with improved access to investigation and specialist assessment to support timely management.

Real-world presentation with heart failure in primary care: do patients selected to follow diagnostic and management guidelines have better outcomes?

Objective: To describe associations between initial management of people presenting with heart failure (HF) symptoms in primary care, including compliance with the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and subsequent unplanned hospitalisation for HF and death. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study using data from general practices submitting records to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The cohort comprised patients diagnosed with HF during 2010-2013 and presenting to their general practitioners with breathlessness, fatigue or ankle swelling. Results: 13 897 patients were included in the study. Within the first 6 months, only 7% had completed the NICE-recommended pathway; another 18.6% had followed part of it (B-type natriuretic peptide testing and/or echocardiography, or specialist referral). Significant differences in hazards were seen in unadjusted analysis in favour of full or partial completion of the NICE-recommended pathway. Covariate adjustment attenuated the relations with death much more than those for HF admission. Compared with patients placed on the NICE pathway, treatment with HF medications had an HR of 1.16 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.28, p=0.003) for HF admission and 1.03 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.17, p= 0.674) for death. Patients who partially followed the NICE pathway had similar hazards to those who completed it. Patients on no pathway had the highest hazard for HF admission at 1.30 (95% 1.18 to 1.43, p<0.001) but similar hazard for death. Conclusions: Patients not put on at least some elements of the NICE-recommended pathway had significantly higher risk of HF admission but non-significant higher risk of death than other patients had.

National hospital mortality surveillance system: a descriptive analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a description of the Imperial College Mortality Surveillance System and subsequent investigations by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals receiving mortality alerts. BACKGROUND: The mortality surveillance system has generated monthly mortality alerts since 2007, on 122 individual diagnosis and surgical procedure groups, using routinely collected hospital administrative data for all English acute NHS hospital trusts. The CQC, the English national regulator, is notified of each alert. This study describes the findings of CQC investigations of alerting trusts. METHODS: We carried out (1) a descriptive analysis of alerts (2007-2016) and (2) an audit of CQC investigations in a subset of alerts (2011-2013). RESULTS: Between April 2007 and October 2016, 860 alerts were generated and 76% (654 alerts) were sent to trusts. Alert volumes varied over time (range: 40-101). Septicaemia (except in labour) was the most commonly alerting group (11.5% alerts sent). We reviewed CQC communications in a subset of 204 alerts from 96 trusts. The CQC investigated 75% (154/204) of alerts. In 90% of these pursued alerts, trusts returned evidence of local case note reviews (140/154). These reviews found areas of care that could be improved in 69% (106/154) of alerts. In 25% (38/154) trusts considered that identified failings in care could have impacted on patient outcomes. The CQC investigations resulted in full trust action plans in 77% (118/154) of all pursued alerts. CONCLUSION: The mortality surveillance system has generated a large number of alerts since 2007. Quality of care problems were found in 69% of alerts with CQC investigations, and one in four trusts reported that failings in care may have an impact on patient outcomes. Identifying whether mortality alerts are the most efficient means to highlight areas of substandard care will require further investigation.

Investigating the association of alerts from a national mortality surveillance system with subsequent hospital mortality in England: an interrupted time series analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between alerts from a national hospital mortality surveillance system and subsequent trends in relative risk of mortality. BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in performance monitoring in the NHS. Since 2007, Imperial College London has generated monthly mortality alerts, based on statistical process control charts and using routinely collected hospital administrative data, for all English acute NHS hospital trusts. The impact of this system has not yet been studied. METHODS: We investigated alerts sent to Acute National Health Service hospital trusts in England in 2011-2013. We examined risk-adjusted mortality (relative risk) for all monitored diagnosis and procedure groups at a hospital trust level for 12 months prior to an alert and 23 months post alert. We used an interrupted time series design with a 9-month lag to estimate a trend prior to a mortality alert and the change in trend after, using generalised estimating equations. RESULTS: On average there was a 5% monthly increase in relative risk of mortality during the 12 months prior to an alert (95% CI 4% to 5%). Mortality risk fell, on average by 61% (95% CI 56% to 65%), during the 9-month period immediately following an alert, then levelled to a slow decline, reaching on average the level of expected mortality within 18 months of the alert. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest an association between an alert notification and a reduction in the risk of mortality, although with less lag time than expected. It is difficult to determine any causal association. A proportion of alerts may be triggered by random variation alone and subsequent falls could simply reflect regression to the mean. Findings could also indicate that some hospitals are monitoring their own mortality statistics or other performance information, taking action prior to alert notification.

Does early return to theatre add value to rates of revision at 3 years in assessing surgeon performance for elective hip and knee arthroplasty? National observational study.

BACKGROUND: Joint replacement revision is the most widely used long-term outcome measure in elective hip and knee surgery. Return to theatre (RTT) has been proposed as an additional outcome measure, but how it compares with revision in its statistical performance is unknown. METHODS: National hospital administrative data for England were used to compare RTT at 90 days (RTT90) with revision rates within 3 years by surgeon. Standard power calculations were run for different scenarios. Funnel plots were used to count the number of surgeons with unusually high or low rates. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2011, there were 297 650 hip replacements (HRs) among 2952 surgeons and 341 226 knee replacements (KRs) among 2343 surgeons. RTT90 rates were 2.1% for HR and 1.5% for KR; 3-year revision rates were 2.1% for HR and 2.2% for KR. Statistical power to detect surgeons with poor performance on either metric was particularly low for surgeons performing 50 cases per year for the 5 years. The correlation between the risk-adjusted surgeon-level rates for the two outcomes was +0.51 for HR and +0.20 for KR, both p<0.001. There was little agreement between the measures regarding which surgeons had significantly high or low rates. CONCLUSION: RTT90 appears to provide useful and complementary information on surgeon performance and should be considered alongside revision rates, but low case loads considerably reduce the power to detect unusual performance on either metric.

Bed utilisation and increased risk of Clostridium difficile infections in acute hospitals in England in 2013/2014.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to identify thresholds for hospital bed utilisation which are independently associated with significantly higher risks for Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) in acute hospitals in England. METHOD: A retrospective analysis was carried out on reported data from the English National Health Service (NHS) for the financial year 2013/2014. Reported rates of CDI were used as a proxy for hospital infection rates in acute NHS hospital trusts. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess the relationship between bed utilisation values and CDI controlling for confounding factors. Hospitals were finally plotted in a Pabon Lasso graph according to their average bed occupancy rate (BOR) and bed turnover rate (BTR) per year to visualise the relationship between bed utilisation and CDI. RESULTS: Among English hospital NHS trusts, increasing BTR and decreasing BOR were associated with a decrease in CDI. However, this effect was not large, and patient mix had a larger impact on CDI rates than bed utilisation. CONCLUSIONS: While policymakers and managers wishing to target healthcare providers with high CDI rates should look at bed utilisation measures, focusing on these alone is unlikely to have the desired impact. Instead, strategies to combat CDI must take a wider perspective on contributory factors at the institutional level.

Exploring the impact of consultants' experience on hospital mortality by day of the week: a retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of consultants' experience with mortality by day of the week when elective surgery was performed. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using English hospital administrative data. SETTING: All acute and specialist English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals carrying out elective surgery between financial years 2008-2009 and 2010-2011. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing elective surgical procedures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Death in or out of hospital within 30 days of the surgical procedure taking place. RESULTS: We examined 3 922 091 (26 409 deaths) elective procedures with valid consultant information between 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 in English hospitals; there were 21 196 consultants in charge of these procedures, which took place in 163 NHS hospitals. Consultant seniority had no significant impact in predicting mortality (p=0.345). Patients undergoing elective surgery under junior consultants had slightly lower odds of 30-day death when compared with patients under more experienced consultants (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99). We found significant mortality variation among consultants in charge of elective procedures within hospitals, with only moderate variation between hospitals. The adjusted odds of death remained higher for Friday (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.54), Saturday (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.83 to 2.12) and Sunday (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.85) after adjusting for consultant seniority and patient characteristics. Consultant experience is significantly lower (p<0.0001) on a Friday (median (SD) was 7.9 years (4.4)) than the Monday to Thursday average (median (SD) was 8.5 years (4.3)). CONCLUSIONS: Our cohort of patients shows that consultant seniority is not a significant factor in predicting 30-day mortality following elective surgery by day of the week. The end-of-the-week effect remains significant after adjusting for patient, consultant and hospital effects, suggesting that other unobserved factors may be driving the higher mortality towards the end of the week. Consultant's years of experience are lowest on a Friday; however, we do not believe that this small variation has any impact on patient outcomes.

The Global Comparators project: international comparison of 30-day in-hospital mortality by day of the week.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of mortality by day of the week for emergency and elective patients. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using the international dataset from the Global Comparators (GC) project consisting of hospital administrative data. SETTING: 28 hospitals from England, Australia, USA and the Netherlands during 2009-2012. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency and surgical-elective patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: In-hospital deaths within 30 days of emergency admission or of elective surgery. RESULTS: We examined 2 982 570 hospital records; adjusted odds of 30-day death were higher for weekend emergency admissions to 11 hospitals in England (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.13 on Sunday), 5 hospitals in USA (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.24 on Sunday) and 6 hospitals in the Netherlands (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33 on Saturday). Emergency admissions to the six Australian hospitals showed no daily variation in adjusted 30-day mortality, but showed a weekend effect at 7 days post emergency admission (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.22 on Saturday). All weekend elective patients showed higher adjusted odds of 30-day postoperative death; we observed a 'Friday effect' for elective patients in the six Dutch hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: We show that mortality outcomes for our sample vary within each country and per day of the week in agreement with previous studies of the 'weekend effect'. Due to limitations of administrative datasets, we cannot determine the reasons for these findings; however, the international nature of our database suggests that this is a systematic phenomenon affecting healthcare providers across borders. Further investigation is needed to understand the factors that give rise to the weekend effect. The participating hospitals represent varied models of service delivery, and there is a potential to learn from best practice in different healthcare systems.

Staff perceptions of quality of care: an observational study of the NHS Staff Survey in hospitals in England.

BACKGROUND: There is some evidence to suggest that higher job satisfaction among healthcare staff in specific settings may be linked to improved patient outcomes. This study aimed to assess the potential of staff satisfaction to be used as an indicator of institutional performance across all acute National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England. METHODS: Using staff responses from the NHS Staff Survey 2009, and correlating these with hospital standardised mortality ratios (HSMR), correlation analyses were conducted at institutional level with further analyses of staff subgroups. RESULTS: Over 60 000 respondents from 147 NHS trusts were included in the analysis. There was a weak negative correlation with HSMR where staff agreed that patient care was their trust's top priority (Kendall τ = -0.22, p<0.001), and where they would be happy with the care for a friend or relative (Kendall τ = -0.30, p<0.001). These correlations were identified across clinical and non-clinical groups, with nursing staff demonstrating the most robust correlation. There was no correlation between satisfaction with the quality of care delivered by oneself and institutional HSMR. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of the continued debate about the relationship of HSMR to hospital performance, these findings of a weak correlation between staff satisfaction and HSMR are intriguing and warrant further investigation. Such measures in the future have the advantage of being intuitive for lay and specialist audiences alike, and may be useful in facilitating patient choice. Whether higher staff satisfaction drives quality or merely reflects it remains unclear.

Using routine data to monitor inequalities in an acute trust: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Reducing inequalities is one of the priorities of the National Health Service. However, there is no standard system for monitoring inequalities in the care provided by acute trusts. We explore the feasibility of monitoring inequalities within an acute trust using routine data. METHODS: A retrospective study of hospital episode statistics from one acute trust in London over three years (2007 to 2010). Waiting times, length of stay and readmission rates were described for seven common surgical procedures. Inequalities by age, sex, ethnicity and social deprivation were examined using multiple logistic regression, adjusting for the other socio-demographic variables and comorbidities. Sample size calculations were computed to estimate how many years of data would be ideal for this analysis. RESULTS: This study found that even in a large acute trust, there was not enough power to detect differences between subgroups. There was little evidence of inequalities for the outcome and process measures examined, statistically significant differences by age, sex, ethnicity or deprivation were only found in 11 out of 80 analyses. Bariatric surgery patients who were black African or Caribbean were more likely than white patients to experience a prolonged wait (longer than 64 days, aOR = 2.47, 95% CI: 1.36-4.49). Following a coronary angioplasty, patients from more deprived areas were more likely to have had a prolonged length of stay (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.25-2.20). CONCLUSIONS: This study found difficulties in using routine data to identify inequalities on a trust level. Little evidence of inequalities in waiting time, length of stay or readmission rates by sex, ethnicity or social deprivation were identified although some differences were identified which warrant further investigation. Even with three years of data from a large trust there was little power to detect inequalities by procedure. Data will therefore need to be pooled from multiple trusts to detect inequalities.