Short-term risk prediction after major lower limb amputation: PERCEIVE study.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy with which healthcare professionals (HCPs) and risk prediction tools predict outcomes after major lower limb amputation (MLLA) is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of predicting short-term (30 days after MLLA) mortality, morbidity, and revisional surgery. METHODS: The PERCEIVE (PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcomE following major lower limb amputation: a collaboratIVE) study was launched on 1 October 2020. It was an international multicentre study, including adults undergoing MLLA for complications of peripheral arterial disease and/or diabetes. Preoperative predictions of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision by surgeons and anaesthetists were recorded. Probabilities from relevant risk prediction tools were calculated. Evaluation of accuracy included measures of discrimination, calibration, and overall performance. RESULTS: Some 537 patients were included. HCPs had acceptable discrimination in predicting mortality (931 predictions; C-statistic 0.758) and MLLA revision (565 predictions; C-statistic 0.756), but were poor at predicting morbidity (980 predictions; C-statistic 0.616). They overpredicted the risk of all outcomes. All except three risk prediction tools had worse discrimination than HCPs for predicting mortality (C-statistics 0.789, 0.774, and 0.773); two of these significantly overestimated the risk compared with HCPs. SORT version 2 (the only tool incorporating HCP predictions) demonstrated better calibration and overall performance (Brier score 0.082) than HCPs. Tools predicting morbidity and MLLA revision had poor discrimination (C-statistics 0.520 and 0.679). CONCLUSION: Clinicians predicted mortality and MLLA revision well, but predicted morbidity poorly. They overestimated the risk of mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision. Most short-term risk prediction tools had poorer discrimination or calibration than HCPs. The best method of predicting mortality was a statistical tool that incorporated HCP estimation.

Psychological distress during the acceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey of doctors practising in emergency medicine, anaesthesia and intensive care medicine in the UK and Ireland.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify psychological distress experienced by emergency, anaesthetic and intensive care doctors during the acceleration phase of COVID-19 in the UK and Ireland. METHODS: Initial cross-sectional electronic survey distributed during acceleration phase of the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 in the UK and Ireland (UK: 18 March 2020-26 March 2020 and Ireland: 25 March 2020-2 April 2020). Surveys were distributed via established specialty research networks, within a three-part longitudinal study. Participants were doctors working in emergency, anaesthetic and intensive medicine during the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 in acute hospitals across the UK and Ireland. Primary outcome measures were the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Additional questions examined personal and professional characteristics, experiences of COVID-19 to date, risk to self and others and self-reported perceptions of health and well-being. RESULTS: 5440 responses were obtained, 54.3% (n=2955) from emergency medicine and 36.9% (n=2005) from anaesthetics. All levels of doctor seniority were represented. For the primary outcome of GHQ-12 score, 44.2% (n=2405) of respondents scored >3, meeting the criteria for psychological distress. 57.3% (n=3045) had never previously provided clinical care during an infectious disease outbreak but over half of respondents felt somewhat prepared (48.6%, n=2653) or very prepared (7.6%, n=416) to provide clinical care to patients with COVID-19. However, 81.1% (n=4414) either agreed (31.1%, n=2709) or strongly agreed (31.1%, n=1705) that their personal health was at risk due to their clinical role. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that during the acceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of frontline doctors working in acute care reported psychological distress as measured by the GHQ-12. Findings from this study should inform strategies to optimise preparedness and explore modifiable factors associated with increased psychological distress in the short and long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10666798.

Long-term risk prediction after major lower limb amputation: 1-year results of the PERCEIVE study.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making when considering major lower limb amputation is complex and requires individualized outcome estimation. It is unknown how accurate healthcare professionals or relevant outcome prediction tools are at predicting outcomes at 1-year after major lower limb amputation. METHODS: An international, multicentre prospective observational study evaluating healthcare professional accuracy in predicting outcomes 1 year after major lower limb amputation and evaluation of relevant outcome prediction tools identified in a systematic search of the literature was undertaken. Observed outcomes at 1 year were compared with: healthcare professionals' preoperative predictions of death (surgeons and anaesthetists), major lower limb amputation revision (surgeons) and ambulation (surgeons, specialist physiotherapists and vascular nurse practitioners); and probabilities calculated from relevant outcome prediction tools. RESULTS: A total of 537 patients and 2244 healthcare professional predictions of outcomes were included. Surgeons and anaesthetists had acceptable discrimination (C-statistic = 0.715), calibration and overall performance (Brier score = 0.200) when predicting 1-year death, but performed worse when predicting major lower limb amputation revision and ambulation (C-statistics = 0.627 and 0.662 respectively). Healthcare professionals overestimated the death and major lower limb amputation revision risks. Consultants outperformed trainees, especially when predicting ambulation. Allied healthcare professionals marginally outperformed surgeons in predicting ambulation. Two outcome prediction tools (C-statistics = 0.755 and 0.717, Brier scores = 0.158 and 0.178) outperformed healthcare professionals' discrimination, calibration and overall performance in predicting death. Two outcome prediction tools for ambulation (C-statistics = 0.688 and 0.667) marginally outperformed healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: There is uncertainty in predicting 1-year outcomes following major lower limb amputation. Different professional groups performed comparably in this study. Two outcome prediction tools for death and two for ambulation outperformed healthcare professionals and may support shared decision-making.

Regional anaesthesia training in the UK - a national survey.

Background: Adequate training of anaesthetists in regional anaesthesia is important to ensure optimal patient access to regional anaesthesia. Methods: We undertook a national survey of UK trainee anaesthetists and Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA) tutors to assess experiences of training in regional anaesthesia. We performed descriptive statistics for baseline characteristics, and logistic regression of training indices and tutor confidence that their hospital could provide regional anaesthesia training at all three stages of the RCoA 2021 curriculum. Results: A total of 492 trainees (19.2%) and 114 tutors (45.2%) completed the survey. Trainees were less likely to have received training in chest/abdominal wall compared with upper/lower limb blocks {erector spinae vs femoral block (odds ratio [OR] 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-0.39), P<0.001}, or achieved >20 chest/abdominal wall blocks by Stage 3 of training (chest vs lower limb block [OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05-0.15, P<0.001]. There was a strong association between training received, number of blocks performed (>20 vs 0-5 blocks), and self-reported ability to perform blocks independently, OR 20.9 (95% CI 9.38-53.2). 24/182 (13%) and 10/182 (5.5%) of trainees had performed ≥50 non-obstetric lumbar and thoracic epidurals, respectively, by Stage 3 training. There was a positive association between having a lead clinician for regional anaesthesia, particularly those with paid sessions, and reported confidence to provide regional anaesthesia training at all stages of the curriculum (Stage 3 OR 7.27 [95% CI 2.64-22.0]). Conclusion: Our results confirm the importance of clinical experience and access to training in regional anaesthesia, and support the introduction of departmental regional anaesthesia leads to improve equity and quality in training opportunities.

Randomised trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supraglottic airway device compared with tracheal intubation for in-hospital cardiac arrest (AIRWAYS-3): Protocol, design and implementation.

Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest is approximately 18%, but for patients who require advanced airway management survival is lower. Those who do survive are often left with significant disability. Traditionally, resuscitation of cardiac arrest patients has included tracheal intubation, however insertion of a supraglottic airway has gained popularity as an alternative approach to advanced airway management. Evidence from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest suggests no significant differences in mortality or morbidity between these two approaches, but there is no randomised evidence for airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest. The aim of the AIRWAYS-3 randomised trial, described in this protocol paper, is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supraglottic airway versus tracheal intubation during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients will be allocated randomly to receive either a supraglottic airway or tracheal intubation as the initial advanced airway management. We will also estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of these two approaches. The primary outcome is functional status, measured using the modified Rankin Scale at hospital discharge or 30 days post-randomisation, whichever occurs first. AIRWAYS-3 presents ethical challenges regarding patient consent and data collection. These include the enrolment of unconscious patients without prior consent in a way that avoids methodological bias. Other complexities include the requirement to randomise patients efficiently during a time-critical cardiac arrest. Many of these challenges are encountered in other emergency care research; we discuss our approaches to addressing them. Trial registration: ISRCTN17720457. Prospectively registered on 29/07/2022.

PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcomE followIng major lower limb amputation: a collaboratiVE study (PERCEIVE)-protocol for the PERCEIVE qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Deciding whether to proceed with a major lower limb amputation is life-changing and complex, and it is crucial that the right decision is made at the right time. However, medical specialists are known to poorly predict risk when assessing patients for major surgery, and there is little guidance and research regarding decisions about amputation. The process of shared decision-making between doctors and patients during surgical consultations is also little understood. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyse in depth the communication, consent, risk prediction and decision-making process in relation to major lower limb amputation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Consultations between patients and surgeons at which major lower limb amputation is discussed will be audio-recorded for 10-15 patients. Semi-structured follow-up interviews with patients (and relatives/carers) will then be conducted at two time points: as soon as possible/appropriate after a decision has been reached regarding surgery, and approximately 6 months later. Semi-structured interviews will also be conducted with 10-15 healthcare professionals working in the UK National Health Service (NHS) involved in amputation decision-making. This will include surgeons, anaesthetists and specialist physiotherapists at 2-4 NHS Health Boards/Trusts in Wales and England. Discourse analysis will be used to analyse the recorded consultations; interviews will be analysed thematically. Finally, workshops will be held with patients and healthcare professionals to help synthesise and interpret findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by Wales REC 7 (20/WA/0351). Study findings will be published in international peer-reviewed journal(s) and presented at national and international scientific meetings. Findings will also be disseminated to a wide NHS and lay audience via presentations at meetings and written summaries for key stakeholder groups.

The Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP patient study): protocol for a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study to measure quality of care and outcomes after major surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Major surgery accounts for a substantial proportion of health service activity, due not only to the primary procedure, but the longer-term health implications of poor short-term outcome. Data from small studies or from outside the UK indicate that rates of complications and failure to rescue vary between hospitals, as does compliance with best practice processes. Within the UK, there is currently no system for monitoring postoperative complications (other than short-term mortality) in major non-cardiac surgery. Further, there is variation between national audit programmes, in the emphasis placed on quality assurance versus quality improvement, and therefore the principles of measurement and reporting which are used to design such programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PQIP patient study is a multi-centre prospective cohort study which recruits patients undergoing major surgery. Patient provide informed consent and contribute baseline and outcome data from their perspective using a suite of patient-reported outcome tools. Research and clinical staff complete data on patient risk factors and outcomes in-hospital, including two measures of complications. Longer-term outcome data are collected through patient feedback and linkage to national administrative datasets (mortality and readmissions). As well as providing a uniquely granular dataset for research, PQIP provides feedback to participating sites on their compliance with evidence-based processes and their patients' outcomes, with the aim of supporting local quality improvement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Health Research Authority in the UK. Dissemination of interim findings (non-inferential) will form a part of the improvement methodology and will be provided to participating centres at regular intervals, including near-real time feedback of key process measures. Inferential analyses will be published in the peer-reviewed literature, supported by a comprehensive multi-modal communications strategy including to patients, policy makers and academic audiences as well as clinicians.

Psychological distress and trauma in doctors providing frontline care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom and Ireland: a prospective longitudinal survey cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctors is a significant concern. Due to the emergence of multiple pandemic waves, longitudinal data on the impact of COVID-19 are vital to ensure an adequate psychological care response. The primary aim was to assess the prevalence and degree of psychological distress and trauma in frontline doctors during the acceleration, peak and deceleration of the COVID-19 first wave. Personal and professional factors associated with psychological distress are also reported. DESIGN: A prospective online three-part longitudinal survey. SETTING: Acute hospitals in the UK and Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Frontline doctors working in emergency medicine, anaesthetics and intensive care medicine during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Psychological distress and trauma measured using the General Health Questionnaire-12 and the Impact of Events-Revised. RESULTS: The initial acceleration survey distributed across networks generated a sample of 5440 doctors. Peak and deceleration response rates from the original sample were 71.6% (n=3896) and 56.6% (n=3079), respectively. Prevalence of psychological distress was 44.7% (n=1334) during the acceleration, 36.9% (n=1098) at peak and 31.5% (n=918) at the deceleration phase. The prevalence of trauma was 23.7% (n=647) at peak and 17.7% (n=484) at deceleration. The prevalence of probable post-traumatic stress disorder was 12.6% (n=343) at peak and 10.1% (n=276) at deceleration. Worry of family infection due to clinical work was the factor most strongly associated with both distress (R2=0.06) and trauma (R2=0.10). CONCLUSION: Findings reflect a pattern of elevated distress at acceleration and peak, with some natural recovery. It is essential that policymakers seek to prevent future adverse effects through (a) provision of vital equipment to mitigate physical and psychological harm, (b) increased awareness and recognition of signs of psychological distress and (c) the development of clear pathways to effective psychological care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10666798.

Airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest in adults: UK national survey and interview study with anaesthetic and intensive care trainees.

BACKGROUND: The optimal airway management strategy for in-hospital cardiac arrest is unknown. METHODS: An online survey and telephone interviews with anaesthetic and intensive care trainee doctors identified by the United Kingdom Research and Audit Federation of Trainees. Questions explored in-hospital cardiac arrest frequency, grade and specialty of those attending, proportion of patients receiving advanced airway management, airway strategies immediately available, and views on a randomised trial of airway management strategies during in-hospital cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 128 hospital sites (76% response rate). Adult in-hospital cardiac arrests were attended by anaesthesia staff at 40 sites (31%), intensive care staff at 37 sites (29%) and a combination of specialties at 51 sites (40%). The majority (123/128, 96%) of respondents reported immediate access to both tracheal intubation and supraglottic airways. A bag-mask technique was used 'very frequently' or 'frequently' during in-hospital cardiac arrest by 111/128 (87%) of respondents, followed by supraglottic airways (101/128, 79%) and tracheal intubation (69/128, 54%). The majority (60/100, 60%) of respondents estimated that ≤30% of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients undergo tracheal intubation, while 34 (34%) estimated this to be between 31% and 70%. Most respondents (102/128, 80%) would be 'likely' or 'very likely' to recruit future patients to a trial of alternative airway management strategies during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Interview data identified several barriers and facilitators to conducting research on airway management in in-hospital cardiac arrest. CONCLUSIONS: There is variation in airway management strategies for adult in-hospital cardiac arrest across the UK. Most respondents would be willing to take part in a randomised trial of airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest.

The PERCEIVE quantitative study: PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcome following major lower-limb amputation: protocol for a collaboratiVE study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of outcomes following surgery with high morbidity and mortality rates is essential for informed shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. It is unknown how accurately healthcare professionals predict outcomes following major lower-limb amputation (MLLA). Several MLLA outcome-prediction tools have been developed. These could be valuable in clinical practice, but most require validation in independent cohorts before routine clinical use can be recommended. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of healthcare professionals' predictions of outcomes in adult patients undergoing MLLA for complications of chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) or diabetes. Secondary aims include the validation of existing outcome-prediction tools. METHOD: This study is an international, multicentre prospective observational study including adult patients undergoing a primary MLLA for CLTI or diabetes. Healthcare professionals' accuracy in predicting outcomes at 30-days (death, morbidity and MLLA revision) and 1-year (death, MLLA revision and ambulation) will be evaluated. Sixteen existing outcome-prediction tools specific to MLLA will be examined for validity. Data collection began on 1 October 2020; the end of follow-up will be 1 May 2022. The C-statistic, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, reclassification tables and Brier score will be used to evaluate the predictive performance of healthcare professionals and prediction tools, respectively. STUDY REGISTRATION AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be registered locally at each centre in accordance with local policies before commencing data collection, overseen by local clinician leads. Results will be disseminated to all centres, and any subsequent presentation(s) and/or publication(s) will follow a collaborative co-authorship model.

COVID-19 emergency response assessment study: a prospective longitudinal survey of frontline doctors in the UK and Ireland: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is putting an unprecedented strain on healthcare systems globally. The psychological impact on frontline doctors of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic is currently unknown. This longitudinal professional survey aims to understand the evolving and cumulative effects of working during the COVID-19 outbreak on the psychological well-being of doctors working in emergency departments (ED), intensive care units (ICU) and anaesthetics during the pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a longitudinal questionnaire-based study with three predefined time points spanning the acceleration, peak and deceleration phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.The primary outcomes are psychological distress and post-trauma stress as measured by the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) and Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R). Data related to personal and professional characteristics will also be collected. Questionnaires will be administered prospectively to all doctors working in ED, ICU and anaesthetics in the UK and Ireland via existing research networks during the sampling period. Data from the questionnaires will be analysed to assess the prevalence and degree of psychological distress and trauma, and the nature of the relationship between personal and professional characteristics and the primary outcomes. Data will be described, analysed and disseminated at each time point; however, the primary endpoint will be psychological distress and trauma at the final time point. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Bath, UK (ref: 4421), and Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin, Ethics Committee. Regulatory approval from the Health Regulation Authority (UK), Health and Care Research Wales (IRAS: 281944).This study is limited by the fact that it focuses on doctors only and is survey based without further qualitative interviews of participants. It is expected this study will provide clear evidence of the psychological impact of COVID-19 on doctors and will allow present and future planning to mitigate against any psychological impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10666798.