Optimizing theatre utilization for abscess drainage: going beyond priority categories.

BACKGROUND: Day-only emergency surgery for abscess drainage is poorly implemented in Australia. This study assessed the feasibility, outcomes, cost, and impact of an acute day-only surgery (ADOS) program. METHOD: A retrospective pre-post implementation study of patients requiring abscess drainage in theatre was performed. Following implementation of an ADOS program for abscess management, eligible patients were discharged from the emergency department and prioritized first on the following day's emergency list. Outcomes from the first 12 months of the ADOS era were compared with those of the preceding 6 months (pre-ADOS). Primary outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications, admission costs, and impact on overall emergency theatre workflow (measured by emergency appendicectomy metrics). RESULTS: Overall, 266 patients during the ADOS era (including 95 eligible for the ADOS pathway) were compared with 115 patients during the pre-ADOS era. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Median LOS was shorter during the ADOS era (21.9 h (IQR 11.8-43.3) vs. 30.1 h (IQR 24.7-48.8), P < 0.001). Median LOS was 10.2 h (IQR 8.9-13.1) for patients on the ADOS pathway. There were no significant differences in 30-day complications (9.3% vs. 9.5%), emergency department re-presentations (7.4% vs. 5.1%), or abscess recurrence (5.6% vs. 5.7%). Average cost per patient was lower during the ADOS era ($4155 vs. $4916, p = 0.005). ADOS did not appear to materially impact other emergency procedures. CONCLUSION: ADOS for abscess drainage is feasible, safe, and produces cost savings, while being implemented without significant additional resources.

Impact of socioeconomic status and road distance to hospital on perforated appendicitis rates at a large rural referral centre.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status and distance from hospital have been shown to be associated with poor surgical outcomes related to acute appendicitis. Indigenous populations experience greater socioeconomic disadvantages and poorer healthcare access than their non-Indigenous counterparts. This study aims to determine whether socioeconomic status and road distance from hospital are predictors of perforated appendicitis. It will also compare surgical outcomes of appendicitis between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. METHODS: We performed a 5-year retrospective study of all patients who underwent appendicectomy for acute appendicitis at a large rural referral centre. Patients were identified using the hospital database for theatre events coded as appendicectomy. Regression modelling was used to determine if socioeconomic status and road distance from hospital were associated with perforated appendicitis. The outcomes of appendicitis between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations were compared. RESULTS: Seven hundred and twenty-two patients were included in this study. The rate of perforated appendicitis was not significantly impacted by socioeconomic status (OR 0.993, 95% CI 0.98-1.006, P = 0.316) or road distance from hospital (OR = 0.911, 95% CI 0.999-1.001, P = 0.911). Indigenous patients did not have a significantly higher rate of perforation compared to non-Indigenous patients (P = 0.849) despite having overall lower socioeconomic status (P = 0.005) and longer road distance from hospital (P = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Lower socioeconomic status and longer road distance from hospital were not associated with an increased risk of perforated appendicitis. Indigenous populations have poorer socioeconomic status and longer road distance to hospital but did not have higher rates of perforated appendicitis.