Assessing current handover practices in surgery: A survey of non-consultant hospital doctors in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Handovers of care are potentially hazardous moments in the patient journey and can lead to harm if conducted poorly. Through a national survey of surgical doctors in Ireland, this paper assesses contemporary surgical handover practices and evaluates barriers and facilitators of effective handover. METHODS: After ethical approval and pre-testing with a representative sample, a cross-sectional, online survey was distributed to non-consultant hospital doctors (NCHDs) working in the Republic of Ireland. A mixed-methods approach was used, combining data using triangulation design. MAIN FINDINGS: A total of 201 responses were received (18.5%). Most participants were senior house officers or senior registrars (49.7% and 37.3%). Most people (85.1%) reported that information received during handover was missing or incorrect at least some of the time. One-third of respondents reported that a near-miss had occurred as a result of handover within the past three months, and handover-related errors resulted in minor (16.9%), moderate (4.9%), or major (1.5%) harm. Only 11.4% had received any formal training. Reported barriers to handover included negative attitudes, a lack of institutional support, and competing clinical activities. Facilitators included process standardisation, improved access to resources, and staff engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical NCHDs working in Irish hospitals reported poor compliance with international best practice for handover and identified potential harms. Process standardisation, appropriate staff training, and the provision of necessary handover-related resources is required at a national level to address this significant patient safety concern.

Daily handover in surgery: systematic review and a novel taxonomy of interventions and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Poor-quality handovers lead to adverse outcomes for patients; however, there is a lack of evidence to support safe surgical handovers. This systematic review aims to summarize the interventions available to improve end-of-shift surgical handover. A novel taxonomy of interventions and outcomes and a modified quality assessment tool are also described. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE®, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles up to April 2023. Comparative studies describing interventions for daily in-hospital surgical handovers between doctors were included. Studies were grouped according to their interventions and outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 6139 citations were retrieved, and 41 studies met the inclusion criteria. The total patient sample sizes in the control and intervention groups were 11 946 and 11 563 patients, respectively. Most studies were pre-/post-intervention cohort studies (92.7%), and most (73.2%) represented level V evidence. The mean quality assessment score was 53.4% (17.1). A taxonomy of handover interventions and outcomes was developed, with interventions including handover tools, process standardization measures, staff education, and the use of mnemonics. More than 25% of studies used a document as the only intervention. Overall, 55 discrete outcomes were assessed in four categories including process (n = 27), staff (n = 14), patient (n = 12) and system-level (n = 2) outcomes. Significant improvements were seen in 51.8%, 78.5%, 58.3% (n = 9761 versus 9312 patients) and 100% of these outcomes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most publications demonstrate that good-quality surgical handover improves outcomes and many interventions appear to be effective; however, studies are methodologically heterogeneous. These novel taxonomies and quality assessment tool will help standardize future studies.

Outcomes of the Macroscopically Normal Appendix Left in Situ in Patients with Suspected Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Right iliac fossa (RIF) pain is a common indication for laparoscopy to diagnose and treat appendicitis. When a macroscopically normal appendix is found, there is no standard consensus regarding excision. Some surgeons remove the appendix due to the risk of microscopic inflammation and to avoid a future, repeat laparoscopy for possible appendicitis. Alternatively, others leave the appendix in situ to avoid morbidity from a potentially unnecessary procedure. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with macroscopically normal appendices left in situ. METHODS: All emergency laparoscopies without appendicectomy between January 1st 2010- December 31st 2020 were identified from theatre records. All operative notes were individually evaluated and comments on the macroscopic appearance of the appendix and any intra-operative pathology were recorded. Only patients undergoing laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis with macroscopically normal appendices were included. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients [median age 21.68 (range 9-90.8) years] were included. The cohort was predominantly female (n=105, 87.5%). Forty-eight patients (40.0%) had a positive finding during index laparoscopy. During a median duration of 94.5 (range 8-131) months' follow-up, 16 patients (13.33%) underwent a repeat laparoscopy for recurrent RIF pain. Thirteen (10.8% of total cohort) subsequently underwent an appendicectomy. Histology confirmed acute appendicitis in six cases (4.17% of entire cohort). On subanalysis of smaller cohort, index laparoscopies with no positive findings (n=72), nine patients (12.5%) underwent appendicectomy with two (2.7%) appendices demonstrating appendicitis on histological examination. CONCLUSION: 87% of the total cohort with a normal appendix at laparoscopy for RIF pain did not undergo further laparoscopy. Less than 5% of the total cohort and 2.7% of subanalysis cohort had an appendicectomy for histologically-proven appendicitis within the follow-up period. From the evidence in this study, we conclude that leaving the appendix in situ unless macroscopically inflamed is a viable alternative to excision.

Meta-analysis of Histological Margin Positivity in the Prediction of Recurrence After Crohn's Resection.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant advances in the medical management of Crohn's disease, many patients will require intestinal resection during their lifetime. It is disappointing that many will also develop disease recurrence. OBJECTIVES: The current study utilizes meta-analytical techniques to determine the effect of positive histological margins at the time of index resection on disease recurrence. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Medline, PubMed, PubMed Central, and Cochrane databases were searched using a Boolean search algorithm for articles published up to August 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Databases were searched for studies reporting the outcomes for patients with Crohn's disease undergoing primary resection that correlated resection margin status with disease recurrence. Results were reported as pooled ORs with 95% CI. RESULTS: A total of 176 citations were reviewed; 18 studies comprising 1833 patients were ultimately included in the analysis, with a mean rate of histopathological margin positivity of 41.7 ± 17.4% and a pooled mean follow-up of 69 ± 39 months. Histopathological margin positivity was associated with a higher rate of overall recurrence (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.1; p < 0.001), clinical recurrence (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8; p = 0.04), and anastomotic recurrence (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.3; p = 0.03). In studies reporting plexitis specifically at the resection margin, there was an increase in recurrence (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.9; p = 0.02). LIMITATIONS: The definitions of histological margin positivity and postoperative recurrence vary between the studies and follow-up durations vary. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of involved histological margins at the time of index resection in Crohn's disease is associated with recurrence, and plexitis shows promise as a marker of more aggressive disease. Further studies with homogeneity of histopathological and recurrence reporting are required.

A study evaluating cost awareness amongst surgeons in a health service under financial strain.

BACKGROUND: Despite having considerable influence over resource allocation clinicians possess poor knowledge of healthcare costs. This study evaluated surgeons' cost-awareness with regard to surgical equipment and assessed attitudes towards health economics training using survey format. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was distributed to 326 surgeons across a range of specialties in Ireland. Respondents were asked about their surgical expertise, previous training in health economics, and its role in the surgical curriculum. They were also asked to estimate the recommended retail price (RRP) of 17 commonly used items of surgical equipment. Answers within ±25% of the RRP were considered correct. RESULTS: Of 140 respondents, 62 (44.3%) were on a surgical training scheme and 16 (11.4%) were consultants. Overall, surgeons correctly estimated the RRP of only 14.0% of items. There was no difference in accuracy between surgeons in later years of training compared to their junior counterparts (13.1 ±â€¯8.8% versus 15.0 ±â€¯8.8%, p = 0.115). The highest individual score was six out of 17 items correctly estimated. Participants overestimated the cost of low-cost items by 347.7% and underestimated the cost of high-cost items by 35.5%. Only 5.7% of participants had received undergraduate training in health economics but 75.0% felt it should be included in the curriculum. Over two-thirds said their practice would change if they had better knowledge of the cost of surgical equipment. CONCLUSION: The majority of surgeons receive little training in health economics and have poor knowledge of the cost of surgical equipment. Most would welcome more training at both an undergraduate and postgraduate level. An opportunity exists to promote cost awareness in the operating room, which could lead to a reduction in waste and improved use of resources.