Winter cancellations of elective surgical procedures in the UK: a questionnaire survey of patients on the economic and psychological impact.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the economic and psychological impact of the cancellation of operations due to winter pressures on patients, their families and the economy. DESIGN: This questionnaire study was designed with the help of patient groups. Data were collected on the economic and financial burden of cancellations. Emotions were also quantified on a 5-point Likert scale. SETTING: Five NHS Hospital Trusts in the East Midlands region of England. PARTICIPANTS: We identified 796 participants who had their elective operations cancelled between 1 November 2017 and 31 March 2018 and received responses from 339 (43%) participants. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were posted a modified version of a validated quality of life questionnaire with a prepaid return envelope. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were the financial and psychological impact of the cancellation of elective surgery on patients and their families. RESULTS: Of the 339 respondents, 163 (48%) were aged <65 years, with 111 (68%) being in employment. Sixty-six (19%) participants had their operations cancelled on the day. Only 69 (62%) of working adults were able to return to work during the time scheduled for their operation, with a mean loss of 5 working days (SD 10). Additional working days were lost subsequently by 60 (54%) participants (mean 7 days (SD 10)). Family members of 111 (33%) participants required additional time off work (mean 5 days (SD 7)). Over 30% of participants reported extreme levels of sadness, disappointment, anger, frustration and stress. At least moderate concern about continued symptoms was reported by 234 (70%) participants, and 193 (59%) participants reported at least moderate concern about their deteriorating condition. CONCLUSIONS: The cancellation of elective surgery during the winter had an adverse impact on patients and the economy, including days of work lost and health-related anxiety. We recommend better planning, and provision of more notice and better support to patients.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett's oesophagus.

These guidelines provide a practical and evidence-based resource for the management of patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related early neoplasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument was followed to provide a methodological strategy for the guideline development. A systematic review of the literature was performed for English language articles published up until December 2012 in order to address controversial issues in Barrett's oesophagus including definition, screening and diagnosis, surveillance, pathological grading for dysplasia, management of dysplasia, and early cancer including training requirements. The rigour and quality of the studies was evaluated using the SIGN checklist system. Recommendations on each topic were scored by each author using a five-tier system (A+, strong agreement, to D+, strongly disagree). Statements that failed to reach substantial agreement among authors, defined as >80% agreement (A or A+), were revisited and modified until substantial agreement (>80%) was reached. In formulating these guidelines, we took into consideration benefits and risks for the population and national health system, as well as patient perspectives. For the first time, we have suggested stratification of patients according to their estimated cancer risk based on clinical and histopathological criteria. In order to improve communication between clinicians, we recommend the use of minimum datasets for reporting endoscopic and pathological findings. We advocate endoscopic therapy for high-grade dysplasia and early cancer, which should be performed in high-volume centres. We hope that these guidelines will standardise and improve management for patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia.

Analysis of blood transfusion predictors in patients undergoing elective oesophagectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oesophagectomy for cancers is a major operation with significant blood loss and usage. Concerns exist about the side effects of blood transfusion, cost and availability of donated blood. We are not aware of any previous study that has evaluated predictive factors for perioperative blood transfusion in patients undergoing elective oesophagectomy for cancer. This study aimed to audit the pattern of blood crossmatch and to evaluate factors predictive of transfusion requirements in oesophagectomy patients. METHODS: Data was collected from the database of all patients who underwent oesophagectomy for cancer over a 2-year period. Clinico-pathological data collected included patients demographics, clinical factors, tumour histopathological data, preoperative and discharge haemoglobin levels, total blood loss, number of units of blood crossmatched pre-, intra- and postoperatively, number of blood units transfused, crossmatched units reused for another patient and number of blood units wasted.Clinico-pathological variables were evaluated and logistic regression analysis was performed to determine which factors were predictive of blood transfusion. RESULTS: A total of 145 patients with a male to female ratio of 2.5:1 and median age of 68 (40-85) years were audited. The mean preoperative haemoglobin (Hb) was 13.0 g/dl. 37% of males (Hb < 13.0 g/dl) and 29% of females (Hb < 11.5 g/dl) were anaemic preoperatively. A total of 1241 blood units were crossmatched and 316 units were transfused to 71 patients. Seventy four patients (51%) did not require blood transfusion during their hospital episode. 846 blood units not used for oesophagectomy patients were reused for other patients and 79 units were wasted. The overall crossmatch to transfusion ratio was 4:1 and reuse and wastage rates were 65.2% and 6.3% respectively. The independent predictors of blood transfusion include age >70 years, Hb level <11.0 g/dl, T-stage, presence of postoperative complications and anastomotic leak. CONCLUSION: The cohort of patients audited was over-crossmatched. The identified independent predictors of blood transfusion should be considered in preoperative blood ordering for oesophagectomy patients. This study has directly led to a reduction in the maximum surgical blood-ordering schedule for oesophagectomy to 2 units and a reaudit is underway.