Development and internal validation of a model for postoperative morbidity in adults undergoing major elective colorectal surgery: the peri-operative quality improvement programme (PQIP) colorectal risk model.

Over 1.5 million major surgical procedures take place in the UK NHS each year and approximately 25% of patients develop at least one complication. The most widely used risk-adjustment model for postoperative morbidity in the UK is the physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity. However, this model was derived more than 30 years ago and now overestimates the risk of morbidity. In addition, contemporary definitions of some model predictors are markedly different compared with when the tool was developed. A second model used in clinical practice is the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme risk model; this provides a risk estimate for a range of postoperative complications. This model, widely used in North America, is not open source and therefore cannot be applied to patient populations in other settings. Data from a prospective multicentre clinical dataset of 118 NHS hospitals (the peri-operative quality improvement programme) were used to develop a bespoke risk-adjustment model for postoperative morbidity. Patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent colorectal surgery were eligible for inclusion. Postoperative morbidity was defined using the postoperative morbidity survey at postoperative day 7. Thirty-one candidate variables were considered for inclusion in the model. Death or morbidity occurred by postoperative day 7 in 3098 out of 11,646 patients (26.6%). Twelve variables were incorporated into the final model, including (among others): Rockwood clinical frailty scale; body mass index; and index of multiple deprivation quintile. The C-statistic was 0.672 (95%CI 0.660-0.684), with a bootstrap optimism corrected C-statistic of 0.666 at internal validation. The model demonstrated good calibration across the range of morbidity estimates with a mean slope gradient of predicted risk of 0.959 (95%CI 0.894-1.024) with an index-corrected intercept of -0.038 (95%CI -0.112-0.036) at internal validation. Our model provides parsimonious case-mix adjustment to quantify risk of morbidity on postoperative day 7 for a UK population of patients undergoing major colorectal surgery. Despite the C-statistic of < 0.7, our model outperformed existing risk-models in widespread use. We therefore recommend application in case-mix adjustment, where incorporation into a continuous monitoring tool such as the variable life adjusted display or exponentially-weighted moving average-chart could support high-level monitoring and quality improvement of risk-adjusted outcome at the population level.

Methods of the 7th National Audit Project (NAP7) of the Royal College of Anaesthetists: peri-operative cardiac arrest.

Cardiac arrest in the peri-operative period is rare but associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Current reporting systems do not capture many such events, so there is an incomplete understanding of incidence and outcomes. As peri-operative cardiac arrest is rare, many hospitals may only see a small number of cases over long periods, and anaesthetists may not be involved in such cases for years. Therefore, a large-scale prospective cohort is needed to gain a deep understanding of events leading up to cardiac arrest, management of the arrest itself and patient outcomes. Consequently, the Royal College of Anaesthetists chose peri-operative cardiac arrest as the 7th National Audit Project topic. The study was open to all UK hospitals offering anaesthetic services and had a three-part design. First, baseline surveys of all anaesthetic departments and anaesthetists in the UK, examining respondents' prior peri-operative cardiac arrest experience, resuscitation training and local departmental preparedness. Second, an activity survey to record anonymised details of all anaesthetic activity in each site over 4 days, enabling national estimates of annual anaesthetic activity, complexity and complication rates. Third, a case registry of all instances of peri-operative cardiac arrest in the UK, reported confidentially and anonymously, over 1 year starting 16 June 2021, followed by expert review using a structured process to minimise bias. The definition of peri-operative cardiac arrest was the delivery of five or more chest compressions and/or defibrillation in a patient having a procedure under the care of an anaesthetist. The peri-operative period began with the World Health Organization 'sign-in' checklist or first hands-on contact with the patient and ended either 24 h after the patient handover (e.g. to the recovery room or intensive care unit) or at discharge if this occured earlier than 24 h. These components described the epidemiology of peri-operative cardiac arrest in the UK and provide a basis for developing guidelines and interventional studies.

The impact of COVID-19 on anaesthesia and critical care services in the UK: a serial service evaluation.

Between October 2020 and January 2021, we conducted three national surveys to track anaesthetic, surgical and critical care activity during the second COVID-19 pandemic wave in the UK. We surveyed all NHS hospitals where surgery is undertaken. Response rates, by round, were 64%, 56% and 51%. Despite important regional variations, the surveys showed increasing systemic pressure on anaesthetic and peri-operative services due to the need to support critical care pandemic demands. During Rounds 1 and 2, approximately one in eight anaesthetic staff were not available for anaesthetic work. Approximately one in five operating theatres were closed and activity fell in those that were open. Some mitigation was achieved by relocation of surgical activity to other locations. Approximately one-quarter of all surgical activity was lost, with paediatric and non-cancer surgery most impacted. During January 2021, the system was largely overwhelmed. Almost one-third of anaesthesia staff were unavailable, 42% of operating theatres were closed, national surgical activity reduced to less than half, including reduced cancer and emergency surgery. Redeployed anaesthesia staff increased the critical care workforce by 125%. Three-quarters of critical care units were so expanded that planned surgery could not be safely resumed. At all times, the greatest resource limitation was staff. Due to lower response rates from the most pressed regions and hospitals, these results may underestimate the true impact. These findings have important implications for understanding what has happened during the COVID-19 pandemic, planning recovery and building a system that will better respond to future waves or new epidemics.

Discrete-choice experiment to analyse preferences for centralizing specialist cancer surgery services.

BACKGROUND: Centralizing specialist cancer surgery services aims to reduce variations in quality of care and improve patient outcomes, but increases travel demands on patients and families. This study aimed to evaluate preferences of patients, health professionals and members of the public for the characteristics associated with centralization. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment was conducted, using paper and electronic surveys. Participants comprised: former and current patients (at any stage of treatment) with prostate, bladder, kidney or oesophagogastric cancer who previously participated in the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey; health professionals with experience of cancer care (11 types including surgeons, nurses and oncologists); and members of the public. Choice scenarios were based on the following attributes: travel time to hospital, risk of serious complications, risk of death, annual number of operations at the centre, access to a specialist multidisciplinary team (MDT) and specialist surgeon cover after surgery. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 444 individuals (206 patients, 111 health professionals and 127 members of the public). The response rate was 52·8 per cent for the patient sample; it was unknown for the other groups as the survey was distributed via multiple overlapping methods. Preferences were particularly influenced by risk of complications, risk of death and access to a specialist MDT. Participants were willing to travel, on average, 75 min longer in order to reduce their risk of complications by 1 per cent, and over 5 h longer to reduce risk of death by 1 per cent. Findings were similar across groups. CONCLUSION: Respondents' preferences in this selected sample were consistent with centralization.

Advance-care-planning and end-of-life discussions in the perioperative period: a review of healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and training.

Whilst the risk of dying after an operation in the UK is very small, the volume of surgery means that there are 20 000-25 000 deaths each year. For these patients and others who suffer major complications, critical illness often leads to a loss of capacity. If wishes are not discussed in advance, the patients may be excluded from meaningful involvement in decisions affecting their care. The preoperative period has been postulated as one where advance care planning could begin by engaging in voluntary conversations about an individual's wishes, priorities, and values should he/she loses capacity. There remain unanswered questions as to whether healthcare professionals are supportive of a move towards better engagement in such discussions with patients. Even if the reception to the idea is positive, it is clear that appropriate training and understanding will be required. The aims of this review were to describe the current knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals towards advance care planning in the perioperative setting, and to outline any educational programmes or training limitations that have been identified. Seven articles that met the inclusion criteria were identified. They indicate that healthcare professionals mostly have a positive view of advance care planning in the perioperative period, and there is little training or educational content available. Despite this, most healthcare professionals report feeling well equipped to have such discussions. Evidence was not found of advance care planning becoming a routine part of training or practice in the care of patients in the lead up to high-risk surgery.