Variation in Hospital Neuraxial Labor Analgesia Rates in California.

BACKGROUND: Neuraxial analgesia provides effective pain relief during labor. However, it is unclear whether neuraxial analgesia prevalence differs across U.S. hospitals. The aim of this study was to assess hospital variation in neuraxial analgesia prevalence in California. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed birthing patients who underwent labor in 200 California hospitals from 2016 to 2020. The primary exposure was the delivery hospital. The outcomes were hospital neuraxial analgesia prevalence and between-hospital variability, before and after adjustment for patient and hospital factors. Median odds ratio and intraclass correlation coefficients quantified between-hospital variability. The median odds ratio estimated the odds of a patient receiving neuraxial analgesia when moving between hospitals. The intraclass correlation coefficients quantified the proportion of the total variance in neuraxial analgesia use due to variation between hospitals. RESULTS: Among 1,510,750 patients who underwent labor, 1,040,483 (68.9%) received neuraxial analgesia. Both unadjusted and adjusted hospital prevalence exhibited a skewed distribution characterized by a long left tail. The unadjusted and adjusted prevalences were 5.4% and 6.0% at the 1st percentile, 21.0% and 21.2% at the 5th percentile, 70.6% and 70.7% at the 50th percentile, 75.8% and 76.6% at the 95th percentile, and 75.9% and 78.6% at the 99th percentile, respectively. The adjusted median odds ratio (2.3; 95% CI, 2.1 to 2.5) indicated substantially increased odds of a patient receiving neuraxial analgesia if they moved from a hospital with a lower odds of neuraxial analgesia to one with higher odds. The hospital explained only a moderate portion of the overall variability in neuraxial analgesia (intraclass correlation coefficient, 19.1%; 95% CI, 18.8 to 20.5%). CONCLUSIONS: A long left tail in the distribution and wide variation exist in the neuraxial analgesia prevalence across California hospitals that is not explained by patient and hospital factors. Addressing the low prevalence among hospitals in the left tail requires exploration of the interplay between patient preferences, staffing availability, and care providers' attitudes toward neuraxial analgesia.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Consensus Guidelines for Emergency Laparotomy Part 3: Organizational Aspects and General Considerations for Management of the Emergency Laparotomy Patient.

BACKGROUND: This is Part 3 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses organizational aspects of care. METHODS: Experts in management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. RESULTS: Components of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on best current available evidence for organizational aspects of an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and include discussion of less common aspects of care for the surgical patient, including end-of-life issues. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Part 2-Emergency Laparotomy: Intra- and Postoperative Care.

BACKGROUND: This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care. METHODS: Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL. RESULTS: Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Improving safety and outcomes in perioperative care: does implementation matter?

The IMPROVE study describes a large perioperative quality improvement project with reporting of both compliance with improvement activities and patient outcomes. It highlights the importance of such projects, as well as the challenges in implementing change and proving benefit. Challenges identified include the importance of effective training in practice change, selection of trial design and relevant quality measures, and how the context of quality improvement initiatives may influence outcomes. Quality improvement programmes of this nature, despite the difficulties with implementation and trial design, remain a high priority because of their positive influence on improving clinical practice.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Abdominal and Pelvic Surgery at Primary and Secondary Hospitals in Low-Middle-Income Countries (LMIC's): Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendation.

BACKGROUND: This is the first Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline for primary and secondary hospitals in low-middle-income countries (LMIC's) for elective abdominal and gynecologic care. METHODS: The ERAS LMIC Guidelines group was established by the ERAS® Society in collaboration with different representatives of perioperative care from LMIC's. The group consisted of seven members from the ERAS® Society and eight members from LMIC's. An updated systematic literature search and evaluation of evidence from previous ERAS® guidelines was performed by the leading authors of the Colorectal (2018) and Gynecologic (2019) surgery guidelines (Gustafsson et al in World J Surg 43:6592-695, Nelson et al in Int J Gynecol Cancer 29(4):651-668). Meta-analyses randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies from both HIC's and LMIC's were considered for each perioperative item. The members in the LMIC group then applied the current evidence and adapted the recommendations for each intervention as well as identifying possible new items relevant to LMIC's. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE) methodology was used to determine the quality of the published evidence. The strength of the recommendations was based on importance of the problem, quality of evidence, balance between desirable and undesirable effects, acceptability to key stakeholders, cost of implementation and specifically the feasibility of implementing in LMIC's and determined through discussions and consensus. RESULTS: In addition to previously described ERAS® Society interventions, the following items were included, revised or discussed: the Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC), preoperative routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing in countries with a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS (CD4 and viral load for those patients that are HIV positive), delirium screening and prevention, COVID 19 screening, VTE prophylaxis, immuno-nutrition, prehabilitation, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and a standardized postoperative monitoring guideline. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are seen as a starting point to address the urgent need to improve perioperative care and to effect data-driven, evidence-based care in LMIC's.

An Observational Study of Disparities in Telemedicine Utilization in Primary Care Patients Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: The rapid scale up of telemedicine due to the COVID-19 pandemic may have disadvantaged patients less able to use technology. Objectives: We tested the hypothesis that certain patient groups may have been disadvantaged in accessing primary care using telemedicine. Design: We compared visit type and patient characteristics for April-May 2019 with April-May 2020 at a large urban academic medical center. Variables of interest included age, gender, race, ethnicity, language, visit type, visit status, insurance type, and zip code to approximate average income. Results: There was a 5% increase in patient visits in the observation period from 2019 to 2020. Care shifted from 100% in person to 83% telemedicine, 60% of which occurred through video and 23% by telephone. In 2020, there was a significant increase in the percentage of older patients, patients of lower income, patients whose preferred language was not English, and patients without commercial insurance who accessed care. For patients who completed a telemedicine visit, racial minority status, Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, older age, and non-English language preference significantly increased the likelihood of a telephone visit compared with younger adult, white, non-Hispanic/Latino and English-preference patients. Conclusions: The increase in visits in 2020 and particularly visits by older, non-English preference and lower income patients, demonstrates that the telemedicine scale-up increased access and reached patients regardless of age, language, and income. However, varied usage of televideo and telephone visits for certain groups suggests the need to explore the differences between these modalities to ensure quality telemedicine care for all patients.

Improving perioperative brain health: an expert consensus review of key actions for the perioperative care team.

Delirium and postoperative neurocognitive disorder are the commonest perioperative complications in patients more than 65 yr of age. However, data suggest that we often fail to screen patients for preoperative cognitive impairment, to warn patients and families of risk, and to take preventive measures to reduce the incidence of perioperative neurocognitive disorders. As part of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Perioperative Brain Health Initiative, an international group of experts was invited to review published best practice statements and guidelines. The expert group aimed to achieve consensus on a small number of practical recommendations that could be implemented by anaesthetists and their partners to reduce the incidence of perioperative neurocognitive disorders. Six statements were selected based not only on the strength of the evidence, but also on the potential for impact and the feasibility of widespread implementation. The actions focus on education, cognitive and delirium screening, non-pharmacologic interventions, pain control, and avoidance of antipsychotics. Strategies for effective implementation are discussed. Anaesthetists should be key members of multidisciplinary perioperative care teams to implement these recommendations.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations: Part 1-Preoperative: Diagnosis, Rapid Assessment and Optimization.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications and costs for a large number of elective surgical procedures. A similar, structured approach appears to improve outcomes, including mortality, for patients undergoing high-risk emergency general surgery, and specifically emergency laparotomy. These are the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of these patients using an ERAS approach. METHODS: Experts in aspects of management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on non-emergency patients when appropriate. The Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. The guideline has been divided into two parts: Part 1-Preoperative Care and Part 2-Intraoperative and Postoperative management. This paper provides guidelines for Part 1. RESULTS: Twelve components of preoperative care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on the best available evidence for an ERAS approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Initial management is particularly important for patients with sepsis and physiological derangement. These guidelines should be used to improve outcomes for these high-risk patients.

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. METHODS: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. FINDINGS: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28). INTERPRETATION: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme.

Pathways to professionalism? Quality improvement, care pathways, and the interplay of standardisation and clinical autonomy.

Care pathways are a prominent feature of efforts to improve healthcare quality, outcomes and accountability, but sociological studies of pathways often find professional resistance to standardisation. This qualitative study examined the adoption and adaptation of a novel pathway as part of a randomised controlled trial in an unusually complex, non-linear field - emergency general surgery - by teams of surgeons and physicians in six theoretically sampled sites in the UK. We find near-universal receptivity to the concept of a pathway as a means of improving peri-operative processes and outcomes, but concern about the impact on appropriate professional judgement. However, this concern translated not into resistance and implementation failure, but into a nuancing of the pathways-as-realised in each site, and their use as a means of enhancing professional decision-making and inter-professional collaboration. We discuss our findings in the context of recent literature on the interplay between managerialism and professionalism in healthcare, and highlight practical and theoretical implications.

Health Care Professionals' Perceptions About a Telehealth Model of Therapy After NICU Discharge.

The Baby Bridge program is an implementation strategy to improve access to in-person early therapy services following neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) discharge. The objective of this study was to evaluate acceptability of Baby Bridge telehealth services among health care providers. Interviews with health care providers were conducted, transcribed, and coded in NVivo. Deductive analysis was used to organize data into negative and positive comments, suggestions for optimization, and perceptions about the first visit. Next, a conventional approach was used to organize the data into themes. Telehealth was viewed as an acceptable, but not necessarily preferable, form of Baby Bridge delivery. Providers identified how telehealth may improve access to care, but with potential challenges in delivery. Suggestions for optimization of the Baby Bridge telehealth model were proposed. Identified themes included delivery model, family demographics, therapist and organizational characteristics, parent engagement, and therapy facilitation. These findings provide important insights to consider when transitioning from in-person therapy to telehealth.

Lessons Learned From a Systematic, Hospital-Wide Implementation of the ABCDEF Bundle: A Survey Evaluation.

Objective: We recently reported the first part of a study testing the impact of data literacy training on "assessing pain, spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, choice of analgesia and sedation, delirium monitoring/management, early exercise/mobility, and family and patient empowerment" [ABCDEF [A-F]) compliance. The purpose of the current study, part 2, was to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation approach by surveying clinical staff to examine staff knowledge, skill, motivation, and organizational resources. DESIGN: The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis framework was used to study knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences. Assumed influences identified in the literature were used to design the A-F bundle implementation strategies. The influences were validated against a survey distributed to the ICU interprofessional team. SETTING: Single-center study was conducted in eight adult ICUs in a quaternary academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Interprofessional ICU clinical team. INTERVENTIONS: A quantitative survey was sent to 386 participants to evaluate the implementation design postimplementation. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to understand the relationship between the KMO influences and the questions posed to validate the influence. Descriptive statistics were used to identify strengths needed to sustain performance and weaknesses that required improvement to increase A-F bundle adherence. MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS: The survey received an 83% response rate. The exploratory factor analysis confirmed that 38 of 42 questions had a strong relationship to the KMO influences, validating the survey's utility in evaluating the effectiveness of implementation design. A total of 12 KMO influences were identified, 8 were categorized as a strength and 4 as a weakness of the implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study used an evidence-based gap analysis framework to demonstrate key implementation approaches needed to increase A-F bundle compliance. The following drivers were recommended as essential methods required for successful protocol implementation: data literacy training and performance monitoring, organizational support, value proposition, multidisciplinary collaboration, and interprofessional teamwork activities. We believe the learning generated in this two-part study is applicable to implementation design beyond the A-F bundle.