Complications and consequences: short-term harm has long-term impact.

In this editorial, we discuss a large observational study demonstrating increased healthcare usage and higher mortality over 2 yr in patients who experienced specific postoperative complications. These findings are in keeping with the existing literature and draw into focus the need for ongoing work to understand and communicate these long-term consequences to patients.

The incidence of postoperative vasopressor usage: protocol for a prospective international observational cohort study (SQUEEZE).

BACKGROUND: Postoperative hypotension is common after major non-cardiac surgery, due predominantly to vasodilation. Administration of infused vasopressors postoperatively may often be considered a surrogate indicator of vasodilation. The incidence of postoperative vasopressors has never been described for non-cardiac surgery, nor have outcomes associated with their use. This paper presents a protocol for a prospective international cohort study to address these gaps in knowledge. The primary objectives are to estimate the proportion of patients who receive postoperative vasopressor infusions (PVI) and to document the variation in this proportion between hospitals and internationally. Furthermore, we will identify factors in variation of care (patient, condition, surgery, and intraoperative management) associated with receipt of PVI and investigate how PVI use is associated with patient outcomes, including organ dysfunction, length of hospital stay, and 30-day in-hospital mortality. METHOD: This will be a prospective, international, multicentre cohort study that includes all adult (≥ 18 years) non-cardiac surgical patients in participating centres. Patients undergoing cardiac, obstetric, or day-case surgery will be excluded. We will recruit two cohorts of patients: cohort A will include all eligible patients admitted to participating hospitals for seven consecutive days. Cohort B will include 30 sequential patients per hospital, with the single additional inclusion criterion of postoperative vasopressor usage. We expect to collect data on approximately 40,000 patients for cohort A and 12,800 patients for cohort B. DISCUSSION: While in cardiac surgery, clinical trials have informed the choice of vasopressors used to treat postoperative vasoplegia; there remains equipoise over the best approach in non-cardiac surgery. Our study will represent the first large-scale assessment of the use of vasopressors after non-cardiac surgery. These data will inform future studies, including trials of different vasopressors and potential management options to improve outcomes and reduce resource use after surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03805230, 15 January 2019.

Is anybody 'Learning' from deaths? Sequential content and reflexive thematic analysis of national statutory reporting within the NHS in England 2017-2020.

INTRODUCTION: The imperative to learn when a patient dies due to problems in care is absolute. In 2017, the Learning from Deaths (LfDs) framework, a countrywide patient safety programme, was launched in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. NHS Secondary Care Trusts (NSCTs) are legally required to publish quantitative and qualitative information relating to deaths due to problems in care within their organisation, including any learning derived from these deaths. METHOD: All LfDs report from 2017 to 2020 were reviewed and evaluated, quantitatively and qualitatively using sequential content and reflexive thematic analysis, through a critical realist lens to understand what we can learn from LfDs reporting and the mechanisms enabling or preventing engagement with the LfDs programme. RESULTS: The majority of NSCTs have identified learning, actions and, to a lesser degree, assessed the impact of these actions. The most frequent learning relates to missed/delayed/uncoordinated care and communication/cultural issues. System issues and lack of resources feature infrequently. There is significant variation among NSCTs as to what 'learning' in this context actually means and a lack of oversight combining patient safety initiatives. DISCUSSION: Engagement of NSCTs with the LfDs programme varies significantly. Learning as a result of the LfDs programme is occurring. The ability, significance or value of this learning in preventing future patient deaths remains unclear. Consensus about what constitutes effective learning with regard to patient safety needs to be defined and agreed on.

National statutory reporting: not even ticking the boxes? The quality of 'Learning from Deaths' reporting in quality accounts within the NHS in England 2017-2020.

INTRODUCTION: Regulation through statutory reporting is used in healthcare internationally to improve accountability, quality of care and patient safety. Since 2017, within the National Health Service (NHS) in England, NHS Secondary Care Trusts (NSCTs) are legally required to report annually both quantitative and qualitative information related to patient deaths within their care within their publicly available Quality Accounts as part of a countrywide patient safety programme: The Learning from Deaths (LfDs) programme. METHOD: All LfDs reports published between 2017 (programme inception) and 2020 were reviewed and evaluated through a critical realist lens, quantitatively reported using descriptive statistics and qualitatively using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: In 2017/2018, 44% of NSCTs reported all six statutory elements of the LfDs reporting regulations, in 2019/2020 35% of NSCTs were reporting this information. A small number of NSCTs did not report any parts of the LfDs regulatory requirements between 2017 and 2020. Multiple qualitative themes arose from this study suggesting problematic engagement with the LfDs programme, erroneous reporting accuracy and errors in written communication. CONCLUSIONS: The LfDs programme has, to some extent, reduced variation and improved consistency to the way that NSCTs identify, report and investigate deaths. However, 3 years into the LfDs programme, the majority of NSCTs are not reporting as required by law. This makes the validity of National statutory reporting in Quality Accounts within the NHS in England questionable as a regulatory process.

Systematic reviews and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative: mortality, morbidity, and organ failure.

BACKGROUND: Mortality, morbidity, and organ failure are important and common serious harms after surgery. However, there are many candidate measures to describe these outcome domains. Definitions of these measures are highly variable, and validity is often unclear. As part of the International Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative, this study aimed to derive a set of standardised and valid measures of mortality, morbidity, and organ failure for use in perioperative clinical trials. METHODS: Three domains of endpoints (mortality, morbidity, and organ failure) were explored through systematic literature review and a three-stage Delphi consensus process using methods consistently applied across the StEP initiative. Reliability, feasibility, and patient-centredness were assessed in round 3 of the consensus process. RESULTS: A high level of consensus was achieved for two mortality time points, 30-day and 1-yr mortality, and these two measures are recommended. No organ failure endpoints achieved threshold criteria for consensus recommendation. The Clavien-Dindo classification of complications achieved threshold criteria for consensus in round 2 of the Delphi process but did not achieve the threshold criteria in round 3 where it scored equivalently to the Post Operative Morbidity Survey. Clavien-Dindo therefore received conditional endorsement as the most widely used measure. No composite measures of organ failure achieved an acceptable level of consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Both 30-day and 1-yr mortality measures are recommended. No measure is recommended for organ failure. One measure (Clavien-Dindo) is conditionally endorsed for postoperative morbidity, but our findings suggest that no single endpoint offers a reliable and valid measure to describe perioperative morbidity that is not dependent on the quality of deli-vered care. Further refinement of current measures, or development of novel measures, of postoperative morbidity might improve consensus in this area.

Perioperative care for older people.

Increasing numbers of older people are undergoing surgery with benefits including symptom relief and extended longevity. Despite these benefits, older people are more likely than younger patients to experience postoperative complications, which are predominantly medical as opposed to surgical. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and optimisation offers a systematic approach to risk assessment and risk modification in the perioperative period. Clinical evidence shows that Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and optimisation reduces postoperative medical complications and is cost effective in the perioperative setting. These benefits have been observed in patients undergoing elective and emergency surgery. Challenges in the implementation of perioperative Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and optimisation services are acknowledged. These include the necessary involvement of a wide stakeholder group, limited available geriatric medicine workforce and ensuring fidelity to Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment methodology with adaptation to the local context. Addressing these challenges needs a cross-specialty, interdisciplinary approach underpinned by evidence-based medicine and implementation science with upskilling to facilitate innovative use of the extended workforce. Future delivery of quality patient-centred perioperative care requires proactive engagement with national audit, collaborative guidelines and establishment of networks to share best practice.

The Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP patient study): protocol for a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study to measure quality of care and outcomes after major surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Major surgery accounts for a substantial proportion of health service activity, due not only to the primary procedure, but the longer-term health implications of poor short-term outcome. Data from small studies or from outside the UK indicate that rates of complications and failure to rescue vary between hospitals, as does compliance with best practice processes. Within the UK, there is currently no system for monitoring postoperative complications (other than short-term mortality) in major non-cardiac surgery. Further, there is variation between national audit programmes, in the emphasis placed on quality assurance versus quality improvement, and therefore the principles of measurement and reporting which are used to design such programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PQIP patient study is a multi-centre prospective cohort study which recruits patients undergoing major surgery. Patient provide informed consent and contribute baseline and outcome data from their perspective using a suite of patient-reported outcome tools. Research and clinical staff complete data on patient risk factors and outcomes in-hospital, including two measures of complications. Longer-term outcome data are collected through patient feedback and linkage to national administrative datasets (mortality and readmissions). As well as providing a uniquely granular dataset for research, PQIP provides feedback to participating sites on their compliance with evidence-based processes and their patients' outcomes, with the aim of supporting local quality improvement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Health Research Authority in the UK. Dissemination of interim findings (non-inferential) will form a part of the improvement methodology and will be provided to participating centres at regular intervals, including near-real time feedback of key process measures. Inferential analyses will be published in the peer-reviewed literature, supported by a comprehensive multi-modal communications strategy including to patients, policy makers and academic audiences as well as clinicians.

Highlighting uncertainty in clinical risk prediction using a model of emergency laparotomy mortality risk.

Clinical prediction models typically make point estimates of risk. However, values of key variables are often missing during model development or at prediction time, meaning that the point estimates mask significant uncertainty and can lead to over-confident decision making. We present a model of mortality risk in emergency laparotomy which instead presents a distribution of predicted risks, highlighting the uncertainty over the risk of death with an intuitive visualisation. We developed and validated our model using data from 127134 emergency laparotomies from patients in England and Wales during 2013-2019. We captured the uncertainty arising from missing data using multiple imputation, allowing prospective, patient-specific imputation for variables that were frequently missing. Prospective imputation allows early prognostication in patients where these variables are not yet measured, accounting for the additional uncertainty this induces. Our model showed good discrimination and calibration (95% confidence intervals: Brier score 0.071-0.078, C statistic 0.859-0.873, calibration error 0.031-0.059) on unseen data from 37 hospitals, consistently improving upon the current gold-standard model. The dispersion of the predicted risks varied significantly between patients and increased where prospective imputation occurred. We present a case study that illustrates the potential impact of uncertainty quantification on clinical decision making. Our model improves mortality risk prediction in emergency laparotomy and has the potential to inform decision-makers and assist discussions with patients and their families. Our analysis code was robustly developed and is publicly available for easy replication of our study and adaptation to predicting other outcomes.

Implementation of corticosteroids in treatment of COVID-19 in the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK: prospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone was the first intervention proven to reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 being treated in hospital. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 in the UK after the RECOVERY trial publication on June 16, 2020, and to identify discrepancies in care. METHODS: We did an audit of clinical implementation of corticosteroids in a prospective, observational, cohort study in 237 UK acute care hospitals between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2021, restricted to patients aged 18 years or older with proven or high likelihood of COVID-19, who received supplementary oxygen. The primary outcome was administration of dexamethasone, prednisolone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN66726260. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2020, and April 14, 2021, 47 795 (75·2%) of 63 525 of patients on supplementary oxygen received corticosteroids, higher among patients requiring critical care than in those who received ward care (11 185 [86·6%] of 12 909 vs 36 415 [72·4%] of 50 278). Patients 50 years or older were significantly less likely to receive corticosteroids than those younger than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio 0·79 [95% CI 0·70-0·89], p=0·0001, for 70-79 years; 0·52 [0·46-0·58], p<0·0001, for >80 years), independent of patient demographics and illness severity. 84 (54·2%) of 155 pregnant women received corticosteroids. Rates of corticosteroid administration increased from 27·5% in the week before June 16, 2020, to 75-80% in January, 2021. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of corticosteroids into clinical practice in the UK for patients with COVID-19 has been successful, but not universal. Patients older than 70 years, independent of illness severity, chronic neurological disease, and dementia, were less likely to receive corticosteroids than those who were younger, as were pregnant women. This could reflect appropriate clinical decision making, but the possibility of inequitable access to life-saving care should be considered. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research and UK Medical Research Council.

Validation of the days alive and out of hospital outcome measure after emergency laparotomy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Days alive and out of hospital (DAOH) is a composite, patient-centred outcome measure describing a patient's postoperative recovery, encompassing hospitalisation and mortality. DAOH is the number of days not in hospital over a defined postoperative period; patients who die have DAOH of zero. The Standardising Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) group recommended DAOH as a perioperative outcome. However, DAOH has never been validated in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Here, we validate DAOH after emergency laparotomy and establish the optimal duration of observation. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of patients having emergency laparotomy in England (December 1, 2013-November 30, 2017) were linked to national hospital admission and mortality records for the year after surgery. We evaluated construct validity by assessing DAOH variation with known perioperative risk factors and predictive validity for 1 yr mortality using a multivariate Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression. The optimal postoperative DAOH period (30 or 90 days) was judged on distributional and pragmatic properties. RESULTS: We analysed 78 921 records. The median 30-day DAOH (DAOH30) was 16 (inter-quartile range [IQR], 0-22) days and the median DAOH90 was 75 (46-82) days. DAOH was shorter in the presence of known perioperative risk factors. For patients surviving the first 30 postoperative days, shorter DAOH30 was associated with higher 1-yr mortality (odds ratio=0.94; 95% credible interval, 0.94-0.94). CONCLUSION: DAOH is a valid, patient-centred outcome after emergency laparotomy. We recommend its use in clinical trials, quality assurance, and quality improvement, measured at 30 days as mortality heavily skews DAOH measured at 90 days and beyond.

Seasonality in surgical outcome data: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal trends in patient outcomes are an under-researched area in perioperative care. This systematic review evaluates the published literature on seasonal variation in surgical outcomes worldwide. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINHAL, and Web of Science were searched for studies on major surgical procedures, examining mortality or other patient-relevant outcomes, across seasonal periods up to February 2019. Major surgery was defined as a procedure requiring an overnight stay in an inpatient medical facility. We included studies exploring variation according to calendar and meteorological seasons and recurring annual events including staff turnover. Quality was assessed using an adapted Downs and Black scoring system. RESULTS: The literature search identified 82 studies, including 22 210 299 patients from four continents. Because of the heterogeneity of reported outcomes and literature scope, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Mass staff changeover was investigated in 37 studies; the majority (22) of these did not show strong evidence of worse outcomes. Of the 47 studies that examined outcomes across meteorological or calendar seasons, 33 found evidence of seasonal variation. Outcomes were often worse in winter (16 studies). This trend was particularly prominent amongst surgical procedures classed as an 'emergency' (five of nine studies). There was evidence for increased postoperative surgical site infections during summer (seven of 12 studies examining this concept). CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides tentative evidence for an increased risk of postoperative surgical site infections in summer, and an increased risk of worse outcomes after emergency surgery in winter and during staff changeover times. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019137214.

Core Outcome Measures for Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (COMPAC): a modified Delphi process to develop a core outcome set for trials in perioperative care and anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Outcome selection underpins clinical trial interpretation. Inconsistency in outcome selection and reporting hinders comparison of different trials' results, reducing the utility of research findings. METHODS: We conducted an iterative consensus process to develop a set of Core Outcome Measures for Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (COMPAC), following the established Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology. First, we undertook a systematic review of RCTs in high-impact journals to describe current outcome reporting trends. We then surveyed patients, carers, researchers, and perioperative clinicians about important outcomes after surgery. Finally, a purposive stakeholder sample participated in a modified Delphi process to develop a core outcome set for perioperative and anaesthesia trials. RESULTS: Our systematic review revealed widespread inconsistency in outcome reporting, with variable or absent definitions, levels of detail, and temporal criteria. In the survey, almost all patients, carers, and clinicians rated clinical outcome measures critically important, but clinicians rated patient-centred outcomes less highly than patients and carers. The final core outcome set was: (i) mortality/survival (postoperative mortality, long-term survival); (ii) perioperative complications (major postoperative complications/adverse events; complications/adverse events causing permanent harm); (iii) resource use (length of hospital stay, unplanned readmission within 30 days); (iv) short-term recovery (discharge destination, level of dependence, or both); and (v) longer-term recovery (overall health-related quality of life). CONCLUSIONS: This core set, incorporating important outcomes for both clinicians and patients, should guide outcome selection in future perioperative medicine or anaesthesia trials. Mapping these alongside standardised endpoint definitions will yield a comprehensive perioperative outcome framework.

Peak power output testing: novel method for preoperative assessment of exercise capacity.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of exercise capacity is an important component of risk assessment before major surgery. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) provides comprehensive assessment but is resource-intensive, limiting widespread adoption. Measurement of a patient's peak power output (PPO) using a simplified test on a cycle ergometer has the potential to identify patients likely to have abnormal CPET findings and to be at increased perioperative risk. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential for PPO to identify those with abnormal CPET and to determine whether PPO predicted the risk of adverse postoperative outcomes. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of a single-centre cohort, the ability of PPO to predict a high-risk CPET result in patients undergoing major cancer surgery was analysed. The assessment was validated in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery from a UK national multicentre cohort. The association between PPO and adverse postoperative outcomes to traditional CPET-derived variables were compared. RESULTS: In 2262 patients from a single centre, PPO was an excellent discriminator of high-risk CPET, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.901 (95 per cent c.i. 0.888 to 0.913). In the national cohort of 2742 patients, there was excellent discrimination, with an AUROC of 0.856 (0.842 to 0.871). A PPO cut-off of 1.5 W/kg may be appropriate for use in screening, with a sensitivity of 90 per cent in both cohorts. PPO and traditional CPET-derived predictors demonstrated similar discrimination of major postoperative complications and death. The association between PPO and major postoperative complications persisted on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: These results suggest a role for the PPO test in preoperative screening and risk stratification for major surgery. Prospective evaluation is recommended.

Quality metrics for emergency abdominal surgery in children: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is variation in care quality and outcomes for children undergoing emergency abdominal surgery, such as appedectomy. Addressing this requires paediatric-specific quality metrics. The aim of this study was to identify perioperative structure and process measures that are associated with improved outcomes for these children. METHODS: We performed a systematic review searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for articles published between January 1, 1980 and September 29, 2020 about the perioperative care of children undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. We also conducted secondary searching of references and citations, and we included international professional publications. RESULTS: We identified and analysed 383 peer-reviewed articles and 18 grey literature publications. High-grade evidence pertaining to the perioperative care of this patient group is limited. Most of the evidence available relates to improving diagnostic accuracy using preoperative blood testing, imaging, and clinical decision tools. Processes associated with clinical outcomes include time lapse between time of presentation or initial assessment and surgery, and the use of particular analgesia and antibiotic protocols. Structural factors identified include hospital and surgeon caseload and the use of perioperative care pathways. CONCLUSIONS: This review summarises the structural and process measures associated with outcome in paediatric emergency abdominal surgery. Such measures provide a means of evaluating care and identifying areas of practice that require quality improvement, especially in children with appendicitis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017055285.

Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis in an Era of Antibiotic Resistance: Common Resistant Bacteria and Wider Considerations for Practice.

The increasing incidence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) presents a global crisis to healthcare, with longstanding antimicrobial agents becoming less effective at treating and preventing infection. In the surgical setting, antibiotic prophylaxis has long been established as routine standard of care to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), which remains one of the most common hospital-acquired infections. The growing incidence of AMR increases the risk of SSI complicated with resistant bacteria, resulting in poorer surgical outcomes (prolonged hospitalisation, extended durations of antibiotic therapy, higher rates of surgical revision and mortality). Despite these increasing challenges, more data are required on approaches at the institutional and patient level to optimise surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in the era of antibiotic resistance (AR). This review provides an overview of the common resistant bacteria encountered in the surgical setting and covers wider considerations for practice to optimise surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in the perioperative setting.

NHS 'Learning from Deaths' reports: a qualitative and quantitative document analysis of the first year of a countrywide patient safety programme.

OBJECTIVES: To review how National Health Service (NHS) Secondary Care Trusts (NSCTs) are using the Learning from Deaths (LfDs) programme to learn from and prevent, potentially preventable deaths. INTRODUCTION: Potentially preventable deaths occur worldwide within healthcare organisations. In England, inconsistencies in how NSCTs reviewed, investigated and shared LfDs, resulted in the introduction of national guidance on 'LfDs' in 2017. This guidance provides a 'framework for identifying, reporting, investigating and LfDs'. Amendments to NHS Quality Account regulations, legally require NSCTs in England to report quantitative and qualitative information relating to patient deaths annually. The programme intended NSCTs would share this learning and take measurable action to prevent future deaths. METHOD: We undertook qualitative and quantitative secondary data, document analysis of all NSCTs LfDs reports within their 2017/2018 Quality Accounts (n=222). RESULTS: All statutory elements of LfDs reporting were reported by 98 out of 222 (44%) NSCTs. The percentage of deaths judged more likely than not due to problems in healthcare was between 0% and 13%. The majority of NSCTs (89%) reported lessons learnt; the most common learning theme was poor communication. 106 out of 222 NSCTs (48%) have shared or plan to share the learning within their own organisation. The majority of NSCTs (86%) reported actions taken and 47% discussed or had a plan for assessment of impact. 37 out of 222 NSCTs (17%) mentioned involvement of bereaved families. CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation in reporting demonstrates that some NSCTs have engaged fully with LfDs, while other NSCTs appear to have disengaged with the programme. This may reveal a disparity in organisational learning and patient safety culture which could result in inequity for bereaved families. Many themes identified from the LfDs reports have previously been identified by national and international reports and inquiries.

Preoperative assessment and optimisation: the key to good outcomes after the pandemic.

Complications following surgery are common, predictable and often preventable. New preoperative assessment and optimisation guidance recommends clear pathways with triggers for interventions, patient involvement, shared decision making and team education, to help both patients and service efficiency.

Socioeconomic deprivation and long-term outcomes after elective surgery: analysis of prospective data from two observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with health inequalities. We explored relationships between socioeconomic group and outcomes after elective surgery in the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: We combined data from two observational studies in 115 NHS hospitals and determined socioeconomic group using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) quintiles based on place of residence. Postoperative complications and 3-yr survival were assessed using logistic and Cox regression. Univariate analyses were adjusted for age differences between IMD quintiles. Multivariable analyses were used to account for other baseline risk factors including sex and comorbid disease. Results are reported as n (%), hazard ratios (HR) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Postoperative complications developed in 971/9051 patients (10.7%) and 1597/9043 patients (17.7%) died within 3 yr. Complication rates increased with deprivation (reference group least-deprived IMD5): IMD1 (OR=1.44 [1.17-1.78]; P<0.001), IMD2 (OR=1.38 [1.12-1.70]; P<0.01), IMD3 (OR=1.09 [0.88-1.35]: P=0.44), IMD4 (OR=0.89 [0.71-1.11]; P=0.30). More patients from the most deprived quintile died (IMD1) (n=349, 18.8%) compared with the least deprived (IMD5) (n=297, 15.9%) with a trend across the socioeconomic spectrum (P=0.01). After age adjustment, patients in the most deprived areas experienced reduced 3-yr survival: IMD1 (HR=1.43 [1.23-1.67]; P<0.0001), IMD2 (HR=1.35 [1.15-1.57]; P<0.001), IMD3 (HR=1.04 [0.89-1.23]; P=0.60), and IMD4 (HR=1.11 [0.95-1.30]; P=0.19). This finding persisted in risk-adjusted analyses. Increased complication rates only partially explained this reduced survival. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with worse long-term outcomes after elective surgery. This risk factor should be considered when planning perioperative care for patients from deprived areas.

Patient-reported outcomes for ambulatory surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the importance of validated tools that measure patient-reported outcomes and their use in ambulatory surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Sustained increases in ambulatory surgical care reflect advances in surgical techniques and perioperative anaesthetic care. Use of patient-reported outcomes allows identification of minor adverse events that are more common in this population compared with traditional endpoints such as mortality. Variability in reported outcomes restricts research potential and limits the ability to benchmark providers. The standardized endpoints in perioperative medicine initiative's recommendations on patient-reported outcomes and patient comfort measures are relevant to evaluating ambulatory care. Combining validated generic and disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) examines the widest spectrum of outcomes. Technological advances can be used to facilitate outcome measurement in ambulatory surgery with digital integration optimizing accurate real-time data collection. Telephone or web-based applications for reviewing ambulatory patients were found to be acceptable in multiple international settings and should be harnessed to allow remote follow-up. SUMMARY: Use of validated tools to measure patient-reported outcomes allows internal and external quality comparison. Tools can be combined to measure objective outcomes and patient satisfaction. These are both key factors in driving forward improvements in perioperative ambulatory surgical care.