General surgical adverse events in a UK district general hospital-lessons to learn.

BACKGROUND: An adverse event (AE) is defined as an unintended injury or complication caused by healthcare management rather than the disease process that may prolong admission and lead to disability or death. This study retrospectively assessed all reported general surgery-related AEs in a district general hospital in the south-east of England. METHODS: All general surgical AEs arising from adult inpatient admissions between 2002 and 2007, that had been reported to the risk management team, following completion of the standard 'Adverse Incident Report Form', were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: There were 24,185 general surgical admissions over the period of the study; 461 AEs were reported (1.9% mean annual incident rate; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.5%). The majority (85%) were near miss or no injury events (category I and II) while serious/serious near-miss incidents accounted for just 2% of events. Communicative or administrative problems were implicated in 54% of cases while 12% arose from theatre/surgery-related failure. Of 58 medico-legal claims (0.24% of admissions) that were made, 16 (27.5%) progressed to the law courts for formal settlement. CONCLUSION: The reported annual AE incident rate of approximately 2% is well below the national average: this may be due to pre-selection of general surgery-related AEs or represent under-reporting of incidents. The vast majority of AEs were related to administrative and communicative error. These areas must be addressed if patient safety and outcome is to be significantly improved.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery in Great Britain and Ireland--where are we now?

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to gather information from the members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) to assess trends in the current practice of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: A postal questionnaire survey of the members of ACPGBI. RESULTS: The response rate was 37% (200/540). Only 45 surgeons currently perform laparoscopic colorectal work in Great Britain and Ireland mainly right hemicolectomy and laparoscopic stoma formation, of these about one third practiced laparoscopy for benign colorectal conditions only. The majority (68%) of surgeons had enough resources at their place of work, but further training seemed to be a major issue. Nearly 22% of surgeons had not had any formal training. Only 50% of surgeons trained their specialist registrars. The incidence of conversion rate was not different for benign or malignant conditions and also did not appear to be related to the duration of experience. Only four surgeons had noted port a site recurrence during the past 10 years. Seventy-five percent (150/200) felt that laparoscopic colorectal work could be carried out safely in a District General Hospital. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery was being performed by a small minority of members of the ACPGBI although more surgeons had started to work in this field in recent years. The main areas of concern appeared to be a wide variation in the range of experience as indicated by the number of operations performed and limited formal training for consultants.

A survey of the timing and approach to the surgical management of cholelithiasis in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis and acute cholecystitis in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Recent management guidelines and randomised clinical trials have provided evidence-based guidance to the management of acute biliary pancreatitis and acute cholecystitis. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to the 1086 members of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland. There were 583 responders (54%). RESULTS: A policy of cholecystectomy during the index admission or within 4 weeks in fit patients recovering from mild acute biliary pancreatitis was adopted by 58% of surgeons, and was significantly associated with an upper gastrointestinal and hepato-pancreato-biliary subspecialty interest and a volume of more than 50 cholecystectomies per annum (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26-0.72; P = 0.001: and OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29-0.74; P = 0.001, respectively). A policy of urgent cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis was adopted by 20% of surgeons, and was significantly associated with an upper gastrointestinal/hepato-pancreato-biliary subspecialty interest and the 'routine' adoption of laparoscopic approach to cholecystectomy (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19-0.60; P < 0.001: and OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.3-0.86; P = 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The management of cholelithiasis in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis in the UK remains suboptimal. Moreover, only a minority of surgeons offer patients presenting with acute cholecystitis the benefits of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The management of acute biliary disease may be improved if these cases were concentrated in the hands of surgeons with upper gastrointestinal/hepato-pancreato-biliary interest and those who perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy regularly.

The effectiveness of new criteria for colorectal fast track clinics.

INTRODUCTION: Fast Track Colorectal Clinics are becoming a requirement to meet the government's 10-day rule for patients with suspected cancers to be seen by a specialist. However, such clinics soon tend to get overwhelmed by huge numbers of referrals, many of them inappropriate. The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland has published criteria for appropriate referral. We evaluated the sensitivity of these criteria and attempted to recommend appropriate changes. METHODS: Data of 50 consecutive colorectal cancers from our DGH since January 2000 has been collected in relation to demographics, presenting signs and symptoms, haemoglobin levels as well as treatment. The new Criteria were then applied strictly to these cases and we evaluated whether these patients would have been eligible for fast track referral, if these criteria had been in force since January 2000. RESULTS: Forty-one (82%) of 50 patients would have been eligible for referral as follows: 11 (22%) rectal bleeding with diarrhoea; 8(16%) persistent diarrhoea without bleeding (>60 years), 12 (24%) bleeding without anal symptoms (>60 years), 0 (0%) palpable right sided abdominal mass, 7 (14%) palpable rectal mass, 16 (32%) iron deficiency anaemia (<11 g/dl in men & <10 g/dl in women), 10 (20%) patients qualifying on more than one criterion. However, 9 (18%) patients had presenting features that would have excluded them from a fast track referral as follows: 4 (8%) only abdominal pain + weight loss (48, 54, 72, 75 years old), 2 (4%) change in bowel habit + no rectal bleeding (54, 57 years old), 1 (2%) palpable mass at a site other than the right side of the abdomen. CONCLUSIONS: We feel that this study, although small, highlights the dangers of having very rigid criteria for such clinics. The new criteria though high in specificity have low sensitivity for safety. We recommend some modifications to the criteria as follows: rectal bleeding without anal symptoms >50 years instead of 60 years; patients with a palpable mass anywhere on the abdomen; and the adddition of a new criterion of abdominal pain with weight loss. These modifications would significantly increase the sensitivity from 82% to 94%.

Use of a thromboembolic risk score to improve thromboprophylaxis in surgical patients.

Two hundred admissions to a general surgical ward were audited prospectively before and after the introduction of a thromboembolic risk score. This was based on the Thromboembolic Risk Factors (THRIFT) Consensus Group guidelines for thrombo-prophylaxis. The results showed an overall improvement in compliance from 65% to 79%. High risk patients formed 24% of the patients studied. In this group, compliance improved significantly from 14% to 58%. The overall prevalence of important thromboembolic risk factors was calculated. Of the patients, 26.5% had a Body Mass Index (BMI) of > 25, and 10% gave a past or family history of thromboembolism. Of female patients, 24% were taking oestrogens. We conclude that quantitative assessment of all patients for thromboembolic risk can improve the implementation of thromboprophylaxis, particularly in high risk patients.