Systematic development and validation of a predictive model for major postoperative complications in the Peri-operative Quality Improvement Project (PQIP) dataset.

Complications are common following major surgery and are associated with increased use of healthcare resources, disability and mortality. Continued reliance on mortality estimates risks harming patients and health systems, but existing tools for predicting complications are unwieldy and inaccurate. We aimed to systematically construct an accurate pre-operative model for predicting major postoperative complications; compare its performance against existing tools; and identify sources of inaccuracy in predictive models more generally. Complete patient records from the UK Peri-operative Quality Improvement Programme dataset were analysed. Major complications were defined as Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 2 for novel models. In a 75% train:25% test split cohort, we developed a pipeline of increasingly complex models, prioritising pre-operative predictors using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operators (LASSO). We defined the best model in the training cohort by the lowest Akaike's information criterion, balancing accuracy and simplicity. Of the 24,983 included cases, 6389 (25.6%) patients developed major complications. Potentially modifiable risk factors (pain, reduced mobility and smoking) were retained. The best-performing model was highly complex, specifying individual hospital complication rates and 11 patient covariates. This novel model showed substantially superior performance over generic and specific prediction models and scores. We have developed a novel complications model with good internal accuracy, re-prioritised predictor variables and identified hospital-level variation as an important, but overlooked, source of inaccuracy in existing tools. The complexity of the best-performing model does, however, highlight the need for a step-change in clinical risk prediction to automate the delivery of informative risk estimates in clinical systems.

Ethnicity, socio-economic deprivation and postpartum outcomes following caesarean delivery: a multicentre cohort study.

Disparities relating to postpartum recovery outcomes in different socio-economic and racial ethnic groups are underexplored. We conducted a planned analysis of a large prospective caesarean delivery cohort to explore the relationship between ethnicity, socio-economic status and postpartum recovery. Eligible patients were enrolled and baseline demographic, obstetric and medical history data were collected 18 h and 30 h following delivery. Patients completed postpartum quality of life and recovery measures in person on day 1 (EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L, including global health visual analogue scale; Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 item score; and pain scores) and by telephone between day 28 and day 32 postpartum (EQ-5D-5L and pain scores). Socio-economic group was determined according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile of each patient's usual place of residence. Data from 1000 patients who underwent caesarean delivery were included. There were more patients of Asian, Black and mixed ethnicity in the more deprived quintiles. Patients of White ethnicities had shorter postpartum duration of hospital stay compared with patients of Asian and Black ethnicities (35 (28-56 [18-513]) h vs. 44 (31-71 [19-465]) h vs. 49 (33-75 [23-189]) h, respectively. In adjusted models at day 30, patients of Asian ethnicity had a significantly greater risk of moderate to severe pain (numerical rating scale ≥ 4) at rest and on movement (odds ratio (95%CI) 2.42 (1.24-4.74) and 2.32 (1.40-3.87)), respectively). There were no differences in readmission rates or incidence of complications between groups. Patients from White ethnic backgrounds experience shorter postpartum duration of stay compared with patients from Asian and Black ethnic groups. Ethnic background impacts pain scores and recovery at day 1 postpartum and following hospital discharge, even after adjusting for socio-economic group. Further work is required to understand the underlying factors driving differences in pain and recovery and to develop strategies to reduce disparities in obstetric patients.

Risk factors for complications after emergency surgery for paediatric appendicitis: a national prospective observational cohort study.

Appendicectomy is a common procedure in children with a low risk of mortality, however, complication rates and risk factors are largely unknown. This study aimed to characterise the incidence and epidemiology of postoperative complications in children undergoing appendicectomy in the UK. This multicentre prospective observational cohort study, which included children aged 1-16 y who underwent surgery for suspected appendicitis, was conducted between November 2019 and January 2022. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative morbidity. Data collected included: patient characteristics; comorbidities; and physiological status. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for poor outcomes. Data from 2799 children recruited from 80 hospitals were analysed, of which 185 (7%) developed postoperative complications. Children from black and 'other' minority ethnic groups were at significantly higher risk of poor outcomes: OR (95%CI) 4.13 (1.87-9.08), p < 0.001 and 2.08 (1.12-3.87), p = 0.021, respectively. This finding was independent of socio-economic status and type of appendicitis found on histology. Other risk factors for complications included: ASA physical status ≥ 3 (OR (95%CI) 4.05 (1.70-9.67), p = 0.002); raised C-reactive protein (OR 95%CI 1.01 (1.00-1.01), p < 0.001); pyrexia (OR (95%CI) 1.77(1.20-2.63), p = 0.004); and peri-operative oxygen supplementation (OR (95%CI) 4.20 (1.44-12.24), p = 0.009). In the UK NHS, which is a universally accessible healthcare system, ethnicity, but not socio-economic status, was associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications in children having surgery for acute appendicitis. Further evaluations and interventions are required to address this health inequality in keeping with NHS and international priorities.

Timing of elective surgery and risk assessment after SARS-CoV-2 infection: 2023 update: A multidisciplinary consensus statement on behalf of the Association of Anaesthetists, Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations, Royal College of Anaesthetists and Royal College of Surgeons of England.

Guidance for the timing of surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection needed reassessment given widespread vaccination, less virulent variants, contemporary evidence and a need to increase access to safe surgery. We, therefore, updated previous recommendations to assist policymakers, administrative staff, clinicians and, most importantly, patients. Patients who develop symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection within 7 weeks of planned surgery, including on the day of surgery, should be screened for SARS-CoV-2. Elective surgery should not usually be undertaken within 2 weeks of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. For patients who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection and who are low risk or having low-risk surgery, most elective surgery can proceed 2 weeks following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. For patients who are not low risk or having anything other than low-risk surgery between 2 and 7 weeks following infection, an individual risk assessment must be performed. This should consider: patient factors (age; comorbid and functional status); infection factors (severity; ongoing symptoms; vaccination); and surgical factors (clinical priority; risk of disease progression; grade of surgery). This assessment should include the use of an objective and validated risk prediction tool and shared decision-making, taking into account the patient's own attitude to risk. In most circumstances, surgery should proceed unless risk assessment indicates that the risk of proceeding exceeds the risk of delay. There is currently no evidence to support delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks for patients who have fully recovered from or have had mild SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Quality of recovery following childbirth: a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

To better understand outcomes in postpartum patients who receive peripartum anaesthetic interventions, we aimed to assess quality of recovery metrics following childbirth in a UK-based multicentre cohort study. This study was performed during a 2-week period in October 2021 to assess in- and outpatient post-delivery recovery at 1 and 30 days postpartum. The following outcomes were reported: obstetric quality of recovery 10-item measure (ObsQoR-10); EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L) survey; global health visual analogue scale; postpartum pain scores at rest and movement; length of hospital stay; readmission rates; and self-reported complications. In total, 1638 patients were recruited and responses analysed from 1631 (99.6%) and 1282 patients (80%) at one and 30 days postpartum, respectively. Median (IQR [range]) length of stay postpartum was 39.3 (28.5-61.0 [17.7-513.4]), 40.3 (28.5-59.1 [17.8-220.9]), and 35.9 (27.1-54.1 [17.9-188.4]) h following caesarean, instrumental and vaginal deliveries, respectively. Median (IQR [range]) ObsQoR-10 score was 75 ([62-86] 4-100) on day 1, with the lowest ObsQoR-10 scores (worst recovery) reported by patients undergoing caesarean delivery. Of the 1282 patients, complications within the first 30 days postpartum were reported by 252 (19.7%) of all patients. Readmission to hospital within 30 days of discharge occurred in 69 patients (5.4%), with 49 (3%) for maternal reasons. These data can be used to inform patients regarding expected recovery trajectories; facilitate optimal discharge planning; and identify populations that may benefit most from targeted interventions to improve postpartum recovery experience.

Predicting severe pain after major surgery: a secondary analysis of the Peri-operative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP) dataset.

Acute postoperative pain is common, distressing and associated with increased morbidity. Targeted interventions can prevent its development. We aimed to develop and internally validate a predictive tool to pre-emptively identify patients at risk of severe pain following major surgery. We analysed data from the UK Peri-operative Quality Improvement Programme to develop and validate a logistic regression model to predict severe pain on the first postoperative day using pre-operative variables. Secondary analyses included the use of peri-operative variables. Data from 17,079 patients undergoing major surgery were included. Severe pain was reported by 3140 (18.4%) patients; this was more prevalent in females, patients with cancer or insulin-dependent diabetes, current smokers and in those taking baseline opioids. Our final model included 25 pre-operative predictors with an optimism-corrected c-statistic of 0.66 and good calibration (mean absolute error 0.005, p = 0.35). Decision-curve analysis suggested an optimal cut-off value of 20-30% predicted risk to identify high-risk individuals. Potentially modifiable risk factors included smoking status and patient-reported measures of psychological well-being. Non-modifiable factors included demographic and surgical factors. Discrimination was improved by the addition of intra-operative variables (likelihood ratio χ2 496.5, p < 0.001) but not by the addition of baseline opioid data. On internal validation, our pre-operative prediction model was well calibrated but discrimination was moderate. Performance was improved with the inclusion of peri-operative covariates suggesting pre-operative variables alone are not sufficient to adequately predict postoperative pain.

Postoperative mortality and complications in patients with and without pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection: a service evaluation of 24 million linked records using OpenSAFELY.

Surgical decision-making after SARS-CoV-2 infection is influenced by the presence of comorbidity, infection severity and whether the surgical problem is time-sensitive. Contemporary surgical policy to delay surgery is informed by highly heterogeneous country-specific guidance. We evaluated surgical provision in England during the COVID-19 pandemic to assess real-world practice and whether deferral remains necessary. Using the OpenSAFELY platform, we adapted the COVIDSurg protocol for a service evaluation of surgical procedures that took place within the English NHS from 17 March 2018 to 17 March 2022. We assessed whether hospitals adhered to guidance not to operate on patients within 7 weeks of an indication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additional outcomes were postoperative all-cause mortality (30 days, 6 months) and complications (pulmonary, cardiac, cerebrovascular). The exposure was the interval between the most recent indication of SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent surgery. In any 6-month window, < 3% of surgical procedures were conducted within 7 weeks of an indication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mortality for surgery conducted within 2 weeks of a positive test in the era since widespread SARS-CoV-2 vaccine availability was 1.1%, declining to 0.3% by 4 weeks. Compared with the COVIDSurg study cohort, outcomes for patients in the English NHS cohort were better during the COVIDSurg data collection period and the pandemic era before vaccines became available. Clinicians within the English NHS followed national guidance by operating on very few patients within 7 weeks of a positive indication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In England, surgical patients' overall risk following an indication of SARS-CoV-2 infection is lower than previously thought.

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.

Effectiveness of emergency surgery for five common acute conditions: an instrumental variable analysis of a national routine database.

The effectiveness of emergency surgery vs. non-emergency surgery strategies for emergency admissions with acute appendicitis, gallstone disease, diverticular disease, abdominal wall hernia or intestinal obstruction is unknown. Data on emergency admissions for adult patients from 2010 to 2019 at 175 acute National Health Service hospitals in England were extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. Cohort sizes were: 268,144 (appendicitis); 240,977 (gallstone disease); 138,869 (diverticular disease); 106,432 (hernia); and 133,073 (intestinal obstruction). The primary outcome was number of days alive and out of hospital at 90 days. The effectiveness of emergency surgery vs. non-emergency surgery strategies was estimated using an instrumental variable design and is reported for the cohort and pre-specified sub-groups (age, sex, number of comorbidities and frailty level). Average days alive and out of hospital at 90 days for all five cohorts were similar, with the following mean differences (95%CI) for emergency surgery minus non-emergency surgery after adjusting for confounding: -0.73 days (-2.10-0.64) for appendicitis; 0.60 (-0.10-1.30) for gallstone disease; -2.66 (-15.7-10.4) for diverticular disease; -0.07 (-2.40-2.25) for hernia; and 3.32 (-3.13-9.76) for intestinal obstruction. For patients with 'severe frailty', mean differences (95%CI) in days alive and out of hospital for emergency surgery were lower than for non-emergency surgery strategies: -21.0 (-27.4 to -14.6) for appendicitis; -5.72 (-11.3 to -0.2) for gallstone disease, -38.9 (-63.3 to -14.6) for diverticular disease; -19.5 (-26.6 to -12.3) for hernia; and - 34.5 (-46.7 to -22.4) for intestinal obstruction. For patients without frailty, the mean differences (95%CI) in days alive and out of hospital were: -0.18 (-1.56-1.20) for appendicitis; 0.93 (0.48-1.39) for gallstone disease; 5.35 (-2.56-13.28) for diverticular disease; 2.26 (0.37-4.15) for hernia; and 18.2 (14.8-22.47) for intestinal obstruction. Emergency surgery and non-emergency surgery strategies led to similar average days alive and out of hospital at 90 days for five acute conditions. The comparative effectiveness of emergency surgery and non-emergency surgery strategies for these conditions may be modified by patient factors.

Timing of elective surgery and risk assessment after SARS-CoV-2 infection: an update: A multidisciplinary consensus statement on behalf of the Association of Anaesthetists, Centre for Perioperative Care, Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations, Royal College of Anaesthetists, Royal College of Surgeons of England.

The impact of vaccination and new SARS-CoV-2 variants on peri-operative outcomes is unclear. We aimed to update previously published consensus recommendations on timing of elective surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection to assist policymakers, administrative staff, clinicians and patients. The guidance remains that patients should avoid elective surgery within 7 weeks of infection, unless the benefits of doing so exceed the risk of waiting. We recommend individualised multidisciplinary risk assessment for patients requiring elective surgery within 7 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This should include baseline mortality risk calculation and assessment of risk modifiers (patient factors; SARS-CoV-2 infection; surgical factors). Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection with previous variants increased peri-operative mortality risk three-fold throughout the 6 weeks after infection, and assumptions that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection does not add risk are currently unfounded. Patients with persistent symptoms and those with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 may require a longer delay than 7 weeks. Elective surgery should not take place within 10 days of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, predominantly because the patient may be infectious, which is a risk to surgical pathways, staff and other patients. We now emphasise that timing of surgery should include the assessment of baseline and increased risk, optimising vaccination and functional status, and shared decision-making. While these recommendations focus on the omicron variant and current evidence, the principles may also be of relevance to future variants. As further data emerge, these recommendations may be revised.

Inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective caesarean section: a systematic review.

Neuraxial anaesthesia is widely utilised for elective caesarean section, but the prevalence of inadequate intra-operative anaesthesia is unclear. We aimed to determine the prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia for elective caesarean section; prevalence of conversion from neuraxial anaesthesia to general anaesthesia following inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia; and the effect of mode of anaesthesia. We searched studies reporting inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia that used ≥ ED95 doses (effective dose in 95% of the population) of neuraxial local anaesthetic agents. Our primary outcome was the prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia, defined as the need to convert to general anaesthesia; the need to repeat or abandon a planned primary neuraxial technique following incision; unplanned administration of intra-operative analgesia (excluding sedatives); or unplanned epidural drug supplementation. Fifty-four randomised controlled trials were included (3497 patients). The overall prevalence of requirement for supplemental analgesia or anaesthesia was 14.6% (95%CI 13.3-15.9%); 510 out of 3497 patients. The prevalence of general anaesthesia conversion was 2 out of 3497 patients (0.06% (95%CI 0.0-0.2%)). Spinal/combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia was associated with a lower overall prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia than epidural anaesthesia (10.2% (95%CI 9.0-11.4%), 278 out of 2732 patients vs. 30.3% (95%CI 26.5-34.5%), 232 out of 765 patients). Further studies are needed to identify risk factors, optimise detection and management strategies and to determine long-term effects of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia.

SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 and timing of elective surgery: A multidisciplinary consensus statement on behalf of the Association of Anaesthetists, the Centre for Peri-operative Care, the Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations, the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

The scale of the COVID-19 pandemic means that a significant number of patients who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 will require surgery. Given the potential for multisystem involvement, timing of surgery needs to be carefully considered to plan for safe surgery. This consensus statement uses evidence from a systematic review and expert opinion to highlight key principles in the timing of surgery. Shared decision-making regarding timing of surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection must account for severity of the initial infection; ongoing symptoms of COVID-19; comorbid and functional status; clinical priority and risk of disease progression; and complexity of surgery. For the protection of staff, other patients and the public, planned surgery should not be considered during the period that a patient may be infectious. Precautions should be undertaken to prevent pre- and peri-operative infection, especially in higher risk patients. Elective surgery should not be scheduled within 7 weeks of a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection unless the risks of deferring surgery outweigh the risk of postoperative morbidity or mortality associated with COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 causes either transient or asymptomatic disease for most patients, who require no additional precautions beyond a 7-week delay, but those who have persistent symptoms or have been hospitalised require special attention. Patients with persistent symptoms of COVID-19 are at increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality even after 7 weeks. The time before surgery should be used for functional assessment, prehabilitation and multidisciplinary optimisation. Vaccination several weeks before surgery will reduce risk to patients and might lessen the risk of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection of other patients and staff. National vaccine committees should consider whether such patients can be prioritised for vaccination. As further data emerge, these recommendations may need to be revised, but the principles presented should be considered to ensure safety of patients, the public and staff.

Incidence of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia in obstetrics: a multicentre, prospective cohort study.

General anaesthesia for obstetric surgery has distinct characteristics that may contribute towards a higher risk of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, experience and psychological implications of unintended conscious awareness during general anaesthesia in obstetric patients. From May 2017 to August 2018, 3115 consenting patients receiving general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals in England were recruited to the study. Patients received three repetitions of standardised questioning over 30 days, with responses indicating memories during general anaesthesia that were verified using interviews and record interrogation. A total of 12 patients had certain/probable or possible awareness, an incidence of 1 in 256 (95%CI 149-500) for all obstetric surgery. The incidence was 1 in 212 (95%CI 122-417) for caesarean section surgery. Distressing experiences were reported by seven (58.3%) patients, paralysis by five (41.7%) and paralysis with pain by two (16.7%). Accidental awareness occurred during induction and emergence in nine (75%) of the patients who reported awareness. Factors associated with accidental awareness during general anaesthesia were: high BMI (25-30 kg.m-2 ); low BMI (<18.5 kg.m-2 ); out-of-hours surgery; and use of ketamine or thiopental for induction. Standardised psychological impact scores at 30 days were significantly higher in awareness patients (median (IQR [range]) 15 (2.7-52.0 [2-56]) than in patients without awareness 3 (1-9 [0-64]), p = 0.010. Four patients had a provisional diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. We conclude that direct postoperative questioning reveals high rates of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery, which has implications for anaesthetic practice, consent and follow-up.

General anaesthetic and airway management practice for obstetric surgery in England: a prospective, multicentre observational study.

There are no current descriptions of general anaesthesia characteristics for obstetric surgery, despite recent changes to patient baseline characteristics and airway management guidelines. This analysis of data from the direct reporting of awareness in maternity patients' (DREAMY) study of accidental awareness during obstetric anaesthesia aimed to describe practice for obstetric general anaesthesia in England and compare with earlier surveys and best-practice recommendations. Consenting patients who received general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals from May 2017 to August 2018 were included. Baseline characteristics, airway management, anaesthetic techniques and major complications were collected. Descriptive analysis, binary logistic regression modelling and comparisons with earlier data were conducted. Data were collected from 3117 procedures, including 2554 (81.9%) caesarean deliveries. Thiopental was the induction drug in 1649 (52.9%) patients, compared with propofol in 1419 (45.5%). Suxamethonium was the neuromuscular blocking drug for tracheal intubation in 2631 (86.1%), compared with rocuronium in 367 (11.8%). Difficult tracheal intubation was reported in 1 in 19 (95%CI 1 in 16-22) and failed intubation in 1 in 312 (95%CI 1 in 169-667). Obese patients were over-represented compared with national baselines and associated with difficult, but not failed intubation. There was more evidence of change in practice for induction drugs (increased use of propofol) than neuromuscular blocking drugs (suxamethonium remains the most popular). There was evidence of improvement in practice, with increased monitoring and reversal of neuromuscular blockade (although this remains suboptimal). Despite a high risk of difficult intubation in this population, videolaryngoscopy was rarely used (1.9%).

Perceptions of UK clinicians towards postoperative critical care.

Postoperative critical care is a finite resource that is recommended for high-risk patients. Despite national recommendations specifying that such patients should receive postoperative critical care, there is evidence that these recommendations are not universally followed. We performed a national survey aiming to better understand how patients are risk-stratified in practice; elucidate clinicians' opinions about how patients should be selected for critical care; and determine factors which affect the actual provision of postoperative critical care. As part of the second Sprint National Anaesthesia Project, epidemiology of critical care after surgery study, we distributed a paper survey to anaesthetists, surgeons and intensivists providing peri-operative care during a single week in March 2017. We collected data on respondent characteristics, and their opinions of postoperative critical care provision, potential benefits and real-world challenges. We undertook both quantitative and qualitative analyses to interpret the responses. We received 10,383 survey responses from 237 hospitals across the UK. Consultants used a lower threshold for critical care admission than other career grades, indicating potentially more risk-averse behaviour. The majority of respondents reported that critical care provision was inadequate, and cited the value of critical care as being predominantly due to higher nurse: patient ratios. Use of objective risk assessment tools was poor, and patients were commonly selected for critical care based on procedure-specific pathways rather than individualised risk assessment. Challenges were highlighted in the delivery of peri-operative critical care services, such as an overall lack of capacity, competition for beds with non-surgical cases and poor flow through the hospital leading to bed 'blockages'. Critical care is perceived to provide benefit to high-risk surgical patients, but there is variation in practice about the definition and determination of risk, how patients are referred and how to deal with the lack of critical care resources. Future work should focus on evaluating 'enhanced care' units for postoperative patients, how to better implement individualised risk assessment in practice, and how to improve patient flow through hospitals.

Prioritisation of quality indicators for elective perioperative care: a Delphi consensus.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature previously identified over 1200 perioperative structure and process quality indicators. We undertook a Delphi consensus process with the aim of creating a concise list of indicators that experts deemed most important for assessing quality in perioperative care. METHODS: A basic Delphi consensus was completed using an online survey which was distributed to surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physicians and lay representatives. Participants were asked to prioritise the indicators in order of importance (high, medium or low) to be included for collection in a national perioperative quality improvement programme. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-seven indicators were included in the first iteration of the Delphi consensus (91 structure and 48 process indicators). Sixty-three experts agreed to participate and the consensus was completed in five rounds. Ninety-five indicators were agreed as high priority: 65 structural and 30 process indicators. CONCLUSION: The Delphi consensus process was able to reduce the number of recommended indicators to only a modest extent. Further work to evaluate the practicalities of routinely collecting such a comprehensive list of quality indicators is now required.