How surgical Trainee Research Collaboratives achieve success: a mixed methods study to develop trainee engagement strategies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand the role of surgical Trainee Research Collaboratives (TRCs) in conducting randomised controlled trials and identify strategies to enhance trainee engagement in trials. DESIGN: This is a mixed methods study. We used observation of TRC meetings, semi-structured interviews and an online survey to explore trainees' motivations for engagement in trials and TRCs, including barriers and facilitators. Interviews were analysed thematically, alongside observation field notes. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Strategies to enhance TRCs were developed at a workshop by 13 trial methodologists, surgical trainees, consultants and research nurses. SETTING: This study was conducted within a secondary care setting in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to registered UK surgical trainees. TRC members and linked stakeholders across surgical specialties and UK regions were purposefully sampled for interviews. RESULTS: We observed 5 TRC meetings, conducted 32 semi-structured interviews and analysed 73 survey responses. TRCs can mobilise trainees thus gaining wider access to patients. Trainees engaged with TRCs to improve patient care, surgical evidence and to help progress their careers. Trainees valued the TRC infrastructure, research expertise and mentoring. Challenges for trainees included clinical and other priorities, limited time and confidence, and recognition, especially by authorship. Key TRC strategies were consultant support, initial simple rapid studies, transparency of involvement and recognition for trainees (including authorship policies) and working with Clinical Trials Units and research nurses. A 6 min digital story on YouTube disseminated these strategies. CONCLUSION: Trainee surgeons are mostly motivated to engage with trials and TRCs. Trainee engagement in TRCs can be enhanced through building relationships with key stakeholders, maximising multi-disciplinary working and offering training and career development opportunities.

A Prospective, Observational Cost Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Appendicectomy in Three Tertiary Hospitals in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefits of laparoscopic appendicectomy are well recognized over open appendicectomy. However, laparoscopic procedures are not frequently conducted in many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) for several reasons, including perceived higher costs. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and cost of laparoscopic appendicectomy compared to open appendicectomy in Nigeria. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, cohort study among patients undergoing appendicectomy was conducted at three tertiary hospitals in Nigeria. Data were collected from October 2020 to February 2022 and analyses compared the average healthcare costs at 30 days after surgery. Quantile regression was conducted to identify variables that had an impact on the costs, reported in Nigerian Naira (Naira) and US dollars ($), with standard deviations (SD). FINDINGS: This study included 105 patients, of which 39 had laparoscopic appendicectomy and 66 had open appendicectomy. The average healthcare cost of laparoscopic appendicectomy (147,562 Naira (SD: 97,130) or $355 (SD: 234)) was higher than open appendicectomy (113,556 Naira (SD: 88,559) or $273 (SD: 213)). The average time for return to work was shorter with laparoscopic than open appendicectomy (mean: 8 days vs. 14 days). At the average daily income of $5.06, laparoscopic appendicectomy was associated with 9778 Naira or $24 cost savings in return to work. Further, 5.1% of laparoscopic appendicectomy patients had surgical site infections compared to 22.7% for open appendicectomy. Regression analysis results showed that laparoscopic appendicectomy was associated with $14 higher costs than open appendicectomy, albeit non-significant (p = 0.53). INTERPRETATION: Despite selection bias in this real-world study, laparoscopic appendicectomy was associated with a slightly higher overall cost, a lower societal cost, a lower infection rate, and a faster return to work, compared to open appendicectomy. It is technically and financially feasible, and its provision in Nigeria should be expanded.

Systematic review of preoperative and intraoperative colorectal Anastomotic Leak Prediction Scores (ALPS).

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review preoperative and intraoperative Anastomotic Leak Prediction Scores (ALPS) and validation studies to evaluate performance and utility in surgical decision-making. Anastomotic leak (AL) is the most feared complication of colorectal surgery. Individualised leak risk could guide anastomosis and/or diverting stoma. METHODS: Systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases, 30 October 2020, identified existing ALPS and validation studies. All records including >1 risk factor, used to develop new, or to validate existing models for preoperative or intraoperative use to predict colorectal AL, were selected. Data extraction followed CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies guidelines. Models were assessed for applicability for surgical decision-making and risk of bias using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool. RESULTS: 34 studies were identified containing 31 individual ALPS (12 colonic/colorectal, 19 rectal) and 6 papers with validation studies only. Development dataset patient populations were heterogeneous in terms of numbers, indication for surgery, urgency and stoma inclusion. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Definitions and timeframe for AL were available in only 22 and 11 ALPS, respectively. 26/31 studies used some form of multivariable logistic regression in their modelling. Models included 3-33 individual predictors. 27/31 studies reported model discrimination performance but just 18/31 reported calibration. 15/31 ALPS were reported with external validation, 9/31 with internal validation alone and 4 published without any validation. 27/31 ALPS and every validation study were scored high risk of bias in model analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Poor reporting practices and methodological shortcomings limit wider adoption of published ALPS. Several models appear to perform well in discriminating patients at highest AL risk but all raise concerns over risk of bias, and nearly all over wider applicability. Large-scale, precisely reported external validation studies are required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020164804.

Is perioperative COVID-19 really associated with worse surgical outcomes? A nationwide COVIDSurg propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing surgery with perioperative COVID-19 are suggested to have worse outcomes, but whether this is COVID-related or due to selection bias remains unclear. We aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of patients with and without perioperative COVID-19. METHODS: Patients with perioperative COVID-19 diagnosed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery between February and July 2020 from 68 US hospitals in COVIDSurg, an international multicenter database, were 1:1 propensity score matched to patients without COVID-19 undergoing similar procedures in the 2012 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The matching criteria included demographics (e.g., age, sex), comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease), and operation characteristics (e.g., type, urgency, complexity). The primary outcome was 30-day hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay and 13 postoperative complications (e.g., pneumonia, renal failure, surgical site infection). RESULTS: A total of 97,936 patients were included, 1,054 with and 96,882 without COVID-19. Prematching, COVID-19 patients more often underwent emergency surgery (76.1% vs. 10.3%, p < 0.001). A total of 843 COVID-19 and 843 non-COVID-19 patients were successfully matched based on demographics, comorbidities, and operative characteristics. Postmatching, COVID-19 patients had a higher mortality (12.0% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.007), longer length of stay (6 [2-15] vs. 5 [1-12] days), and higher rates of acute renal failure (19.3% vs. 3.0%, p < 0.001), sepsis (13.5% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.003), and septic shock (11.8% vs. 6.0%, p < 0.001). They also had higher rates of thromboembolic complications such as deep vein thrombosis (4.4% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001) and pulmonary embolism (2.5% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001) but lower rates of bleeding (11.6% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing surgery with perioperative COVID-19 have higher rates of 30-day mortality and postoperative complications, especially thromboembolic, compared with similar patients without COVID-19 undergoing similar surgeries. Such information is crucial for the complex surgical decision making and counseling of these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level IV.

Methodological issues in economic evaluations of emergency transport systems in low-income and middle-income countries.

A recent systematic review identified few papers on the economic evaluation of systems for emergency transport of acutely ill or injured patients. In addition, we found no articles dealing with the methodological challenges posed by such studies in low-income or middle-income countries. We therefore carried out an analysis of issues that are of particular salience to this important topic. This is an intellectual study in which we develop models, identify their limitations, suggest potential extensions to the models and discuss priorities for empirical studies to populate models. First, we develop a general model to calculate changes in survival contingent on the reduced time to treatment that an emergency transport system is designed to achieve. Second, we develop a model to estimate transfer times over an area that will be served by a proposed transfer system. Third, we discuss difficulties in obtaining parameters with which to populate the models. Fourth, we discuss costs, both direct and indirect, of an emergency transfer service. Fifth, we discuss the issue that outcomes other than survival should be considered and that the effects of a service are a weighted sum over all the conditions and severities for which the service caters. Lastly, based on the above work, we identify priorities for research. To our knowledge, this is the first study to identify and frame issues in the health economics of acute transfer systems and to develop models to calculate survival rates from basic parameters, such as time delay/survival relationships, that vary by intervention type and context.

healthcareCOVID: a national cross-sectional observational study identifying risk factors for developing suspected or confirmed COVID-19 in UK healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the prevalence, risk factors and implications of suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection among healthcare workers in the United Kingdom (UK). DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: UK-based primary and secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare workers aged ≥18 years working between 1 February and 25 May 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A composite endpoint of laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, or self-isolation or hospitalisation due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19. RESULTS: Of 6,152 eligible responses, the composite endpoint was present in 1,806 (29.4%) healthcare workers, of whom 49 (0.8%) were hospitalised, 459 (7.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 1,776 (28.9%) reported self-isolation. Overall, between 11,870 and 21,158 days of self-isolation were required by the cohort, equalling approximately 71 to 127 working days lost per 1,000 working days. The strongest risk factor associated with the presence of the primary composite endpoint was increasing frequency of contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases without adequate personal protective equipment (PPE): 'Never' (reference), 'Rarely' (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, (95% confidence interval: [0.87-1.29])), 'Sometimes' (1.7 [1.37-2.10]), 'Often' (1.84 [1.28-2.63]), 'Always' (2.93, [1.75-5.06]). Additionally, several comorbidities (cancer, respiratory disease, and obesity); working in a 'doctors' role; using public transportation for work; regular contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients; and lack of PPE were also associated with the presence of the primary endpoint. A total of 1,382 (22.5%) healthcare workers reported lacking access to PPE items while having clinical contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Suspected or confirmed COVID-19 was more common in healthcare workers than in the general population and is associated with significant workforce implications. Risk factors included inadequate PPE, which was reported by nearly a quarter of healthcare workers. Governments and policymakers must ensure adequate PPE is available as well as developing strategies to mitigate risk for high-risk healthcare workers during future COVID-19 waves.

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks.

Identifying a Basket of Surgical Procedures to Standardize Global Surgical Metrics: An International Delphi Study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to define a globally applicable list of surgical procedures, or "basket," which could represent a health system's capacity to provide surgical care and standardize global surgical measurement. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Six indicators have been proposed to assess access to safe, affordable, timely surgical and anesthesia care, with a focus on laparotomy, cesarean section, and treatment of open fracture. However, comparability, particularly for these procedures, has been limited by a lack of definitional clarity and their overly broad scope. METHODS: We conducted a 3 round international expert Delphi exercise between April and June 2019 using REDCap to identify a set of procedures representative of surgical capacity. To be included, procedures had to be important for treating common conditions, well-defined, and impactful (ie, well-recognized clinical or functional benefit). Procedures were eliminated or prioritized in each round, and those noted as "extremely" or "very important" by ≥50% of respondents in round 3 were included in the final "basket." RESULTS: Altogether 331 respondents from 78 countries participated in the Delphi process. A final basket of 32 procedures representing disease categories in trauma, cancer, congenital anomalies, maternal/reproductive health, aging, and infection were identified for inclusion to assess surgical capacity. CONCLUSIONS: This surgical basket facilitates a more standardized assessment of a country's surgical system. Further testing and refinement will likely be needed, but this basket can be used immediately to guide ongoing monitoring and evaluation of global surgery capacities to improve and strengthen surgery and anesthesia care.

Perioperative mortality as a meaningful indicator: Challenges and solutions for measurement, interpretation, and health system improvement.

Expanding global access to safe surgical and anaesthesia care is crucial to meet the health targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As global surgical volume increases, improving safety throughout the patient care pathway is a public health priority. At present, an estimated 4.2 million individuals die within 30 days of surgery each year, and many of these deaths are preventable. Important considerations for the collection and reporting of perioperative mortality data have been identified in the literature, but consensus has not been established on the best methodology for the quantification of excess surgical mortality at a hospital or health system level. In this narrative review, we address challenges in the use of perioperative mortality rates (POMR) for improving patient safety. First, we discuss controversies in the use of POMR as a health system indicator and suggest advantages for using a "basket" of procedure-specific mortality rates as an adjunct to gross POMR. We offer then solutions to challenges in the collection and reporting of POMR data, and propose interventions for improving care in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative periods. Finally, we discuss how health systems leaders and frontline clinicians can integrate surgical safety into both national health plans and patient care pathways to drive a sustainable safety revolution in perioperative care.

Identifying, Prioritizing and Visually Mapping Barriers to Injury Care in Rwanda: A Multi-disciplinary Stakeholder Exercise.

BACKGROUND: Whilst injuries are a major cause of disability and death worldwide, a large proportion of people in low- and middle-income countries lack timely access to injury care. Barriers to accessing care from the point of injury to return to function have not been delineated. METHODS: A two-day workshop was held in Kigali, Rwanda in May 2019 with representation from health providers, academia, and government. A four delays model (delays to seeking, reaching, receiving, and remaining in care) was applied to injury care. Participants identified barriers at each delay and graded, through consensus, their relative importance. Following an iterative voting process, the four highest priority barriers were identified. Based on workshop findings and a scoping review, a map was created to visually represent injury care access as a complex health-system problem. RESULTS: Initially, 42 barriers were identified by the 34 participants. 19 barriers across all four delays were assigned high priority; highest-priority barriers were "Training and retention of specialist staff", "Health education/awareness of injury severity", "Geographical coverage of referral trauma centres", and "Lack of protocol for bypass to referral centres". The literature review identified evidence relating to 14 of 19 high-priority barriers. Most barriers were mapped to more than one of the four delays, visually represented in a complex health-system map. CONCLUSION: Overcoming barriers to ensure access to quality injury care requires a multifaceted approach which considers the whole patient journey from injury to rehabilitation. Our results can guide researchers and policymakers planning future interventions.