Implications of elevated troponin on time-to-surgery in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NIHR Health Informatics Collaborative: TROP-CABG study).

Implications of elevated troponin on time-to-surgery in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction(NIHR Health Informatics Collaborative:TROP-CABG study). Benedetto et al. BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and the utility of pre-operative troponin levels in decision-making remains unclear. We investigated (a) the association between peak pre-operative troponin and survival post-CABG in a large cohort of NSTEMI patients and (b) the interaction between troponin and time-to-surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 1746 patients (1684 NSTEMI; 62 unstable angina) (mean age 69 ± 11 years,21% female) with recorded troponins that had CABG at five United Kingdom centers between 2010 and 2017. Time-segmented Cox regression was used to investigate the interaction of peak troponin and time-to-surgery on early (within 30 days) and late (beyond 30 days) survival. Average interval from peak troponin to surgery was 9 ± 15 days, with 1466 (84.0%) patients having CABG during the same admission. Sixty patients died within 30-days and another 211 died after a mean follow-up of 4 ± 2 years (30-day survival 0.97 ± 0.004 and 5-year survival 0.83 ± 0.01). Peak troponin was a strong predictor of early survival (adjusted P = 0.002) with a significant interaction with time-to-surgery (P interaction = 0.007). For peak troponin levels <100 times the upper limit of normal, there was no improvement in early survival with longer time-to-surgery. However, in patients with higher troponins, early survival increased progressively with a longer time-to-surgery, till day 10. Peak troponin did not influence survival beyond 30 days (adjusted P = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Peak troponin in NSTEMI patients undergoing CABG was a significant predictor of early mortality, strongly influenced the time-to-surgery and may prove to be a clinically useful biomarker in the management of these patients.

Comparing the longer-term effectiveness of a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines across the age spectrum.

Background: A single dose strategy may be adequate to confer population level immunity and protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, especially in low- and middle-income countries where vaccine supply remains limited. We compared the effectiveness of a single dose strategy of the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection across all age groups and over an extended follow-up period. Methods: Individuals vaccinated in North-West London, UK, with either the first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines between January 12, 2021 and March 09, 2021, were matched to each other by demographic and clinical characteristics. Each vaccinated individual was additionally matched to an unvaccinated control. Study outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity, COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death, and all-cause mortality. Findings: Amongst matched individuals, 63,608 were in each of the vaccine groups and 127,216 were unvaccinated. Between 14 and 84 days of follow-up after matching, there were 534 SARS-CoV-2 infections, 65 COVID-19 hospitalisations, and 190 deaths, of which 29 were categorized as due to COVID-19. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) for SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.05) for Oxford-Astra-Zeneca, and 0.69 (0.55 to 0.86) for Pfizer-BioNTech. The IRR for both vaccines was the same at 0.25 (0.09 to 0.55) and 0.14 (0.02 to 0.58) for reducing COVID-19 hospitalization and COVID-19 mortality, respectively. The IRR for all-cause mortality was 0.25 (0.15 to 0.39) and 0.18 (0.10 to 0.30) for the Oxford-Astra-Zeneca and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, respectively. Age was an effect modifier of the association between vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity; lower hazard ratios for increasing age. Interpretation: A single dose strategy, for both vaccines, was effective at reducing COVID-19 mortality and hospitalization rates. The magnitude of vaccine effectiveness was comparatively lower for SARS-CoV-2 infection, although this was variable across the age range, with higher effectiveness seen with older adults. Our results have important implications for health system planning -especially in low resource settings where vaccine supply remains constrained.

Prognostic Significance of Ventricular Arrhythmias in 13 444 Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Study Based on Routine Clinical Data (NIHR Health Informatics Collaborative VA-ACS Study).

Background A minority of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) cases are associated with ventricular arrhythmias (VA) and/or cardiac arrest (CA). We investigated the effect of VA/CA at the time of ACS on long-term outcomes. Methods and Results We analyzed routine clinical data from 5 National Health Service trusts in the United Kingdom, collected between 2010 and 2017 by the National Institute for Health Research Health Informatics Collaborative. A total of 13 444 patients with ACS, 376 (2.8%) of whom had concurrent VA, survived to hospital discharge and were followed up for a median of 3.42 years. Patients with VA or CA at index presentation had significantly increased risks of subsequent VA during follow-up (VA group: adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 4.15 [95% CI, 2.42-7.09]; CA group: adjusted HR, 2.60 [95% CI, 1.23-5.48]). Patients who suffered a CA in the context of ACS and survived to discharge also had a 36% increase in long-term mortality (adjusted HR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.04-1.78]), although the concurrent diagnosis of VA alone during ACS did not affect all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.80-1.33]). Conclusions Patients who develop VA or CA during ACS who survive to discharge have increased risks of subsequent VA, whereas those who have CA during ACS also have an increase in long-term mortality. These individuals may represent a subgroup at greater risk of subsequent arrhythmic events as a result of intrinsically lower thresholds for developing VA.

Defining the Enablers and Barriers to the Implementation of Large-scale, Health Care-Related Mobile Technology: Qualitative Case Study in a Tertiary Hospital Setting.

BACKGROUND: The successful implementation of clinical smartphone apps in hospital settings requires close collaboration with industry partners. A large-scale, hospital-wide implementation of a clinical mobile app for health care professionals developed in partnership with Google Health and academic partners was deployed on a bring-your-own-device basis using mobile device management at our UK academic hospital. As this was the first large-scale implementation of this type of innovation in the UK health system, important insights and lessons learned from the deployment may be useful to other organizations considering implementing similar technology in partnership with commercial companies. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to define the key enablers and barriers and to propose a road map for the implementation of a hospital-wide clinical mobile app developed in collaboration with an industry partner as a data processor and an academic partner for independent evaluation. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with high-level stakeholders from industry, academia, and health care providers who had instrumental roles in the implementation of the app at our hospital. The interviews explored the participants' views on the enablers and barriers to the implementation process. The interviews were analyzed using a broadly deductive approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: In total, 14 participants were interviewed. Key enablers identified were the establishment of a steering committee with high-level clinical involvement, well-defined roles and responsibilities between partners, effective communication strategies with end users, safe information governance precautions, and increased patient engagement and transparency. Barriers identified were the lack of dedicated resources for mobile change at our hospital, risk aversion, unclear strategy and regulation, and the implications of bring-your-own-device and mobile device management policies. The key lessons learned from the deployment process were highlighted, and a road map for the implementation of large-scale clinical mobile apps in hospital settings was proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite partnering with one of the world's biggest technology companies, the cultural and technological change required for mobile working and implementation in health care was found to be a significant challenge. With an increasing requirement for health care organizations to partner with industry for advanced mobile technologies, the lessons learned from our implementation can influence how other health care organizations undertake a similar mobile change and improve the chances of successful widespread mobile transformation.

The Imperial Paediatric Emergency Training Toolkit (IPETT) for use in paediatric emergency training: development and evaluation of feasibility and validity.

AIM: To develop and test the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a practical toolkit for the assessment and feedback of skills required to manage paediatric emergencies in critical care settings. METHODS: The Imperial Paediatric Emergency Training Toolkit (IPETT) was developed based on current evidence-base and expert input. IPETT assesses both technical and non-technical skills. The technical component covers skills in the areas of clinical assessment, airway and breathing, cardiovascular, and drugs. The non-technical component is based on the validated NOTECHS tool and covers communication and interaction, cooperation and team skills, leadership and managerial skills, and decision-making. The reliability (internal consistency), content validity (inter-correlations between different skills) and concurrent validity (correlations between global technical and non-technical scores) of IPETT were prospectively evaluated in 45 simulated paediatric crises carried out in a PICU with anaesthetic and paediatric trainees (N=52). Non-parametric analyses were carried out. Significance was set at P<0.05. RESULTS: Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients were overall acceptable for the technical (alpha range=0.638-0.810) and good for the non-technical (alpha range=0.701-0.899) component of IPETT. The median inter-skill correlation was rho=0.564 and rho=0.549 for the technical and non-technical components, respectively. These indicate good content validity, as the skills were inter-related but not redundant. We also demonstrate a correlation between the global technical and non-technical scores (rho=0.471) - all Ps<0.05 during the assessments. CONCLUSION: IPETT offers a psychometrically viable and feasible to use tool in the context of paediatric emergencies training. This study shows that assessment of technical and non-technical skills in combination may offer a more clinically relevant model for training in paediatric emergencies. Further validation should aim to demonstrate skill retention over time and skill transfer from simulation-based training to real emergencies.

Unannounced in situ simulations: integrating training and clinical practice.

Simulation-based training for healthcare providers is well established as a viable, efficacious training tool, particularly for the training of non-technical team-working skills. These skills are known to be critical to effective teamwork, and important in the prevention of error and adverse events in hospitals. However, simulation suites are costly to develop and releasing staff to attend training is often difficult. These factors may restrict access to simulation training. We discuss our experiences of 'in situ' simulation for unannounced cardiac arrest training when the training is taken to the clinical environment. This has the benefit of decreasing required resources, increasing realism and affordability, and widening multidisciplinary team participation, thus enabling assessment and training of non-technical team-working skills in real clinical teams. While there are practical considerations of delivering training in the clinical environment, we feel there are many potential benefits compared with other forms of simulation training. We are able to tailor the training to the needs of the location, enabling staff to see a scenario that is relevant to their practice. This is particularly useful for staff who have less exposure to cardiac arrest events, such as radiology staff. We also describe the important benefit of risk assessment for a clinical environment. During our simulations we have identified a number of issues that, had they occurred during a real resuscitation attempt, may have led to patient harm or patient death. For these reasons we feel in situ simulation should be considered by every hospital as part of a patient safety initiative.

Self vs expert assessment of technical and non-technical skills in high fidelity simulation.

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment is imperative for learning, feedback and progression. The aim of this study was to examine whether surgeons can accurately self-assess their technical and nontechnical skills compared with expert faculty members' assessments. METHODS: Twenty-five surgeons performed a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in a simulated operating room. Technical and nontechnical performance was assessed by participants and faculty members using the validated Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) and the Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons scale (NOTSS). RESULTS: Assessment of technical performance correlated between self and faculty members' ratings for experienced (median score, 30.0 vs 31.0; ρ = .831; P = .001) and inexperienced (median score, 22.0 vs 28.0; ρ = .761; P = .003) surgeons. Assessment of nontechnical skills between self and faculty members did not correlate for experienced surgeons (median score, 8.0 vs 10.5; ρ = -.375; P = .229) or their more inexperienced counterparts (median score, 9.0 vs 7.0; ρ = -.018; P = .953). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons can accurately self-assess their technical skills in virtual reality LC. Conversely, formal assessment with faculty members' input is required for nontechnical skills, for which surgeons lack insight into their behaviours.

Multidisciplinary crisis simulations: the way forward for training surgical teams.

BACKGROUND: High-reliability organizations have stressed the importance of non-technical skills for safety and of regularly providing such training to their teams. Recently safety skills training has been applied in the practice of medicine. In this study, we developed and piloted a module using multidisciplinary crisis scenarios in a simulated operating theatre to train entire surgical teams. METHODS: Twenty teams participated (n = 80); each consisted of a trainee surgeon, anesthetist, operating department practitioner (ODP), and scrub nurse. Crisis scenarios such as difficult intubation, hemorrhage, or cardiac arrest were simulated. Technical and non-technical skills (leadership, communication, team skills, decision making, and vigilance), were assessed by clinical experts and by two psychologists using relevant technical and human factors rating scales. Participants received technical and non-technical feedback, and the whole team received feedback on teamwork. RESULTS: Trainees assessed the training favorably. For technical skills there were no differences between surgical trainees' assessment scores and the assessment scores of the trainers. However, nurses overrated their technical skill. Regarding non-technical skills, leadership and decision making were scored lower than the other three non-technical skills (communication, team skills, and vigilance). Surgeons scored lower than nurses on communication and teamwork skills. Surgeons and anesthetists scored lower than nurses on leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary simulation-based team training is feasible and well received by surgical teams. Non-technical skills can be assessed alongside technical skills, and differences in performance indicate where there is a need for further training. Future work should focus on developing team performance measures for training and on the development and evaluation of systematic training for technical and non-technical skills to enhance team performance and safety in surgery.