Utilisation of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 in England: Patient characteristics, timing and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterise the use of tracheostomy procedures for all COVID-19 critical care patients in England and to understand how patient factors and timing of tracheostomy affected outcomes. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study using exploratory analysis of hospital administrative data. SETTING: All 500 National Health Service hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: All hospitalised COVID-19 patients aged ≥18 years in England between 1 March and 31 October 2020 were included. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: This was a retrospective exploratory analysis using the Hospital Episode Statistics administrative data set. Multilevel modelling was used to explore the relationship between demographic factors, comorbidity and use of tracheostomy and the association between tracheostomy use, tracheostomy timing and the outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 2200 hospitalised COVID-19 patients had a tracheostomy. Tracheostomy utilisation varied across the study period, peaking in April-June 2020. In multivariable modelling, for those admitted to critical care, tracheostomy was most common in those aged 40-79 years, in males and in people of Black and Asian ethnic groups and those with a history of cerebrovascular disease. In critical care patients, tracheostomy was associated with lower odds of mortality (OR: 0.514 [95% CI 0.443 to 0.596], but greater length of stay OR: 41.143 [95% CI 30.979 to 54.642]). In patients that survived, earlier timing of tracheostomy (≤14 days post admission to critical care) was significantly associated with shorter length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomy is safe and advantageous for critical care COVID-19 patients. Early tracheostomy may be associated with better outcomes, such as shorter length of stay, compared to late tracheostomy.

Perioperative medicine.

Perioperative medicine delivers patient-centred, multidisciplinary, integrated care for patients from the contemplation of surgery throughout the surgical pathway to recovery. High-quality perioperative care reduces complications, improves outcomes, and leads to improved patient satisfaction and reduced healthcare costs. This article is based on key findings and recommendations from the Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) national report on perioperative medicine and outlines key concepts of perioperative medicine; exploring how practice can be transformed to improve care. The GIRFT report was produced using information gathered from 72 visits and 119 surveys from NHS trusts in England. It illustrates examples of exemplary perioperative care across the country but also describes variation in access to and provision of perioperative care. To address this unwarranted variation and to tackle the implementation gap, transformation of perioperative care pathways ensuring a patient-centered approach, multi-professional collaboration and widespread adoption of best practice will be required.

Delivery of elective care in the future.

The delivery of elective care needs to be reimagined to tackle the increasing demand for services that is currently outstripping the available capacity; a problem exacerbated by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This article highlights key strategies to improve the delivery of elective care combined with local and national examples of best practice. It is based on key recommendations from the Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) programme: the UK's largest healthcare quality improvement programme operating across 42 clinical specialties. GIRFT has visited every integrated care system in England over the last 12 months to discuss elective recovery and the learning from these visits is captured in this article. Rethinking the delivery of elective care, utilising advances in technology, and harnessing the power of data to identify unwarranted variation and targeted areas for improvement, will dramatically change the future delivery of elective care for the better.

Assessing antibiotic stewardship using the surgical site infection prevention bundle.

BACKGROUND:: Antibiotic prophylaxis is crucial in head and neck surgery to prevent infection from clean contaminated wounds. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidance, the gold standard of practice, recommends that administration of broad spectrum antibiotics is discontinued after 24 hours post-operation. A three-audit cycle quality improvement project was conducted to assess clinical practice against SIGN guidance at a large London teaching hospital. METHODS:: Three change initiatives were implemented to improve antibiotic stewardship. First, an update of Trust guidelines with an associated poster campaign to educate staff and improve awareness. Second, introduction of a specific 'prophylactic antibiotics in head and neck surgery' bundle on the electronic hospital-wide prescribing system. Third, an update to an antibiotic prescribing guide (Microguide). RESULTS:: Over a 3-year study period the number of patients receiving antibiotics beyond 24 hours declined significantly (88% in 2015, 76% in 2016, 25% in 2018), demonstrating improved compliance with SIGN guidelines overall. Despite this, staff documentation of indications for extended antibiotic use remains suboptimal (58% in 2016 and 44% in 2018) as does the number of specimens sent for microbiological analysis (52% in 2016 and 0% in 2018). CONCLUSIONS:: Appropriate prophylactic antibiotic prescribing can improve morbidity and mortality rates in head and neck cancer patients. Three change initiatives have been demonstrated which can help to improve prescribing compliance in line with SIGN guidance. Ongoing auditing is required to maintain the longevity of improvements made and encourage staff documentation of indications for extended antibiotic use and microbiology specimen analysis.

Changing an ingrained culture: Improving the safety of oxygen therapy at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust.

Oxygen is one of the most commonly administered drugs in UK hospitals. Our quality improvement project aimed to increase the safety of oxygen therapy at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust. We aimed to increase the rate of oxygen prescribing and increase the percentage of nurses signing appropriately for oxygen titration and administration. We hypothesised this would result in a higher percentage of patients achieving their appropriate oxygen saturations. Our project ran on several acute medical and surgical wards. We tested several interventions with a plan, do, study, act method of continuous data collection. We firstly focussed on the education of junior doctors and then the wider multi-disciplinary team with a trust-wide "safety focus". We utilised patient safety systems already in place in the hospital, such as the clinical risk register and incident reporting system. We also trialled an intervention that was successfully implemented by another group in a different trust in the UK. Oxygen prescription increased from 44.4% to 76.9% over the duration of the project. Appropriate nursing signatures increased from 26.6% to 60%. The number of patients achieving appropriate target saturations rose from 61.8% to 76.7%. The most successful interventions were the trust safety briefing and oxygen safety hangers. Our project has showed the importance of integrating new projects within safety schemes already available. Persistence and careful intervention are key to changing strongly engrained cultures in large organisations. Interventions that have proved to be successful in other trusts can be implemented to enact change.