External Vs Internal e-Referrals: Results from a Nationwide Epidemiological Study Utilizing Secondary Collected Data

Nawfal A Aljerian,1,2 Abdullah A Alharbi,3 Hani A Alghamdi,4 Meshary S Binhotan,5,6 Reem S AlOmar,7 Ali K Alsultan,1 Mohammed S Arafat,1 Abdulrahman Aldhabib,1 Mohammed K Alabdulaali1 1Medical Referrals Centre, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 2Emergency Medicine Department, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 3Family and Community Medicine Department, Jazan University, Jazan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 4Department of Family and Community Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 5Emergency Medical Services Department, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 6King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 7Department of Family and Community Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Hani A Alghamdi, Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine, King Saud University, P.O Box 12372, Riyadh, 7065, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Tel +966507022266, Email [email protected]: E-referral systems, streamlining patient access to specialists, have gained global recognition yet lacked a comparative study between internal and external referrals in Saudi Arabia (KSA).Methods: This retrospective study utilized secondary data from the Saudi Medical Appointments and Referrals Centre system. The data covers 2020 and 2021, including socio-demographic data, referral characteristics, and specialties. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess factors associated with external referrals.Results: Out of 645,425 e-referrals from more than 300 hospitals, 19.87% were external. The northern region led with 48.65%. Males were 55%, and those aged 25– 64 were 56.68% of referrals. Outpatient clinic referrals comprised 47%, while 61% of referrals were due to a lack of specialty services. Several significant determinants are associated with higher rates of external referral with (p-value < 0.001) and a 95% Confidence interval. Younger individuals under 25 exhibit higher referral rates than those aged 25– 64. Geographically, compared to the central region, in descending order, there were increasing trends of external referral in the northern, western, and southern regions, respectively (OR = 19.26, OR = 4.48, OR 3.63). External referrals for outpatient departments (OPD) and dialysis services were higher than for routine admissions (OR = 1.38, OR = 1.26). The rate of external referrals due to the lack of available equipment was more predominant than other causes. Furthermore, in descending order, external referrals for organ transplantation and oncology are more frequent than for medical specialties, respectively (OR = 9.39, OR = 4.50).Conclusion: The study reveals trends in e-referrals within the KSA, noting regional differences, demographic factors, and types of specialties regarding external referrals, benefiting the New Model of Care for the 2030 Vision. Findings suggest expanding virtual consultations to reduce external referrals. Strengthening primary care and preventive medicine could also decrease future referrals. Future studies should assess resource distribution, including infrastructure and workforce, to further inform healthcare strategy.Keywords: e-referrals, health policy, epidemiology, public healt

Pharmacologic prophylaxis for atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery: a systematic review

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia occurring after cardiac surgery. Its incidence varies depending on type of surgery. Postoperative AF may cause hemodynamic deterioration, predispose to stroke and increase mortality. Effective treatment for prophylaxis of postoperative AF is vital as reduces hospitalization and overall morbidity. Beta - blockers, have been proved to prevent effectively atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery and should be routinely used if there are no contraindications. Sotalol may be more effective than standard b-blockers for the prevention of AF without causing an excess of side effects. Amiodarone is useful when beta-blocker therapy is not possible or as additional prophylaxis in high risk patients. Other agents such as magnesium, calcium channels blocker or non-antiarrhythmic drugs as glycose-insulin - potassium, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, N-acetylcysteine and statins have been studied as alternative treatment for postoperative AF prophylaxis

Laparoscopy in management of appendicitis in high-, middle-, and low-income countries: a multicenter, prospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency worldwide. Differences between high- and low-income settings in the availability of laparoscopic appendectomy, alternative management choices, and outcomes are poorly described. The aim was to identify variation in surgical management and outcomes of appendicitis within low-, middle-, and high-Human Development Index (HDI) countries worldwide. METHODS: This is a multicenter, international prospective cohort study. Consecutive sampling of patients undergoing emergency appendectomy over 6 months was conducted. Follow-up lasted 30 days. RESULTS: 4546 patients from 52 countries underwent appendectomy (2499 high-, 1540 middle-, and 507 low-HDI groups). Surgical site infection (SSI) rates were higher in low-HDI (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.33-4.99, p = 0.005) but not middle-HDI countries (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.76-2.52, p = 0.291), compared with high-HDI countries after adjustment. A laparoscopic approach was common in high-HDI countries (1693/2499, 67.7%), but infrequent in low-HDI (41/507, 8.1%) and middle-HDI (132/1540, 8.6%) groups. After accounting for case-mix, laparoscopy was still associated with fewer overall complications (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42-0.71, p < 0.001) and SSIs (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.33, p < 0.001). In propensity-score matched groups within low-/middle-HDI countries, laparoscopy was still associated with fewer overall complications (OR 0.23 95% CI 0.11-0.44) and SSI (OR 0.21 95% CI 0.09-0.45). CONCLUSION: A laparoscopic approach is associated with better outcomes and availability appears to differ by country HDI. Despite the profound clinical, operational, and financial barriers to its widespread introduction, laparoscopy could significantly improve outcomes for patients in low-resource environments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02179112

Pooled analysis of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist use and mortality after emergency laparotomy

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist has fostered safe practice for 10 years, yet its place in emergency surgery has not been assessed on a global scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate reported checklist use in emergency settings and examine the relationship with perioperative mortality in patients who had emergency laparotomy. Methods In two multinational cohort studies, adults undergoing emergency laparotomy were compared with those having elective gastrointestinal surgery. Relationships between reported checklist use and mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression and bootstrapped simulation. Results Of 12 296 patients included from 76 countries, 4843 underwent emergency laparotomy. After adjusting for patient and disease factors, checklist use before emergency laparotomy was more common in countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) (2455 of 2741, 89.6 per cent) compared with that in countries with a middle (753 of 1242, 60.6 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95 per cent c.i. 0.14 to 0.21, P <0001) or low (363 of 860, 422 per cent; OR 008, 007 to 010, P <0.001) HDI. Checklist use was less common in elective surgery than for emergency laparotomy in high-HDI countries (risk difference -94 (95 per cent c.i. -11.9 to -6.9) per cent; P <0001), but the relationship was reversed in low-HDI countries (+121 (+7.0 to +173) per cent; P <0001). In multivariable models, checklist use was associated with a lower 30-day perioperative mortality (OR 0.60, 0.50 to 073; P <0.001). The greatest absolute benefit was seen for emergency surgery in low- and middle-HDI countries. Conclusion Checklist use in emergency laparotomy was associated with a significantly lower perioperative mortality rate. Checklist use in low-HDI countries was half that in high-HDI countries.Peer reviewe

Erratum to: 36th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1208-6.]

Global variation in anastomosis and end colostomy formation following left-sided colorectal resection

Background End colostomy rates following colorectal resection vary across institutions in high-income settings, being influenced by patient, disease, surgeon and system factors. This study aimed to assess global variation in end colostomy rates after left-sided colorectal resection. Methods This study comprised an analysis of GlobalSurg-1 and -2 international, prospective, observational cohort studies (2014, 2016), including consecutive adult patients undergoing elective or emergency left-sided colorectal resection within discrete 2-week windows. Countries were grouped into high-, middle- and low-income tertiles according to the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). Factors associated with colostomy formation versus primary anastomosis were explored using a multilevel, multivariable logistic regression model. Results In total, 1635 patients from 242 hospitals in 57 countries undergoing left-sided colorectal resection were included: 113 (6·9 per cent) from low-HDI, 254 (15·5 per cent) from middle-HDI and 1268 (77·6 per cent) from high-HDI countries. There was a higher proportion of patients with perforated disease (57·5, 40·9 and 35·4 per cent; P < 0·001) and subsequent use of end colostomy (52·2, 24·8 and 18·9 per cent; P < 0·001) in low- compared with middle- and high-HDI settings. The association with colostomy use in low-HDI settings persisted (odds ratio (OR) 3·20, 95 per cent c.i. 1·35 to 7·57; P = 0·008) after risk adjustment for malignant disease (OR 2·34, 1·65 to 3·32; P < 0·001), emergency surgery (OR 4·08, 2·73 to 6·10; P < 0·001), time to operation at least 48 h (OR 1·99, 1·28 to 3·09; P = 0·002) and disease perforation (OR 4·00, 2·81 to 5·69; P < 0·001). Conclusion Global differences existed in the proportion of patients receiving end stomas after left-sided colorectal resection based on income, which went beyond case mix alone