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

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

Inhaler mishandling remains common in real life and is associated with reduced disease control.

Proper inhaler technique is crucial for effective management of asthma and COPD. This multicentre, cross-sectional, observational study investigates the prevalence of inhaler mishandling in a large population of experienced patients referring to chest clinics; to analyze the variables associated with misuse and the relationship between inhaler handling and health-care resources use and disease control. We enrolled 1664 adult subjects (mean age 62 years) affected mostly by COPD (52%) and asthma (42%). Respectively, 843 and 1113 patients were using MDIs and DPIs at home; of the latter, the users of Aerolizer®, Diskus®, HandiHaler® and Turbuhaler® were 82, 467, 505 and 361. We have a total of 2288 records of inhaler technique. Critical mistakes were widely distributed among users of all the inhalers, ranging from 12% for MDIs, 35% for Diskus® and HandiHaler® and 44% for Turbuhaler®. Independently of the inhaler, we found the strongest association between inhaler misuse and older age (p = 0.008), lower schooling (p = 0.001) and lack of instruction received for inhaler technique by health caregivers (p < 0.001). Inhaler misuse was associated with increased risk of hospitalization (p = 0.001), emergency room visits (p < 0.001), courses of oral steroids (p < 0.001) and antimicrobials (p < 0.001) and poor disease control evaluated as an ACT score for the asthmatics (p < 0.0001) and the whole population (p < 0.0001). We conclude that inhaler mishandling continues to be common in experienced outpatients referring to chest clinics and associated with increased unscheduled health-care resource use and poor clinical control. Instruction by health caregivers is the only modifiable factor useful for reducing inhaler mishandling