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

Academic requirements for Certificate of Completion of Training in surgical training: Consensus recommendations from the Association of Surgeons in Training/National Research Collaborative Consensus Group

Background Surgical trainees are expected to demonstrate academic achievement in order to obtain their certificate of completion of training (CCT). These standards are set by the Joint Committee on Surgical Training (JCST) and specialty advisory committees (SAC). The standards are not equivalent across all surgical specialties and recognise different achievements as evidence. They do not recognise changes in models of research and focus on outcomes rather than process. The Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) and National Research Collaborative (NRC) set out to develop progressive, consistent and flexible evidence set for academic requirements at CCT. Methods A modified-Delphi approach was used. An expert group consisting of representatives from the ASiT and the NRC undertook iterative review of a document proposing changes to requirements. This was circulated amongst wider stakeholders. After ten iterations, an open meeting was held to discuss these proposals. Voting on statements was performed using a 5-point Likert Scale. Each statement was voted on twice, with ≥80% of votes in agreement meaning the statement was approved. The results of this vote were used to propose core and optional academic requirements for CCT. Results Online discussion concluded after ten rounds. At the consensus meeting, statements were voted on by 25 delegates from across surgical specialties and training-grades. The group strongly favoured acquisition of ‘Good Clinical Practice’ training and research methodology training as CCT requirements. The group agreed that higher degrees, publications in any author position (including collaborative authorship), recruiting patients to a study or multicentre audit and presentation at a national or international meeting could be used as evidence for the purpose of CCT. The group agreed on two essential ‘core’ requirements (GCP and methodology training) and two of a menu of four ‘additional’ requirements (publication with any authorship position, presentation, recruitment of patients to a multicentre study and completion of a higher degree), which should be completed in order to attain CCT. Conclusion This approach has engaged stakeholders to produce a progressive set of academic requirements for CCT, which are applicable across surgical specialties. Flexibility in requirements whilst retaining a high standard of evidence is desirable