Editorial: ASA Physical Status Score: has its time passed?

No Abstrac

Survival after postoperative morbidity: a longitudinal observational cohort study

Prolonged morbidity after surgery is associated with a risk of premature death for a longer duration than perhaps is commonly thought; however, this risk falls with time. We suggest that prolonged postoperative morbidity measured in this way may be a valid indicator of the quality of surgical healthcare. Our findings reinforce the importance of research and quality improvement initiatives aimed at reducing the duration and severity of postoperative complication

Patient reported outcome of adult perioperative anaesthesia in the United Kingdom: a cross-sectional observational study

Background. Understanding the patient perspective on healthcare is central to the evaluation of quality. This study measured selected patient-reported outcomes after anaesthesia in order to identify targets for research and quality improvement. Methods. This cross-sectional observational study in UK National Health Service hospitals, recruited adults undergoing non-obstetric surgery requiring anaesthesia care over a 48 h period. Within 24 h of surgery, patients completed the Bauer questionnaire (measuring postoperative discomfort and satisfaction with anaesthesia care), and a modified Brice questionnaire to elicit symptoms suggestive of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (AAGA). Patient, procedural and pharmacological data were recorded to enable exploration of risk factors for these poor outcomes. Results. 257 hospitals in 171 NHS Trusts participated (97% of eligible organisations). Baseline characteristics were collected on 16,222 patients; 15,040 (93%) completed postoperative questionnaires. Anxiety was most frequently cited as the worst aspect of the perioperative experience. Thirty-five per cent of patients reported severe discomfort in at least one domain: thirst (18.5%; 95% CI 17.8-19.1), surgical pain (11.0%; 10.5-11.5) and drowsiness (10.1%; 9.6-10.5) were most common. Despite this, only 5% reported dissatisfaction with any aspect of anaesthesia-related care. Regional anaesthesia was associated with a reduced burden of side-effects. The incidence of reported AAGA was one in 800 general anaesthetics (0.12%) Conclusions. Anxiety and discomfort after surgery are common; despite this, satisfaction with anaesthesia care in the UK is high. The inconsistent relationship between patient-reported outcome, patient experience and patient satisfaction supports using all three of these domains to provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality of anaesthesia care

Prediction of 30-day mortality after hip fracture surgery by the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score and the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool

The care of the elderly with hip fractures and their outcomes might be improved with resources targeted by the accurate calculation of risks of mortality and morbidity. We used a multicentre national dataset to evaluate and recalibrate the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score and Surgical Outcome Risk Tool. We split 9,017 hip fracture cases from the Anaesthesia Sprint Audit of Practice into derivation and validation data sets and used logistic regression to derive new model co-efficients for death at 30 postoperative days. The area (95% CI) under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.71 (0.67 0.75) indicated acceptable discrimination by the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score and acceptable calibration fit (Hosmer–Lemeshow test), p = 0.23, with a similar discrimination by the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool, 0.70 (0.66–0.74), which was miscalibrated to the observed data, p = 0.001. We recommend that studies test these scores for patients with hip fractures in other countries. We also recommend these models are compared with case-mix adjustment tools used in the UK

Anaesthesia, surgery, and life-threatening allergic reactions: protocol and methods of the 6th National Audit Project (NAP6) of the Royal College of Anaesthetists

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia is a serious complication for patients and anaesthetists. METHODS: The Sixth National Audit Project (NAP6) of the Royal College of Anaesthetists examined the incidence, predisposing factors, management, and impact of life-threatening perioperative anaphylaxis in the UK. NAP6 included: a national survey of anaesthetists' experiences and perceptions; a national survey of allergy clinics; a registry collecting detailed reports of all Grade 3-5 perioperative anaphylaxis cases for 1 yr; and a national survey of anaesthetic workload and perioperative allergen exposure. NHS and independent sector (IS) hospitals were approached to participate. Cases were reviewed by a multi-disciplinary expert panel (anaesthetists, intensivists, allergists, immunologists, patient representatives, and stakeholders) using a structured process designed to minimise bias. Clinical management and investigation were compared with published guidelines. This paper describes detailed study methods and reports on project engagement by NHS and IS hospitals. The methodology includes a new classification of perioperative anaphylaxis and a new structured method for classifying suspected anaphylactic events including the degree of certainty with which a causal trigger agent can be attributed. RESULTS: NHS engagement was complete (100% of hospitals). Independent sector engagement was limited (13% of approached hospitals). We received >500 reports of Grade 3-5 perioperative anaphylaxis, with 266 suitable for analysis. We identified 199 definite or probable culprit agents in 192 cases. CONCLUSIONS: The methods of NAP6 were robust in identifying causative agents of anaphylaxis, and support the accompanying analytical papers

Risk assessment tools validated for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: a systematic review

Emergency laparotomies are performed commonly throughout the world, but one in six patients die within a month of surgery. Current international initiatives to reduce the considerable associated morbidity and mortality are founded upon delivering individualised perioperative care. However, while the identification of high-risk patients requires the routine assessment of individual risk, no method of doing so has been demonstrated to be practical and reliable across the commonly encountered spectrum of presentations, co-morbidities and operative procedures. A systematic review of Embase and Medline identified 20 validation studies assessing 25 risk assessment tools in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The most frequently studied general tools were APACHE II, ASA-PS and P-POSSUM. Comparative, quantitative analysis of tool performance was not feasible due to the heterogeneity of study design, poor reporting and infrequent within-study statistical comparison of tool performance. Reporting of calibration was notably absent in many prognostic tool validation studies. APACHE II demonstrated the most consistent discrimination of individual outcome across a variety of patient groups undergoing emergency laparotomy when used either preoperatively or postoperatively (area under the curve 0.76-0.98). While APACHE systems were designed for use in critical care, the ability of APACHE II to generate individual risk estimates from objective, exclusively preoperative data items may lead to better-informed shared decisions, triage and perioperative management of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Future endeavours should include the recalibration of APACHE II and P-POSSUM in contemporary cohorts, modifications to enable prediction of morbidity and assessment of the impact of adoption of these tools on clinical practice and patient outcomes

Prediction of 30-day mortality after hip fracture surgery by the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score and the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool

The care of the elderly with hip fractures and their outcomes might be improved with resources targeted by the accurate calculation of risks of mortality and morbidity. We used a multicentre national dataset to evaluate and recalibrate the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score and Surgical Outcome Risk Tool. We split 9,017 hip fracture cases from the Anaesthesia Sprint Audit of Practice into derivation and validation data sets and used logistic regression to derive new model co-efficients for death at 30 postoperative days. The area (95% CI) under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.71 (0.67 0.75) indicated acceptable discrimination by the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score and acceptable calibration fit (Hosmer–Lemeshow test), p = 0.23, with a similar discrimination by the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool, 0.70 (0.66–0.74), which was miscalibrated to the observed data, p = 0.001. We recommend that studies test these scores for patients with hip fractures in other countries. We also recommend these models are compared with case-mix adjustment tools used in the UK

Organisational factors and mortality after an emergency laparotomy: multilevel analysis of 39 903 National Emergency Laparotomy Audit patients

BACKGROUND: Studies across healthcare systems have demonstrated between-hospital variation in survival after an emergency laparotomy. We postulate that this variation can be explained by differences in perioperative process delivery, underpinning organisational structures, and associated hospital characteristics. METHODS: We performed this nationwide, registry-based, prospective cohort study using data from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit organisational and patient audit data sets. Outcome measures were all-cause 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for perioperative processes and organisational structures and characteristics by fitting multilevel logistic regression models. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 39 903 patients undergoing surgery at 185 hospitals. Controlling for case mix and clustering, a substantial proportion of between-hospital mortality variation was explained by differences in processes, infrastructure, and hospital characteristics. Perioperative care pathways [OR: 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76–0.96; and OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81–0.99] and emergency surgical units (OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.80–0.99; and OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81–0.98) were associated with reduced 30- and 90-day mortality, respectively. In contrast, infrequent consultant-delivered intraoperative care was associated with increased 30- and 90-day mortality (OR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.01–2.56; and OR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.08–2.39, respectively). Postoperative geriatric medicine review was associated with substantially lower mortality in older (≥70 yr) patients (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.29–0.42; and OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.55–0.73, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre study identified low-technology, readily implementable structures and processes that are associated with improved survival after an emergency laparotomy. Key components of pathways, perioperative medicine input, and specialist units require further investigation

Perioperative structure and process quality and safety indicators: a systematic review

Background: Clinical indicators assess healthcare structures, processes, and outcomes. While used widely, the exact number and level of scientific evidence of these indicators remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the number, type, and evidence base of clinical process and structure indicators currently available for quality and safety measurement in perioperative care. Methods: We performed a systematic review searching Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane, Google Scholar, and System for Information in Grey Literature in Europe databases for English language human studies in adults (age &gt;18) published in the past 10 years (January 2005–January 2016). We also included professional and governmental body publications and guidelines describing the development, validation, and use of structure and process indicators in perioperative care. Results: We identified 43 860 journal articles and 43 relevant indicator program publications. From these, we identified a total of 1282 clinical indicators, split into structure (36%, n=463) and process indicators (64%, n=819). The dimensions of quality most frequently addressed were effectiveness (38%, n=475) and patient safety (29%, n=363). The majority of indicators (53%, n=675) did not have a level of evidence ascribed in their literature. Patient-centred metrics accounted for the fewest published clinical indicators. Conclusions: Despite widespread use, the majority of clinical indicators are not based on a strong level of scientific evidence. There may be scope in setting standards for the development and validation process of clinical indicators. Most indicators focus on the effectiveness, safety, and efficiency of care. PROSPERO database: CRD4201501277.</p

Cancelled operations: a 7-day cohort study of planned adult inpatient surgery in 245 UK National Health Service hospitals

BACKGROUND: Cancellation of planned surgery impacts substantially on patients and health systems. This study describes the incidence and reasons for cancellation of inpatient surgery in the UK NHS. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study over 7 consecutive days in March 2017 in 245 NHS hospitals. Occurrences and reasons for previous surgical cancellations were recorded. Using multilevel logistic regression, we identified patient- and hospital-level factors associated with cancellation due to inadequate bed capacity. RESULTS: We analysed data from 14 936 patients undergoing planned surgery. A total of 1499 patients (10.0%) reported previous cancellation for the same procedure; contemporaneous hospital census data indicated that 13.9% patients attending inpatient operations were cancelled on the day of surgery. Non-clinical reasons, predominantly inadequate bed capacity, accounted for a large proportion of previous cancellations. Independent risk factors for cancellation due to inadequate bed capacity included requirement for postoperative critical care [odds ratio (OR)=2.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.12–4.02; P<0.001] and the presence of an emergency department in the treating hospital (OR=4.18; 95% CI, 2.22–7.89; P<0.001). Patients undergoing cancer surgery (OR=0.32; 95% CI, 0.22–0.46; P<0.001), obstetric procedures (OR=0.17; 95% CI, 0.08–0.32; P<0.001), and expedited surgery (OR=0.39; 95% CI, 0.27–0.56; P<0.001) were less likely to be cancelled. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients presenting for surgery have experienced a previous cancellation for the same procedure. Cancer surgery is relatively protected, but bed capacity, including postoperative critical care requirements, are significant risk factors for previous cancellations