Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. Methods: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. Findings: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96–1·28). Interpretation: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. METHODS: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. FINDINGS: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28). INTERPRETATION: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Comparison of ultrasound, digital, and conventional radiography in differentiating periapical lesions: An in vivo study

Aims and Objectives: To evaluate in vivo the efficacy of ultrasound, digital and conventional radiography in identifying periapical lesions. To compare the results of the above imaging modalities with histopathology, which is considered to be the gold standard for diagnosis. Materials and Methods: Thirty patients aged between 15 and 45 years with periapical lesions associated with maxillary or mandibular anterior teeth indicated for endodontic surgery or extraction were selected for the study. Pre-operatively, conventional, digital periapical radiography and ultrasonography were done and interpreted. Endodontic surgery or extraction was performed including curettage of apical tissue to enable histopathological investigation, which provided the gold standard diagnosis. All measurements and findings were compared and statistically analyzed. Results: In conventional and digital radiography, the periapical lesions were readily identified but observers were unable to differentiate granuloma from cyst using these modalities only. But ultrasonography was able to give the true nature of the periapical pathology. All the cases diagnosed by ultrasound were confirmed with histopathology, and maximal number of cases diagnosed by ultrasound correlated with the histopathological diagnosis. Conclusion: The present study confirms that ultrasound is a promising and reliable imaging technique for differentiating periapical lesions i.e., periapical cysts and granulomas. Based on the echo texture of their contents and the presence of vascularity using color Doppler, periapical cyst and granulomas can be readily identified. The present study is further applicable for the evaluation of periapical lesions of the posterior teeth and evaluation of other jaw lesions

Antimicrobial-Resistant Pathogens in Intensive Care Units in Canada: Results of the Canadian National Intensive Care Unit (CAN-ICU) Study, 2005-2006▿

Between 1 September 2005 and 30 June 2006, 19 medical centers collected 4,180 isolates recovered from clinical specimens from patients in intensive care units (ICUs) in Canada. The 4,180 isolates were collected from 2,292 respiratory specimens (54.8%), 738 blood specimens (17.7%), 581 wound/tissue specimens (13.9%), and 569 urinary specimens (13.6%). The 10 most common organisms isolated from 79.5% of all clinical specimens were methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) (16.4%), Escherichia coli (12.8%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (10.0%), Haemophilus influenzae (7.9%), coagulase-negative staphylococci/Staphylococcus epidermidis (6.5%), Enterococcus spp. (6.1%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (5.8%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (5.8%), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (4.7%), and Enterobacter cloacae (3.9%). MRSA made up 22.3% (197/884) of all S. aureus isolates (90.9% of MRSA were health care-associated MRSA, and 9.1% were community-associated MRSA), while vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) made up 6.7% (11/255) of all enterococcal isolates (88.2% of VRE had the vanA genotype). Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae occurred in 3.5% (19/536) and 1.8% (4/224) of isolates, respectively. All 19 ESBL-producing E. coli isolates were PCR positive for CTX-M, with blaCTX-M-15 occurring in 74% (14/19) of isolates. For MRSA, no resistance against daptomycin, linezolid, tigecycline, and vancomycin was observed, while the resistance rates to other agents were as follows: clarithromycin, 89.9%; clindamycin, 76.1%; fluoroquinolones, 90.1 to 91.8%; and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, 11.7%. For E. coli, no resistance to amikacin, meropenem, and tigecycline was observed, while resistance rates to other agents were as follows: cefazolin, 20.1%; cefepime, 0.7%; ceftriaxone, 3.7%; gentamicin, 3.0%; fluoroquinolones, 21.1%; piperacillin-tazobactam, 1.9%; and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, 24.8%. Resistance rates for P. aeruginosa were as follows: amikacin, 2.6%; cefepime, 10.2%; gentamicin, 15.2%; fluoroquinolones, 23.8 to 25.5%; meropenem, 13.6%; and piperacillin-tazobactam, 9.3%. A multidrug-resistant (MDR) phenotype (resistance to three or more of the following drugs: cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam, meropenem, amikacin or gentamicin, and ciprofloxacin) occurred frequently in P. aeruginosa (12.6%) but uncommonly in E. coli (0.2%), E. cloacae (0.6%), or K. pneumoniae (0%). In conclusion, S. aureus (MSSA and MRSA), E. coli, P. aeruginosa, H. influenzae, Enterococcus spp., S. pneumoniae, and K. pneumoniae are the most common isolates recovered from clinical specimens in Canadian ICUs. A MDR phenotype is common for P. aeruginosa isolates in Canadian ICUs

Abstracts of International Conference on Innovations in Business Management

This book contains abstracts of the various research ideas of the academic community and practitioners of management presented at the International Conference on Innovations in Business Management (ICIBM 2020). The researchers have contributed toward various themes of the conference such as sustainable economy, supply chain, women-empowerment, export-import, microfinance, government policies, etc. We strongly believe that it will open up further scope for in-depth research in various disciplines of business management. Best wishes to the participants to have detailed discussions on the above-said wide range of areas. Conference Title: International Conference on Innovations in Business ManagementConference Acronym: ICIBM 2020Conference Date: 16-17 January 2020Conference Location: ICFAI University, Dehradun, IndiaConference Organizers: ICFAI Business School, ICFAI University, Dehradun, India & University of Derby, United Kingdo