Prognostic model to predict postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery based on a national prospective observational cohort study.

Background: Acute illness, existing co-morbidities and surgical stress response can all contribute to postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. The aim of this study was prospectively to develop a pragmatic prognostic model to stratify patients according to risk of developing AKI after major gastrointestinal surgery. Methods: This prospective multicentre cohort study included consecutive adults undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection, liver resection or stoma reversal in 2-week blocks over a continuous 3-month period. The primary outcome was the rate of AKI within 7 days of surgery. Bootstrap stability was used to select clinically plausible risk factors into the model. Internal model validation was carried out by bootstrap validation. Results: A total of 4544 patients were included across 173 centres in the UK and Ireland. The overall rate of AKI was 14·2 per cent (646 of 4544) and the 30-day mortality rate was 1·8 per cent (84 of 4544). Stage 1 AKI was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (unadjusted odds ratio 7·61, 95 per cent c.i. 4·49 to 12·90; P < 0·001), with increasing odds of death with each AKI stage. Six variables were selected for inclusion in the prognostic model: age, sex, ASA grade, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, planned open surgery and preoperative use of either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. Internal validation demonstrated good model discrimination (c-statistic 0·65). Discussion: Following major gastrointestinal surgery, AKI occurred in one in seven patients. This preoperative prognostic model identified patients at high risk of postoperative AKI. Validation in an independent data set is required to ensure generalizability

The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH): Protocol for a prospective longitudinal cohort study of healthcare and ancillary workers in UK healthcare settings

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality, and has devastated economies in many countries. Amongst the groups identified as being at increased risk from COVID-19 are healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups. Emerging evidence suggests HCWs from ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of adverse COVID-19-related physical and mental health outcomes. To date there has been no large-scale analysis of these risks in UK healthcare workers or ancillary workers in healthcare settings, stratified by ethnicity or occupation type, and adjusted for potential confounders. This paper reports the protocol for a prospective longitudinal questionnaire study of UK HCWs, as part of the UK-REACH programme (The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers). Methods and analysis: A baseline questionnaire with follow-up questionnaires at 4 and 8 months will be administered to a national cohort of UK healthcare workers and ancillary workers in healthcare settings, and those registered with UK healthcare regulators. With consent, data will be linked to health records, and participants followed up for 25 years. Univariate associations between ethnicity and primary outcome measures (clinical COVID-19 outcomes, and physical and mental health) and key confounders/explanatory variables will be tested, followed by multivariable analyses to test for associations between ethnicity and key outcomes adjusted for the confounder/explanatory variables, with interactions included as appropriate. Using follow-up data, multilevel models will be used to model changes over time by ethnic group, facilitating understanding of absolute and relative risks in different ethnic groups, and generalisability of findings. Ethics and dissemination: The study is approved by Health Research Authority (reference 20/HRA/4718), and carries minimal risk to participants. We aim to manage the small risk of participant distress due to being asked questions on sensitive topics by clearly indicating on the participant information sheet that the questionnaire covers sensitive topics and that participants are under no obligation to answer these, or indeed any other, questions, and by providing links to support organisations. Results will be disseminated with reports to Government and papers uploaded to pre-print servers and submitted to peer reviewed journals. Registration details Trial ID: ISRCTN11811602 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY National, UK-wide, study, aiming to capture variety of healthcare worker job roles including ancillary workers in healthcare settings. Longitudinal study including three waves of questionnaire data collection, and linkage to administrative data over 25 years, with consent. Unique support from all major UK healthcare worker regulators, relevant healthcare worker organisations, and a Professional Expert Panel to increase participant uptake and the validity of findings. Potential for self-selection bias and low response rates, and the use of electronic invitations and online data collection makes it harder to reach ancillary workers without regular access to work email addresses

The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH): protocol for a prospective longitudinal cohort study of healthcare and ancillary workers in UK healthcare settings

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality and devastated economies globally. Among groups at increased risk are healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups. Emerging evidence suggests that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of adverse COVID-19-related outcomes. To date, there has been no large-scale analysis of these risks in UK HCWs or ancillary workers in healthcare settings, stratified by ethnicity or occupation, and adjusted for confounders. This paper reports the protocol for a prospective longitudinal questionnaire study of UK HCWs, as part of the UK-REACH programme (The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers). Methods and analysis A baseline questionnaire will be administered to a national cohort of UK HCWs and ancillary workers in healthcare settings, and those registered with UK healthcare regulators, with follow-up questionnaires administered at 4 and 8 months. With consent, questionnaire data will be linked to health records with 25-year follow-up. Univariate associations between ethnicity and clinical COVID-19 outcomes, physical and mental health, and key confounders/explanatory variables will be tested. Multivariable analyses will test for associations between ethnicity and key outcomes adjusted for the confounder/explanatory variables. We will model changes over time by ethnic group, facilitating understanding of absolute and relative risks in different ethnic groups, and generalisability of findings.Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by Health Research Authority (reference 20/HRA/4718), and carries minimal risk. We aim to manage the small risk of participant distress about questions on sensitive topics by clearly participant information that the questionnaire covers sensitive topics and there is no obligation to answer these or any other questions, and by providing support organisation links. Results will be disseminated with reports to Government and papers submitted to pre-print servers and peer reviewed journals

Perceptions of anonymised data use and awareness of the NHS data opt-out amongst patients, carers and healthcare staff

Abstract Background England operates a National Data Opt-Out (NDOO) for the secondary use of confidential health data for research and planning. We hypothesised that public awareness and support for the secondary use of health data and the NDOO would vary by participant demography and healthcare experience. We explored patient/public awareness and perceptions of secondary data use, grouping potential researchers into National Health Service (NHS), academia or commercial. We assessed awareness of the NDOO system amongst patients, carers, healthcare staff and the public. We co-developed recommendations to consider when sharing unconsented health data for research. Methods A patient and public engagement program, co-created and including patient and public workshops, questionnaires and discussion groups regarding anonymised health data use. Results There were 350 participants in total. Central concerns for health data use included unauthorised data re-use, the potential for discrimination and data sharing without patient benefit. 94% of respondents were happy for their data to be used for NHS research, 85% for academic research and 68% by health companies, but less than 50% for non-healthcare companies and opinions varied with demography and participant group. Questionnaires showed that knowledge of the NDOO was low, with 32% of all respondents, 53% of all NHS staff and 29% of all patients aware of the NDOO. Recommendations to guide unconsented secondary health data use included that health data use should benefit patients; data sharing decisions should involve patients/public. That data should remain in close proximity to health services with the principles of data minimisation applied. Further, that there should be transparency in secondary health data use, including publicly available lists of projects, summaries and benefits. Finally, organisations involved in data access decisions should participate in programmes to increase knowledge of the NDOO, to ensure public members were making informed choices about their own data. Conclusion The majority of participants in this study reported that the use of healthcare data for secondary purposes was acceptable when accessed by NHS. Academic and health-focused companies. However, awareness was limited, including of the NDOO. Further development of publicly-agreed recommendations for secondary health data use may improve both awareness and confidence in secondary health data use. </jats:sec

Perceptions of anonymised data use and awareness of the NHS data opt-out amongst patients, carers and healthcare staff

AbstractIntroductionPublic awareness and support for secondary health data use may vary by health care experience and participant demographics. England provides an example of a centralised “opt out” for secondary use of anonymised health data. We explored the awareness, support for and concerns about anonymised healthcare data secondary use and the NHS data opt-out system amongst patients, carers, healthcare staff and the public within the West Midlands.MethodsA patient and public engagement program was completed, including patient and public workshops, questionnaires regarding anonymised health data use and feedback discussion groups.ResultsCentral concerns for health data use included unauthorised data re-use, the potential for discrimination and profit generation without patient benefit. Key priorities were projects leading to patient benefit, oversight by the NHS as a trusted organisation, increasing awareness of the NHS data opt-out, and ongoing public/patient involvement.Questionnaires showed 31.8% were aware of the NHS data opt-out. 93.8% were happy for their data to be used for NHS research, 84.8% for academic research and 68.4% by health companies. However, opinion varied with demographics (age, gender or public, patient, NHS staff and volunteers).Agreed action points for health data use were education regarding the National Data Opt-Out, public involvement in data requests, NHS oversight, and transparency.ConclusionUse of anonymised healthcare data for secondary purposes is acceptable to most patients, carers and healthcare workers. However, awareness is limited, and initiatives to publicise potential benefits are needed amongst patients, healthcare staff and the public.1) What is already known?The secondary use of health data without explicit consent has been widely debated. The potential benefits are clear but public groups have raised concerns, especially when anonymised data is shared with commercial entities.2) What does this paper add?Perceptions of and support for secondary health data use vary by demographic (age, gender) and experience of health services (Staff member, patient, member of the public). Knowledge of schemes to limit secondary data use (such as the UK National Data Op-Out) are low, even among NHS staff. Patient and public agreed themes to increase the acceptability of health data secondary use include education about ‘Opt-out’ schemes, health service oversight of data use (as the most trusted partner), public and patient involvement in data sharing decisions and public transparency. This framework may increase the acceptability of health data use.StrengthsMixed methods approach including workshops and questionnairesIncludes children aged 13 and over, which is important given they can ‘opt-out’ of health data use at this age using the UK’s National Data Opt-Out.Includes demographics of the diverse participants, rarely collected in most online surveysIncludes NHS Staff members, patients and current non-patients, but people with experience of NHS servicesLimitationsWest Midlands based and not nationalLimited numbers (300+ sample) preventing analysis of sub groups.Participant selection included people with experience of NHS hospital services, and therefore may not be generalisable</jats:sec

Perceptions of anonymised data use and awareness of the NHS data opt-out amongst patients, carers and healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND England operates a National Data Opt-Out (NDOO) for the secondary use of confidential health data for research and planning. We hypothesised that public awareness and support for the secondary use of health data and the NDOO would vary by participant demography and healthcare experience. We explored patient/public awareness and perceptions of secondary data use, grouping potential researchers into National Health Service (NHS), academia or commercial. We assessed awareness of the NDOO system amongst patients, carers, healthcare staff and the public. We co-developed recommendations to consider when sharing unconsented health data for research. METHODS A patient and public engagement program, co-created and including patient and public workshops, questionnaires and discussion groups regarding anonymised health data use. RESULTS There were 350 participants in total. Central concerns for health data use included unauthorised data re-use, the potential for discrimination and data sharing without patient benefit. 94% of respondents were happy for their data to be used for NHS research, 85% for academic research and 68% by health companies, but less than 50% for non-healthcare companies and opinions varied with demography and participant group. Questionnaires showed that knowledge of the NDOO was low, with 32% of all respondents, 53% of all NHS staff and 29% of all patients aware of the NDOO. Recommendations to guide unconsented secondary health data use included that health data use should benefit patients; data sharing decisions should involve patients/public. That data should remain in close proximity to health services with the principles of data minimisation applied. Further, that there should be transparency in secondary health data use, including publicly available lists of projects, summaries and benefits. Finally, organisations involved in data access decisions should participate in programmes to increase knowledge of the NDOO, to ensure public members were making informed choices about their own data. CONCLUSION The majority of participants in this study reported that the use of healthcare data for secondary purposes was acceptable when accessed by NHS. Academic and health-focused companies. However, awareness was limited, including of the NDOO. Further development of publicly-agreed recommendations for secondary health data use may improve both awareness and confidence in secondary health data use

The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH): protocol for a prospective longitudinal cohort study of healthcare and ancillary workers in UK healthcare settings

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality and devastated economies globally. Among groups at increased risk are healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups. Emerging evidence suggests that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of adverse COVID-19-related outcomes. To date, there has been no large-scale analysis of these risks in UK HCWs or ancillary workers in healthcare settings, stratified by ethnicity or occupation, and adjusted for confounders. This paper reports the protocol for a prospective longitudinal questionnaire study of UK HCWs, as part of the UK-REACH programme (The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A baseline questionnaire will be administered to a national cohort of UK HCWs and ancillary workers in healthcare settings, and those registered with UK healthcare regulators, with follow-up questionnaires administered at 4 and 8 months. With consent, questionnaire data will be linked to health records with 25-year follow-up. Univariate associations between ethnicity and clinical COVID-19 outcomes, physical and mental health, and key confounders/explanatory variables will be tested. Multivariable analyses will test for associations between ethnicity and key outcomes adjusted for the confounder/explanatory variables. We will model changes over time by ethnic group, facilitating understanding of absolute and relative risks in different ethnic groups, and generalisability of findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by Health Research Authority (reference 20/HRA/4718), and carries minimal risk. We aim to manage the small risk of participant distress about questions on sensitive topics by clearly participant information that the questionnaire covers sensitive topics and there is no obligation to answer these or any other questions, and by providing support organisation links. Results will be disseminated with reports to Government and papers submitted to pre-print servers and peer reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11811602; Pre-results

Perioperative intravenous contrast administration and the incidence of acute kidney injury after major gastrointestinal surgery: prospective, multicentre cohort study

Abstract Background This study aimed to determine the impact of preoperative exposure to intravenous contrast for CT and the risk of developing postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. Methods This prospective, multicentre cohort study included adults undergoing gastrointestinal resection, stoma reversal or liver resection. Both elective and emergency procedures were included. Preoperative exposure to intravenous contrast was defined as exposure to contrast administered for the purposes of CT up to 7 days before surgery. The primary endpoint was the rate of AKI within 7 days. Propensity score-matched models were adjusted for patient, disease and operative variables. In a sensitivity analysis, a propensity score-matched model explored the association between preoperative exposure to contrast and AKI in the first 48 h after surgery. Results A total of 5378 patients were included across 173 centres. Overall, 1249 patients (23·2 per cent) received intravenous contrast. The overall rate of AKI within 7 days of surgery was 13·4 per cent (718 of 5378). In the propensity score-matched model, preoperative exposure to contrast was not associated with AKI within 7 days (odds ratio (OR) 0·95, 95 per cent c.i. 0·73 to 1·21; P = 0·669). The sensitivity analysis showed no association between preoperative contrast administration and AKI within 48 h after operation (OR 1·09, 0·84 to 1·41; P = 0·498). Conclusion There was no association between preoperative intravenous contrast administered for CT up to 7 days before surgery and postoperative AKI. Risk of contrast-induced nephropathy should not be used as a reason to avoid contrast-enhanced CT. </jats:sec

Impact of postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery on 1-year survival and renal outcomes: a national multicentre cohort study

Abstract Background The intermediate-term impact of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients after major gastrointestinal and liver surgery has not been well characterized. This study aimed to evaluate the 1-year mortality rate and renal outcomes associated with postoperative AKI in a national prospective cohort. Methods This prospective multicentre, observational cohort with 1-year postoperative follow-up included adults undergoing major gastrointestinal and liver surgery across the UK and Ireland between 23 September and 18 November 2015. AKI was defined according to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. The primary outcome was death at 1-year after surgery, and the secondary outcome was Major Adverse Kidney Events (MAKE-365). Cox proportionate and multilevel logistic regression were used to account for case mix. Results Of 5745 patients across 173 centres, 1-year follow-up data was completed for 3504 patients (62.2 per cent, 126 centres), with attrition largely explained by centre non-participation (63.1 per cent). Some 13.6 per cent (475 of 3504) patients developed AKI by 7 days after surgery (stage 1: 9.2 per cent; stage 2/3: 4.3 per cent). At 1 year, 10.8 per cent (378 patients) experienced a MAKE-365 endpoint (303 patients had died, 61 had renal replacement therapy and 78 had renal dysfunction). Patients who experienced AKI by 7 days after surgery had a higher hazard of death at 1 year for KDIGO stage 1 (hazard ratio 1.50 (95 per cent c.i. 1.08 to 2.08), P = 0.016) and KDIGO stage 2/3 (hazard ratio 2.96 (95 per cent c.i. 2.02 to 4.33), P &amp;lt; 0.001). Both KDIGO stage 1 (odds ratio 2.09 (95 per cent c.i. 1.50 to 2.92), P &amp;lt; 0.001) and stage 2/3 (odds ratio 9.26 (95 per cent c.i. 6.31 to 13.59), P &amp;lt; 0.001) AKI were independently associated with MAKE-365. Conclusion AKI events within 7 days after gastrointestinal or liver surgery are associated with significantly worse survival and renal outcomes at 1 year. </jats:sec