An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS (R)) principles across colorectal units in 2019-2020

Aim The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS (R)) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units. Method An online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019-2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 ('rarely') to 4 ('always'). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted. Results Of hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they 'most often' or 'always' adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from 'rarely' to 'always' in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017. Conclusions Uptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation

How to set up and manage a trainee-led research collaborative

BACKGROUND: Ensuring that doctors in training acquire sufficient knowledge, experience and understanding of medical research is a universal and longstanding issue which has been brought into sharper focus by the growth of evidence based medicine. All healthcare systems preparing doctors in training for practice have to balance the acquisition of specific clinical attitudes, knowledge and skills with the wider need to ensure doctors are equipped to remain professionally competent as medical science advances. Most professional medical bodies acknowledge that this requires trainee doctors to experience some form of research education, not only in order to carry out original research, but to acquire sufficient academic skills to become accomplished research consumers in order to remain informed throughout their professional practice. There are many barriers to accomplishing this ambitious aim. DISCUSSION: This article briefly explains why research collaboratives are necessary, describes how to establish a collaborative, and recommends how to run one. It is based on the experiences of the pioneering West Midlands Research Collaborative and draws on the wider literature about the organisation and delivery of high quality research projects. Practical examples of collaborative projects are given to illustrate the potential of this form of research organisation. SUMMARY: The new trainee-led research collaboratives provide a supportive framework for planning, ownership and delivery of high quality multicentre research. This ensures clinical relevance, increases the chances of research findings being translated into changes in practice and should lead to improved patient outcomes. Research collaboratives also enhance the research skills and extend the scientific horizons of doctors in training

The cost-effectiveness of wound-edge protection devices compared to standard care in reducing surgical site infection after laparotomy: an economic evaluation alongside the ROSSINI trial.

BACKGROUND: Wound-edge protection devices (WEPDs) have been used in surgery for more than 40 years to reduce surgical site infection (SSI). No economic evaluation of WEPDs against any comparator has ever been conducted. The aim of the paper was to assess whether WEPDs are cost-effective in reducing SSI compared to standard care alone in the United Kingdom. METHODS AND FINDINGS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside the ROSSINI trial. The study perspective was that of the UK National Health Service and the time horizon was 30 days post-operatively. The study was conducted in 21 UK hospitals. 760 patients undergoing laparotomy were randomised to either WEPD or standard care and 735 were included in the primary analysis. The main economic outcome was cost-effectiveness based on incremental cost (£) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Patients in the WEPD arm accessed health care worth £5,420 on average and gained 0.02131 QALYs, compared to £5,130 and 0.02133 QALYs gained in the standard care arm. The WEPD strategy was more costly and equally effective compared to standard care, but there was significant uncertainty around incremental costs and QALYs. The findings were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to suggest that WEPDs can be considered a cost effective device to reduce SSI. Their continued use is a waste of limited health care resources

A pilot observational study measuring acute sarcopenia in older colorectal surgery patients

Abstract Objective To explore variability in acute changes in muscle mass and function in older patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, as well as feasibility of measures, in order to refine study processes to inform the protocol for a larger study. Results Results are presented for seven participants recruited to this pilot study. It is possible to perform serial measurements of bilateral anterior thigh thickness (BATT) and handgrip strength prior to, within 24 h of surgery, and 1 week postoperatively. Gait speed can be reliably measured preoperatively and at 1 week postoperatively. In this pilot study, BATT and gait speed declined at 1 week postoperatively (median BATT 4.17 cm, 3.47 cm, p = 0.028; median gait speed 0.89 m/s, 0.83 m/s, p = 0.043). Baseline hsCRP correlated with change in BATT (τb = 0.73, p = 0.04) and baseline DHEA-S correlated with change in gait speed (τb = 0.87, p = 0.02). This pilot study has assisted to refine the protocol for our larger study, which will further characterise these changes

Clinical statistical analysis plan for the ACCURE trial:the effect of appendectomy on the clinical course of ulcerative colitis, a randomised international multicentre trial

Background: The primary treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) is medical therapy using a standard step-up approach. An appendectomy might modulate the clinical course of UC, decreasing the incidence of relapses and reducing need for medication. The objective of the ACCURE trial is to assess the efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy in addition to standard medical treatment in maintaining remission in UC patients. This article presents the statistical analysis plan to evaluate the outcomes of the ACCURE trial. Design and methods: The ACCURE trial was designed as a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. UC patients with a new diagnosis or a disease relapse within the past 12 months, treated with 5-ASA, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators until complete clinical and endoscopic remission (defined as total Mayo score < 3 with endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1), were counselled for inclusion. Also, patients previously treated with biologicals who had a washout period of at least 3 months were considered for inclusion. Patients were randomised (1:1) to laparoscopic appendectomy plus maintenance treatment or a control group (maintenance therapy only). The primary outcome is the 1-year UC relapse rate (defined as a total Mayo-score ≥ 5 with endoscopic subscore of 2 or 3, or clinically as an exacerbation of symptoms and rectal bleeding or FCP > 150 or intensified medical therapy other than 5-ASA therapy). Secondary outcomes include number of relapses per patient, time to first relapse, disease activity, number of colectomies, medication usage, and health-related quality of life. Discussion: The ACCURE trial will provide comprehensive evidence whether adding an appendectomy to maintenance treatment is superior to maintenance treatment only in maintaining remission in UC patients. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register (NTR) NTR2883. Registered May 3, 2011. ISRCTN, ISRCTN60945764. Registered August 12, 2019

How can frontline expertise and new models of care best contribute to safely reducing avoidable acute admissions? A mixed-methods study of four acute hospitals

Background: Hospital emergency admissions have risen annually, exacerbating pressures on emergency departments (EDs) and acute medical units. These pressures have an adverse impact on patient experience and potentially lead to suboptimal clinical decision-making. In response, a variety of innovations have been developed, but whether or not these reduce inappropriate admissions or improve patient and clinician experience is largely unknown. Aims: To investigate the interplay of service factors influencing decision-making about emergency admissions, and to understand how the medical assessment process is experienced by patients, carers and practitioners. Methods: The project used a multiple case study design for a mixed-methods analysis of decision-making about admissions in four acute hospitals. The primary research comprised two parts: value stream mapping to measure time spent by practitioners on key activities in 108 patient pathways, including an embedded study of cost; and an ethnographic study incorporating data from 65 patients, 30 carers and 282 practitioners of different specialties and levels. Additional data were collected through a clinical panel, learning sets, stakeholder workshops, reading groups and review of site data and documentation. We used a realist synthesis approach to integrate findings from all sources. Findings: Patients’ experiences of emergency care were positive and they often did not raise concerns, whereas carers were more vocal. Staff’s focus on patient flow sometimes limited time for basic care, optimal communication and shared decision-making. Practitioners admitted or discharged few patients during the first hour, but decision-making increased rapidly towards the 4-hour target. Overall, patients’ journey times were similar, although waiting before being seen, for tests or after admission decisions, varied considerably. The meaning of what constituted an ‘admission’ varied across sites and sometimes within a site. Medical and social complexity, targets and ‘bed pressure’, patient safety and risk, each influenced admission/discharge decision-making. Each site responded to these pressures with different initiatives designed to expedite appropriate decision-making. New ways of using hospital ‘space’ were identified. Clinical decision units and observation wards allow potentially dischargeable patients with medical and/or social complexity to be ‘off the clock’, allowing time for tests, observation or safe discharge. New teams supported admission avoidance: an acute general practitioner service filtered patients prior to arrival; discharge teams linked with community services; specialist teams for the elderly facilitated outpatient treatment. Senior doctors had a range of roles: evaluating complex patients, advising and training juniors, and overseeing ED activity. Conclusions: This research shows how hospitals under pressure manage complexity, safety and risk in emergency care by developing ‘ground-up’ initiatives that facilitate timely, appropriate and safe decision-making, and alternative care pathways for lower-risk, ambulatory patients. New teams and ‘off the clock’ spaces contribute to safely reducing avoidable admissions; frontline expertise brings value not only by placing senior experienced practitioners at the front door of EDs, but also by using seniors in advisory roles. Although the principal limitation of this research is its observational design, so that causation cannot be inferred, its strength is hypothesis generation. Further research should test whether or not the service and care innovations identified here can improve patient experience of acute care and safely reduce avoidable admissions. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (project number 10/1010/06). This research was supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula

Not all waits are equal: An investigation of emergency care patient pathway.

Abstract Background: Increasing pressure in the United Kingdom (UK) urgent care system has led to Emergency Departments (EDs) failing to meet the national requirement that 95% of patients are admitted, discharged or transferred within 4-h of arrival. Despite the target being the same for all acute hospitals, individual Trusts organise their services in different ways. The impact of this variation on patient journey time and waiting is unknown. Our study aimed to apply the Lean technique of Value Stream Mapping (VSM) to investigate care processes and delays in patient journeys at four contrasting hospitals. Methods: VSM timing data were collected for patients accessing acute care at four hospitals in South West England. Data were categorised according to waits and activities, which were compared across sites to identify variations in practice from the patient viewpoint. We included Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) to fully interpret our findings; observations and initial findings were considered in a PPI workshop. Results: One hundred eight patients were recruited, comprising 25,432 min of patient time containing 4098 episodes of care or waiting. The median patient journey was 223 min (3 h, 43 min); just within the 4-h target. Although total patient journey times were similar between sites, the stage where the greatest proportion of waiting occurred varied. Reasons for waiting were dominated by waits for beds, investigations or results to be available. From our sample we observed that EDs without a discharge/clinical decision area exhibited a greater proportion of waiting time following an admission or discharge decision. PPI interpretation indicated that patients who experience waits at the beginning of their journey feel more anxious because they are ‘not in the system yet’. Conclusions: The novel application of VSM analysis across different hospitals, coupled with PPI interpretation, provides important insight into the impact of care provision on patient experience. Measures that could reduce patient waiting include automatic notification of test results, and the option of discharge/clinical decision areas for patients awaiting results or departure. To enhance patient experience, good communication with patients and relatives about reasons for waits is essential. Keywords: Health service research, Acute care, Emergency admissions, Patient care, Value stream mapping, Emergency department, Patient public involvemen

Impact of wound edge protection devices on surgical site infection after laparotomy: multicentre randomised controlled trial (ROSSINI Trial).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness of wound edge protection devices in reducing surgical site infection after abdominal surgery. DESIGN: Multicentre observer blinded randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing laparotomy at 21 UK hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: Standard care or the use of a wound edge protection device during surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgical site infection within 30 days of surgery, assessed by blinded clinicians at seven and 30 days and by patient's self report for the intervening period. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, duration of stay in hospital, and the effect of characteristics of the patient and operation on the efficacy of the device. RESULTS: 760 patients were enrolled with 382 patients assigned to the device group and 378 to the control group. Six patients in the device group and five in the control group did not undergo laparotomy. Fourteen patients, seven in each group, were lost to follow-up. A total of 184 patients experienced surgical site infection within 30 days of surgery, 91/369 (24.7%) in the device group and 93/366 (25.4%) in the control group (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.36; P=0.85). This lack of benefit was consistent across wound assessments performed by clinicians and those reported by patients and across all secondary outcomes. In the secondary analyses no subgroup could be identified in which there was evidence of clinical benefit associated with use of the device. CONCLUSIONS: Wound edge protection devices do not reduce the rate of surgical site infection in patients undergoing laparotomy, and therefore their routine use for this role cannot be recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 40402832