Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Unveilling the hidden skillset: exploring non-technical skills in surgical education across spanish medical universities

Abstract Background Non-Technical Skills (NTS) are cognitive, social, and personal resource skills that are crucial in complex and high-risk environments. The aims of our research are to determine the prevalence and content of NTS in the surgical rotation teaching guides of the Medicine Degree programs in Spanish Universities, to identify the most prevalent types and subtypes of NTS, and to analyze factors associated with the prevalence of surgical NTS in Medical Schools in Spain. Methods Descriptive observational cross-sectional study involving the identification and collection of competencies outlined in the surgical rotation teaching guides of Spanish Medical Schools. Information regarding university performance was obtained from the Foundation for Knowledge and Development Ranking webpage. The “Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons” (NOTSS) system was used to classify each competency in the teaching guides as NTS (categories and elements) and technical skills. Disagreements were resolved through group consensus. Results A total of 1,846 competencies were analyzed in surgical rotations of the Medicine Degree programs across 40 Spanish Universities, with 99 competencies identified as surgical NTS, accounting for 5% of the total. The most frequently identified surgical NTS were “Decision Making” (46%), “Communication & Teamwork” (25%), and “Leadership” (19%). Additionally, several NOTSS were not identified in any institution. Public universities and those including a greater number of competencies had a higher rate of surgical NTS competencies, and we did not find a correlation between surgical NTS competencies and quality indices of University Centers. Conclusions There is a limited presence of surgical NTS in the educational plans of Spanish Universities

Reduction in inappropriate hospital use based on analysis of the causes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To reduce inappropriate admissions and stays with the application of an improvement cycle in patients admitted to a University Hospital. The secondary objective is to analyze the hospital cost saved by reducing inadequacy after the implementation of measures proposed by the group for improvement.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Pre- and post-analysis of a sample of clinical histories studied retrospectively, in which the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP) was applied to a representative hospital sample of 1350 clinical histories in two phases. In the first phase the AEP was applied retrospectively to 725 admissions and 1350 stays. The factors associated with inappropriateness were analysed together with the causes, and specific measures were implemented in a bid to reduce inappropriateness. In the second phase the AEP was reapplied to a similar group of clinical histories and the results of the two groups were compared. The cost of inappropriate stays was calculated by cost accounting. Setting: General University Hospital with 426 beds serving a population of 320,000 inhabitants in the centre of Murcia, a city in south-eastern Spain.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Inappropriate admissions were reduced significantly: 7.4% in the control group and 3.2% in the intervention group. Likewise, inappropriate stays decreased significantly from 24.6% to 10.4%. The cost of inappropriateness in the study sample fell from 147,044 euros to 66,642 euros. The causes of inappropriateness for which corrective measures were adopted were those that showed the most significant decrease.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>It is possible to reduce inadequacy by applying measures based on prior analysis of the situation in each hospital.</p