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

WSES guidelines for management of Clostridium difficile infection in surgical patients

In the last two decades there have been dramatic changes in the epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), with increases in incidence and severity of disease in many countries worldwide. The incidence of CDI has also increased in surgical patients. Optimization of management of C difficile, has therefore become increasingly urgent. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts prepared evidenced-based World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for management of CDI in surgical patients.Peer reviewe

Perceptions of Community-Based Participatory Research in the Delta Nutrition Intervention Research Initiative: An Academic Perspective

Lower Mississippi Delta Nutrition Intervention Research Initiative (Delta NIRI) is an academic–community partnership between seven academic institutions and three communities in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana. A range of community-based participatory methods have been used to develop sustainable nutrition intervention strategies. Focus groups were conducted with 22 faculty and staff members from the academic partners on the project to document their perceptions of community-based participatory processes in a federally funded, multi-academic–community partnership spanning a decade. Focus groups were conducted to glean insights or lessons from the experiences of academic personnel. Focus groups were transcribed and analyzed using the constant comparative method. Two researchers analyzed each transcript independently and reached consensus on the consistent themes. Participants candidly shared their experiences of working with community members to devise research plans, implement programs, and evaluate outcomes. The majority of faculty and staff members were attracted to this project by an excitement for conducting a more egalitarian and potentially more successful type of research. Yet each academic partner voiced that there was an underlying disconnect between community practices and research procedures during the project. Additional barriers to collaboration and action, located in communities and academic institutions, were described. Academic partners stressed the importance of open and ongoing communication, collective decision-making strategies, and techniques that support power sharing between all parties involved in the project. Findings from this research can inform academic–community partnerships and hopefully improve the community-based participatory research process implemented by academic institutions and communities. © 2011, Society for Public Health Education. All rights reserved

Perceptions of Community-Based Participatory Research in the Delta Nutrition Intervention Research Initiative: An Academic Perspective

Lower Mississippi Delta Nutrition Intervention Research Initiative (Delta NIRI) is an academic–community partnership between seven academic institutions and three communities in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana. A range of community-based participatory methods have been used to develop sustainable nutrition intervention strategies. Focus groups were conducted with 22 faculty and staff members from the academic partners on the project to document their perceptions of community-based participatory processes in a federally funded, multi-academic–community partnership spanning a decade. Focus groups were conducted to glean insights or lessons from the experiences of academic personnel. Focus groups were transcribed and analyzed using the constant comparative method. Two researchers analyzed each transcript independently and reached consensus on the consistent themes. Participants candidly shared their experiences of working with community members to devise research plans, implement programs, and evaluate outcomes. The majority of faculty and staff members were attracted to this project by an excitement for conducting a more egalitarian and potentially more successful type of research. Yet each academic partner voiced that there was an underlying disconnect between community practices and research procedures during the project. Additional barriers to collaboration and action, located in communities and academic institutions, were described. Academic partners stressed the importance of open and ongoing communication, collective decision-making strategies, and techniques that support power sharing between all parties involved in the project. Findings from this research can inform academic–community partnerships and hopefully improve the community-based participatory research process implemented by academic institutions and communities