Will the COVID-19 pandemic transform infection prevention and control in surgery? Seeking leverage points for organizational learning

Abstract Background In response to the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, healthcare systems worldwide have stepped up their infection prevention and control efforts in order to reduce the spread of the infection. Behaviours, such as hand hygiene, screening and cohorting of patients, and the appropriate use of antibiotics have long been recommended in surgery, but their implementation has often been patchy. Methods The current crisis presents an opportunity to learn about how to improve infection prevention and control and surveillance (IPCS) behaviours. The improvements made were mainly informal, quick and stemming from the frontline rather than originating from formal organizational structures. The adaptations made and the expertise acquired have the potential for triggering deeper learning and to create enduring improvements in the routine identification and management of infections relating to surgery. Results This paper aims to illustrate how adopting a human factors and ergonomics perspective can provide insights into how clinical work systems have been adapted and reconfigured in order to keep patients and staff safe. Conclusion For achieving sustainable change in IPCS practices in surgery during COVID-19 and beyond we need to enhance organizational learning potentials

The Operative management in Bariatric Acute abdomen (OBA) Survey: long-term complications of bariatric surgery and the emergency surgeon\u27s point of view.

Background: The number of bariatric procedures is increasing worldwide. No consensus or guidelines about the emergency management of long-term complications following bariatric surgery are currently available. The aim of this study is to investigate by a web survey how an emergency surgeon approaches this unique group of patients in an emergency medical scenario and to report their personal experience. Method: An international web survey was sent to 197 emergency surgeons with the aim to collect data about emergency surgeons\u27 experience in the management of patients admitted in the emergency department for acute abdominal pain after bariatric surgery. The survey was conceived as a questionnaire composed by 26 (multiple choice and open) questions and approved by a steering committee. Results: One hundred seventeen international emergency surgeons decided to join the project and answered to the web survey with a response rate of 59.39%. Conclusions: The aim of this WSES web survey was to highlight the current management of patients previously submitted to bariatric surgical procedures by ES.Emergency surgeons must be mindful of postoperative bariatric surgery complications. CT scan with oral intestinal opacification may be useful in making a diagnosis if carefully interpreted by the radiologist and the surgeon.In case of inconclusive clinical and radiological findings, when symptoms fail to improve, surgical exploration for bariatric patients presenting acute abdominal pain, by laparoscopy if expertise is available, is mandatory in the first 12-24 h, to have good outcomes and decrease morbidity rate

Antibiotic De-Escalation in Emergency General Surgery

Background. Antibiotic treatment in emergency general surgery (EGS) is a major challenge for surgeons, and a multidisciplinary approach is necessary in order to improve outcomes. Intra-abdominal infections are at high risk of increased morbidity and mortality, and prolonged hospitalization. An increase in multi-drug resistance bacterial infections and a tendency to an antibiotic overuse has been described in surgical settings. In this clinical scenario, antibiotic de-escalation (ADE) is emerging as a strategy to improve the management of antibiotic therapy. The objective of this article is to summarize the available evidence, current strategies and unsolved problems for the optimization of ADE in EGS. Methods. A literature search was performed on PubMed and Cochrane using “de-escalation”, “antibiotic therapy” and “antibiotic treatment” as research terms. Results. There is no universally accepted definition for ADE. Current evidence shows that ADE is a feasible strategy in the EGS setting, with the ability to optimize antibiotic use, to reduce hospitalization and health care costs, without compromising clinical outcome. Many studies focus on Intensive Care Unit patients, and a call for further studies is required in the EGS community. Current guidelines already recommend ADE when surgery for uncomplicated appendicitis and cholecystitis reaches a complete source control. Conclusions. ADE in an effective and feasible strategy in EGS patients, in order to optimize antibiotic management without compromising clinical outcomes. A collaborative effort between surgeons, intensivists and infectious disease specialists is mandatory. There is a strong need for further studies selectively focusing in the EGS ward setting

Sepsis Team Organizational Model to Decrease Mortality for Intra-Abdominal Infections: Is Antibiotic Stewardship Enough?

Introduction. Sepsis is an overwhelming reaction to infection with significant morbidity, requiring urgent interventions in order to improve outcomes. The 2016 Sepsis-3 guidelines modified the previous definitions of sepsis and septic shock, and proposed some specific diagnostic and therapeutic measures to define the use of fluid resuscitation and antibiotics. However, some open issues still exist. Methods. A literature research was performed on PubMed and Cochrane using the terms “sepsis” AND “intra-abdominal infections” AND (“antibiotic therapy” OR “antibiotic treatment”). The inclusion criteria were management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) and effects of antibiotic stewardships programs (ASP) on the outcome of the patients. Discussion. Sepsis-3 definitions represent an added value in the understanding of sepsis mechanisms and in the management of the disease. However, some questions are still open, such as the need for an early identification of sepsis. Sepsis management in the context of IAI is particularly challenging and a prompt diagnosis is essential in order to perform a quick treatment (source control and antibiotic treatment). Antibiotic empirical therapy should be based on the kind of infection (community or hospital acquired), local resistances, and patient’s characteristic and comorbidities, and should be adjusted or de-escalated as soon as microbiological information is available. Antibiotic Stewardship Programs (ASP) have demonstrated to improve antimicrobial utilization with reduction of infections, emergence of multi-drug resistant bacteria, and costs. Surgeons should not be alone in the management of IAI but ideally inserted in a sepsis team together with anaesthesiologists, medical physicians, pharmacists, and infectious diseases specialists, meeting periodically to reassess the response to the treatment. Conclusion. The cornerstones of sepsis management are accurate diagnosis, early resuscitation, effective source control, and timely initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Current evidence shows that optimizing antibiotic use across surgical specialities is imperative to improve outcomes. Ideally every hospital and every emergency surgery department should aim to provide a sepsis team in order to manage IAI

Getting the invite list right: A discussion of sepsis severity scoring systems in severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis and randomized trial inclusion criteria

Background: Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) is a worldwide challenge with increasing incidence. Open abdomen management with enhanced clearance of fluid and biomediators from the peritoneum is a potential therapy requiring prospective evaluation. Given the complexity of powering multi-center trials, it is essential to recruit an inception cohort sick enough to benefit from the intervention; otherwise, no effect of a potentially beneficial therapy may be apparent. An evaluation of abilities of recognized predictive systems to recognize SCIAS patients was conducted using an existing intra-abdominal sepsis (IAS) database. Methods: All consecutive adult patients with a diffuse secondary peritonitis between 2012 and 2013 were collected from a quaternary care hospital in Finland, excluding appendicitis/cholecystitis. From this retrospectively collected database, a target population (93) of those with either ICU admission or mortality were selected. The performance metrics of the Third Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock based on both SOFA and quick SOFA, the World Society of Emergency Surgery Sepsis Severity Score (WSESSSS), the APACHE II score, Manheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), and the Calgary Predisposition, Infection, Response, and Organ dysfunction (CPIRO) score were all tested for their discriminant ability to identify this subgroup with SCIAS and to predict mortality. Results: Predictive systems with an area under-the-receiving-operating characteristic (AUC) curve > 0.8 included SOFA, Sepsis-3 definitions, APACHE II, WSESSSS, and CPIRO scores with the overall best for CPIRO. The highest identification rates were SOFA score 65 2 (78.4%), followed by the WSESSSS score 65 8 (73.1%), SOFA 65 3 (75.2%), and APACHE II 65 14 (68.8%) identification. Combining the Sepsis-3 septic-shock definition and WSESSS 65 8 increased detection to 80%. Including CPIRO score 65 3 increased this to 82.8% (Sensitivity-SN; 83% Specificity-SP; 74%. Comparatively, SOFA 65 4 and WSESSSS 65 8 with or without septic-shock had 83.9% detection (SN; 84%, SP; 75%, 25% mortality). Conclusions: No one scoring system behaves perfectly, and all are largely dominated by organ dysfunction. Utilizing combinations of SOFA, CPIRO, and WSESSSS scores in addition to the Sepsis-3 septic shock definition appears to offer the widest "inclusion-criteria" to recognize patients with a high chance of mortality and ICU admission

The Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery: defining a model for antimicrobial stewardship—results from an international cross-sectional survey

Background: Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs) have been promoted to optimize antimicrobial usage and patient outcomes, and to reduce the emergence of antimicrobial-resistant organisms. However, the best strategies for an ASP are not definitively established and are likely to vary based on local culture, policy, and routine clinical practice, and probably limited resources in middle-income countries. The aim of this study is to evaluate structures and resources of antimicrobial stewardship teams (ASTs) in surgical departments from different regions of the world. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted in 2016 on 173 physicians who participated in the AGORA (Antimicrobials: A Global Alliance for Optimizing their Rational Use in Intra-Abdominal Infections) project and on 658 international experts in the fields of ASPs, infection control, and infections in surgery. Results: The response rate was 19.4%. One hundred fifty-six (98.7%) participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary AST. The median number of physicians working inside the team was five [interquartile range 4–6]. An infectious disease specialist, a microbiologist and an infection control specialist were, respectively, present in 80.1, 76.3, and 67.9% of the ASTs. A surgeon was a component in 59.0% of cases and was significantly more likely to be present in university hospitals (89.5%, p < 0.05) compared to community teaching (83.3%) and community hospitals (66.7%). Protocols for pre-operative prophylaxis and for antimicrobial treatment of surgical infections were respectively implemented in 96.2 and 82.3% of the hospitals. The majority of the surgical departments implemented both persuasive and restrictive interventions (72.8%). The most common types of interventions in surgical departments were dissemination of educational materials (62.5%), expert approval (61.0%), audit and feedback (55.1%), educational outreach (53.7%), and compulsory order forms (51.5%). Conclusion: The survey showed a heterogeneous organization of ASPs worldwide, demonstrating the necessity of a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach in the battle against antimicrobial resistance in surgical infections, and the importance of educational efforts towards this goal

WSES classification and guidelines for liver trauma

The severity of liver injuries has been universally classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grading scale. In determining the optimal treatment strategy, however, the haemodynamic status and associated injuries should be considered. Thus the management of liver trauma is ultimately based on the anatomy of the injury and the physiology of the patient. This paper presents the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) classification of liver trauma and the management Guidelines

T.E.A. Study: three-day ertapenem versus three-day Ampicillin-Sulbactam.

Background: Intra-abdominal infections are one of the most common infections encountered by a general surgeon. However, despite this prevalence, standardized guidelines outlining the proper use of antibiotic therapy are poorly defined due to a lack of clinical trials investigating the ideal duration of antibiotic treatment. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of a three-day treatment regimen of Ampicillin-Sulbactam to that of a three-day regimen of Ertapenem in patients with localized peritonitis ranging from mild to moderate severity. Methods: This study is a prospective, multi-center, randomized investigation performed in the Department of General, Emergency, and Transplant Surgery of St. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital in Bologna, Italy. Discrete data were analyzed using the Chi-squared and Fisher exact tests. Differences between the two study groups were considered statistically significant for p-values less than 0.05. Results: 71 patients were treated with Ertapenem and 71 patients were treated with Ampicillin-Sulbactam. The two groups were comparable in terms of age and gender as well as the site of abdominal infection. Post-operative infection was identified in 12 patients: 10 with wound infections and 2 with intra-abdominal infections. In the Ertapenem group, 69 of the 71 patients (97%) were treated successfully, while the therapy failed in 2 cases (3%). Therapy failures were more frequent in the Unasyn group, amounting to 10 of 71 cases (p = 0.03). Conclusion: According to these preliminary findings, the authors conclude that a three-day Ertapenem treatment regimen is the most effective antibiotic therapy for patients with localized intra-abdominal infections ranging from mild to moderate severity