Development and validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT).

Existing risk stratification tools have limitations and clinical experience suggests they are not used routinely. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a preoperative risk stratification tool to predict 30-day mortality after non-cardiac surgery in adults by analysis of data from the observational National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) Knowing the Risk study

Risk in Major Surgery

A qualitative systematic review was conducted to assess the performance of tools which have been validated for the prediction of morbidity and/or mortality, in heterogeneous cohorts of surgical (non-cardiac, non-neurological) patients. The Portsmouth- Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM) and the Surgical Risk Scale (SRS) were found to be the most widely validated and accurate risk stratification tools. The POSSUM, P-POSSUM and SRS were then validated in a population of patients who had major non-cardiac surgery in a metropolitan UK hospital. Their accuracy (discrimination) was compared against two novel predictors - the additive POSSUM score and the POSSUM physiology score. P-POSSUM and the additive POSSUM score predicted short-term mortality with high-moderate accuracy. The POSSUM Physiology score was moderately accurate and therefore worthy of further evaluation. Both POSSUM and P-POSSUM were poorly calibrated for this population. The relationships between perioperative risk, postoperative morbidity (measured using the Post Operative Morbidity Survey, POMS), postoperative length of hospital stay, and short-term mortality, were explored in a series of univariate analyses. There were differences in short-term mortality, and the patterns and prevalence of POMS-defined morbidity between surgical specialities. Cox Proportional Hazards Modelling, using time-dependent covariates, was undertaken to explore the independent relationship between perioperative risk, postoperative morbidity and long-term survival. POMS-defined neurological morbidity (prevalence 2.9%) was independently associated with reduced long-term survival. Prolonged postoperative morbidity, defined as the presence of POMS-defined morbidity on Day 15 post-surgery (prevalence 15.6%), conferred a relative hazard for death in the first 12 months post surgery of 3.52 (p<0.001; 95% C.I. 2.23-5.43) and for the next two years of 2.33 (p<0.001; 95% C.I. 1.56-3.50). Postoperative morbidity is a significant public health issue and poses a risk to longer-term survival; it would be an important measure of the quality of perioperative healthcare

Improvement Science in Anaesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article offers an overview of the history and features of Improvement Science in general and some of its applications to Anaesthesia in particular. RECENT FINDINGS: Improvement Science is an evolving discipline aiming to generate learning from quality improvement interventions. An increasingly common approach to improving Anaesthesia services is to employ large-scale perioperative data measurement and feedback programmes. Improvement Science offers important insights on questions such as which indicators to collect data for; how to capture that data; how it can be presented in engaging visual formats; how it could/should be fed back to frontline staff and how they can be supported in their use of data to generate improvement. SUMMARY: Data measurement and feedback systems represent opportunities for anaesthetists to work with multidisciplinary colleagues to help improve services and outcomes for surgical patients. Improvement Science can help evaluate which approaches work, and in which contexts, and is therefore of value to healthcare commissioners, providers and patients

Highlighting uncertainty in clinical risk prediction using a model of emergency laparotomy mortality risk

Clinical prediction models typically make point estimates of risk. However, values of key variables are often missing during model development or at prediction time, meaning that the point estimates mask significant uncertainty and can lead to over-confident decision making. We present a model of mortality risk in emergency laparotomy which instead presents a distribution of predicted risks, highlighting the uncertainty over the risk of death with an intuitive visualisation. We developed and validated our model using data from 127134 emergency laparotomies from patients in England and Wales during 2013–2019. We captured the uncertainty arising from missing data using multiple imputation, allowing prospective, patient-specific imputation for variables that were frequently missing. Prospective imputation allows early prognostication in patients where these variables are not yet measured, accounting for the additional uncertainty this induces. Our model showed good discrimination and calibration (95% confidence intervals: Brier score 0.071–0.078, C statistic 0.859–0.873, calibration error 0.031–0.059) on unseen data from 37 hospitals, consistently improving upon the current gold-standard model. The dispersion of the predicted risks varied significantly between patients and increased where prospective imputation occurred. We present a case study that illustrates the potential impact of uncertainty quantification on clinical decision making. Our model improves mortality risk prediction in emergency laparotomy and has the potential to inform decision-makers and assist discussions with patients and their families. Our analysis code was robustly developed and is publicly available for easy replication of our study and adaptation to predicting other outcomes

Preoperative assessment and optimisation: The key to good outcomes after the pandemic

Complications following surgery are common, predictable and often preventable. New preoperative assessment and optimisation guidance recommends clear pathways with triggers for interventions, patient involvement, shared decision making and team education, to help both patients and service efficiency

NHS 'Learning from Deaths' reports: a qualitative and quantitative document analysis of the first year of a countrywide patient safety programme

OBJECTIVES: To review how National Health Service (NHS) Secondary Care Trusts (NSCTs) are using the Learning from Deaths (LfDs) programme to learn from and prevent, potentially preventable deaths. INTRODUCTION: Potentially preventable deaths occur worldwide within healthcare organisations. In England, inconsistencies in how NSCTs reviewed, investigated and shared LfDs, resulted in the introduction of national guidance on 'LfDs' in 2017. This guidance provides a 'framework for identifying, reporting, investigating and LfDs'. Amendments to NHS Quality Account regulations, legally require NSCTs in England to report quantitative and qualitative information relating to patient deaths annually. The programme intended NSCTs would share this learning and take measurable action to prevent future deaths. METHOD: We undertook qualitative and quantitative secondary data, document analysis of all NSCTs LfDs reports within their 2017/2018 Quality Accounts (n=222). RESULTS: All statutory elements of LfDs reporting were reported by 98 out of 222 (44%) NSCTs. The percentage of deaths judged more likely than not due to problems in healthcare was between 0% and 13%. The majority of NSCTs (89%) reported lessons learnt; the most common learning theme was poor communication. 106 out of 222 NSCTs (48%) have shared or plan to share the learning within their own organisation. The majority of NSCTs (86%) reported actions taken and 47% discussed or had a plan for assessment of impact. 37 out of 222 NSCTs (17%) mentioned involvement of bereaved families. CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation in reporting demonstrates that some NSCTs have engaged fully with LfDs, while other NSCTs appear to have disengaged with the programme. This may reveal a disparity in organisational learning and patient safety culture which could result in inequity for bereaved families. Many themes identified from the LfDs reports have previously been identified by national and international reports and inquiries

NHS Hospital 'Learning from Deaths' reports: A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the first year of a countrywide patient safety programme

Introduction: Potentially preventable deaths occur worldwide within healthcare organisations. Organisational learning from incidents is essential to improve quality of care. In England, inconsistencies in how NHS secondary care trusts reviewed, investigated and shared learning from deaths, resulted in the introduction of national guidance on ‘Learning from Deaths’ (LfDs) in 2017. This guidance provides a ‘framework for identifying, reporting, investigating and learning from deaths’. Amendments to NHS Quality Account regulations, legally require NHS trusts in England to report quantitative and qualitative information relating to patient deaths annually. The programme intended trusts would share this learning and take measurable action to prevent future deaths. / Method: We undertook qualitative and quantitative secondary data analysis of all NHS secondary care trust LfDs reports within their 2017/18 Quality Accounts, to review how organisations are using the LfDs programme to learn from and prevent, potentially preventable deaths. / Results: All statutory elements of LfDs reporting were reported by 98 out of 222 (44%) trusts. The percentage of deaths judged more likely than not due to problems in healthcare was between 0% and 13%. The majority of trusts (89%) reported lessons learnt; the most common learning theme was poor communication. 106 out of 222 trusts (48%) have shared or plan to share the learning within their own organisation. The majority of trusts (86%) reported actions taken and 47% discussed or had a plan for assessment of impact. 37 out of 222 trusts (17%) mentioned involvement of bereaved families. / Conclusions: The wide variation in reporting demonstrates that some trusts have engaged fully with LfDs, while other trusts appear to have disengaged with the programme. This may reveal a disparity in organisational learning and patient safety culture which could result in inequity for bereaved families. Many themes identified from the LfD reports have previously been identified in national and international reports and inquiries. Further work is needed to strengthen the LfDs programme

Barriers and facilitators to the successful development, implementation and evaluation of care bundles in acute care in hospital: A scoping review.

Background Care bundles are small sets of evidence-based recommendations, designed to support the implementation of evidence-based best clinical practice. However, there is variation in the design and implementation of care bundles, which may impact on the fidelity of delivery and subsequently their clinical effectiveness. Methods A scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O’Malley framework to identify the literature reporting on the design, implementation and evaluation of care bundles. The Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and Ovid MEDLINE databases were searched for manuscripts published between 2001 and November 2017; hand-searching of references and citations was also undertaken. Data were initially assessed using a quality assessment tool, the Downs and Black checklist, prior to further analysis and narrative synthesis. Implementation strategies were classified using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) criteria. Results Twenty-eight thousand six hundred ninety-two publications were screened and 348 articles retrieved in full text. Ninety-nine peer-reviewed quantitative publications were included for data extraction. These consisted of one randomised crossover trial, one randomised cluster trial, one case-control study, 20 prospective cohort studies and 76 non-parallel cohort studies. Twenty-three percent of studies were classified as poor based on Downs and Black checklist, and reporting of implementation strategies lacked structure. Negative associations were found between the number of elements in a bundle and compliance (Spearman’s rho = − 0.47, non-parallel cohort and − 0.65, prospective cohort studies), and between the complexity of elements and compliance (p < 0.001, chi-squared = 23.05). Implementation strategies associated with improved compliance included evaluative and iterative approaches, development of stakeholder relationships and education and training strategies. Conclusion Care bundles with a small number of simple elements have better compliance rates. Standardised reporting of implementation strategies may help to implement care bundles into clinical practice with high fidelity. Trial Registration This review was registered on the PROSPERO database: CRD 42015029963 in December 2015

Perceptions of UK clinicians towards postoperative critical care

© 2020 The Authors. Anaesthesia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists Postoperative critical care is a finite resource that is recommended for high-risk patients. Despite national recommendations specifying that such patients should receive postoperative critical care, there is evidence that these recommendations are not universally followed. We performed a national survey aiming to better understand how patients are risk-stratified in practice; elucidate clinicians’ opinions about how patients should be selected for critical care; and determine factors which affect the actual provision of postoperative critical care. As part of the second Sprint National Anaesthesia Project, epidemiology of critical care after surgery study, we distributed a paper survey to anaesthetists, surgeons and intensivists providing peri-operative care during a single week in March 2017. We collected data on respondent characteristics, and their opinions of postoperative critical care provision, potential benefits and real-world challenges. We undertook both quantitative and qualitative analyses to interpret the responses. We received 10,383 survey responses from 237 hospitals across the UK. Consultants used a lower threshold for critical care admission than other career grades, indicating potentially more risk-averse behaviour. The majority of respondents reported that critical care provision was inadequate, and cited the value of critical care as being predominantly due to higher nurse: patient ratios. Use of objective risk assessment tools was poor, and patients were commonly selected for critical care based on procedure-specific pathways rather than individualised risk assessment. Challenges were highlighted in the delivery of peri-operative critical care services, such as an overall lack of capacity, competition for beds with non-surgical cases and poor flow through the hospital leading to bed ‘blockages’. Critical care is perceived to provide benefit to high-risk surgical patients, but there is variation in practice about the definition and determination of risk, how patients are referred and how to deal with the lack of critical care resources. Future work should focus on evaluating ‘enhanced care’ units for postoperative patients, how to better implement individualised risk assessment in practice, and how to improve patient flow through hospitals

Perioperative interventions for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence on the efficacy of perioperative interventions to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, CINHAL, and CENTRAL from January 1990 to December 2017. Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials investigating short term, protocolised medical interventions conducted before, during, or after non-cardiac surgery were included. Trials with clinical diagnostic criteria for PPC outcomes were included. Studies of surgical technique or physiological or biochemical outcomes were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis Reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of evidence. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Quality of evidence was summarised in accordance with GRADE methods. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPCs. Secondary outcomes were respiratory infection, atelectasis, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Trial sequential analysis was used to investigate the reliability and conclusiveness of available evidence. Adverse effects of interventions were not measured or compared. Results 117 trials enrolled 21 940 participants, investigating 11 categories of intervention. 95 randomised controlled trials enrolling 18 062 participants were included in meta-analysis; 22 trials were excluded from meta-analysis because the interventions were not sufficiently similar to be pooled. No high quality evidence was found for interventions to reduce the primary outcome (incidence of PPCs). Seven interventions had low or moderate quality evidence with confidence intervals indicating a probable reduction in PPCs: enhanced recovery pathways (risk ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.58), prophylactic mucolytics (0.40, 0.23 to 0.67), postoperative continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (0.49, 0.24 to 0.99), lung protective intraoperative ventilation (0.52, 0.30 to 0.88), prophylactic respiratory physiotherapy (0.55, 0.32 to 0.93), epidural analgesia (0.77, 0.65 to 0.92), and goal directed haemodynamic therapy (0.87, 0.77 to 0.98). Moderate quality evidence showed no benefit for incentive spirometry in preventing PPCs. Trial sequential analysis adjustment confidently supported a relative risk reduction of 25% in PPCs for prophylactic respiratory physiotherapy, epidural analgesia, enhanced recovery pathways, and goal directed haemodynamic therapies. Insufficient data were available to support or refute equivalent relative risk reductions for other interventions. Conclusions Predominantly low quality evidence favours multiple perioperative PPC reduction strategies. Clinicians may choose to reassess their perioperative care pathways, but the results indicate that new trials with a low risk of bias are needed to obtain conclusive evidence of efficacy for many of these interventions. Study registration Prospero CRD42016035662