The impact of delaying surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed health care systems, leading many jurisdictions to reduce surgeries to create capacity (beds and staff) to care for the surge of patients with COVID-19; little is known about the impact of this on patients whose surgery was delayed. The objective of this study was to understand the patient and family/caregiver perspective of having a surgery delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Using an interpretative descriptive approach, we conducted interviews between Sept. 20 and Oct. 8, 2021. Adult patients who had their surgery delayed or cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta, Canada, and their family/caregivers were eligible to participate. Trained interviewers conducted semistructured interviews, which were iteratively analyzed by 2 independent reviewers using an inductive approach to thematic content analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 16 interviews with 15 patients and 1 family member/caregiver, ranging from 27 to 75 years of age, with a variety of surgical procedures delayed. We identified 4 interconnected themes: individual-level impacts on physical and mental health, family and friends, work and quality of life; system-level factors related to health care resources, communication and perceived accountability within the system; unique issues related to COVID-19 (maintaining health and isolation); and uncertainty about health and timing of surgery. INTERPRETATION: Although the decision to delay nonurgent surgeries was made to manage the strain on health care systems, our study illustrates the consequences of these decisions, which were diffuse and consequential. The findings of this study highlight the need to develop and adopt strategies to mitigate the burden of waiting for surgery during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Omicron, Long-COVID, and the Safety of Elective Surgery for Adults and Children: Joint Guidance from the Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee of the Surgical Infection Society and the Surgery Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services.

Background: Active and recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections are associated with morbidity and mortality after surgery in adults. Current recommendations suggest delaying elective surgery in survivors for four to 12 weeks, depending on initial illness severity. Recently, the predominant causes of COVID-19 are the highly transmissible/less virulent Omicron variant/subvariants. Moreover, increased survivability of primary infections has engendered the long-COVID syndrome, with protean manifestations that may persist for months. Considering the more than 600,000,000 COVID-19 survivors, surgeons will likely be consulted by recovered patients seeking elective operations. Knowledge gaps of the aftermath of Omicron infections raise questions whether extant guidance for timing of surgery still applies to adults or should apply to the pediatric population. Methods: Scoping review of relevant English-language literature. Results: Most supporting data derive from early in the pandemic when the Alpha variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) predominated. The Omicron variant/subvariants generally cause milder infections with less organ dysfunction; many infections are asymptomatic, especially in children. Data are scant with respect to adult surgical outcomes after Omicron infection, and especially so for pediatric surgical outcomes at any stage of the pandemic. Conclusions: Numerous knowledge gaps persist with respect to the disease, the recovered pre-operative patient, the nature of the proposed procedure, and supporting data. For example, should the waiting period for all but urgent elective surgery be extended beyond 12 weeks, e.g., after serious/critical illness, or for patients with long-COVID and organ dysfunction? Conversely, can the waiting periods for asymptomatic patients or vaccinated patients be shortened? How shall children be risk-stratified, considering the distinctiveness of pediatric COVID-19 and the paucity of data? Forthcoming guidelines will hopefully answer these questions but may require ongoing modifications based on additional new data and the epidemiology of emerging strains.

Excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta, Canada.

Objectives: To determine if there was excess mortality in Alberta, Canada during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, to confirm if excess mortality affected all age groups equally, and to determine what proportions of excess deaths were directly related to COVID-19 and non-pharmaceutical drug poisoning. Methods: Weekly all-cause data used to estimate excess mortality were modelled against the pre-pandemic period (January 2015-February 2020). Age-adjusted weekly mortality rates for March 2020 to December 2021 were compared with the preceding 5 years. Results: From March 2020 to December 2021, there was an 11% excess mortality rate, corresponding to an average of 265 monthly excess deaths (maximum >30%). COVID-19-related deaths (n=3202) accounted for 54.9% of total excess deaths (n=5833) that occurred in the 22-month period. The increase in all-cause excess deaths was proportionately higher, and with significantly greater numbers, in younger age groups. Significant increases in monthly drug poisoning deaths occurred from March 2020 to April 2021, with a total of 1819 deaths. Eight hundred and 25 excess drug poisoning deaths, representing 25.4% of total all-cause excess deaths, occurred, mainly among those aged 25-60 years. Overall, 54.9% of all excess deaths were directly related to COVID-19 and 25.4% were related to drug poisoning. Conclusions: There was a significant increase in all-cause mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although older adults are more likely to die of COVID-19, a massive increase in non-COVID-19-related mortality was observed among younger people. These factors should be considered in public policy decisions on epidemic/pandemic management.

A Canadian national survey: Perspectives on routine pathological examination of hernia sacs after inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair among pediatric urologists, surgeons, and pathologists.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand perspectives on routine pathological examination of hernia sacs following pediatric inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair among Canadian pediatric urologists, surgeons, and pathologists. STUDY DESIGN: All active members of Pediatric Urologists of Canada (PUC), Canadian Association of Pediatric Surgeons (CAPS), and the divisional heads of anatomical pathology at the Canadian children's hospitals (AP) were invited to participate between June 2019 and January 2021 in an anonymous multiple-choice-based questionnaire. RESULTS: The response rates were 71% from PUC (24/34), 20% from CAPS (25/130), and 64% from AP (7/11). The majority of the surgeons (PUC:54%, CAPS:68%) did not routinely send hernia sacs for pathological examination after inguinal hernia repair. Most felt there was a little value in such examination (PUC:96%, CAPS:72%). Among those who submit hernia sacs, the majority did not receive reports that were clinically significant impacting patient management (PUC:82%, CAPS:50%). On the other hand, the pathologists had mixed opinion on the value of examining hernia sacs. Most of them only did gross examination (86%), unless requested by surgeons or concerning features were noted on gross examination. The majority have found clinically meaningful abnormal findings (71%), including vas deferens and portions of the spermatic cord. DISCUSSION: Currently, there are no evidence-based clinical guidelines on pathological assessment of hernia sacs after pediatric inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair. Instead of making it mandatory, future guidelines should highlight specimens that should be submitted for further investigations (e.g., challenging cases where inadvertent surgical injuries might have occurred). Future studies should also address whether patients who may be at higher risk of having clinically significant pathology can be identified pre- or perioperatively to more efficiently triage specimens that would benefit from pathological examination. Limitation of the study includes low response rate from the CAPS members during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: While most of the pediatric urologists and surgeons felt there is a little value of pathological examination of hernia sacs following inguinal hernia and hydrocele repair, half of the anatomical pathologists felt there is value. Future studies should aim to establish evidence-based clinical guidelines taking stakeholders perspectives into consideration.

Non-technical skills in surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Non-technical skills are critical to surgical safety. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-technical skills of operating room (OR) teams in Singapore. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observers rated live operations using the Oxford NOTECHS system. Pre- and post-COVID observations were captured from November 2019 to January 2020 and from January 2021 to February 2021, respectively. Scores were compared using Schuirmann's Two One-Sided Test procedure. Multivariable linear regression was used to adjust for case mix. A 10% margin of equivalence was set a priori. RESULTS: Observers rated 159 cases: 75 pre-COVID and 84 post-COVID. There were significant differences between groups in surgical department and surgeon-reported case complexity (both P < 0.001). Total NOTECHS scores increased post-COVID on raw analysis (36.1 vs 38.0, P < 0.001) but remained within the margin of equivalence (90% CI 1.3 to 2.6, P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated a similar increase within the margin of equivalence (2.0, 90% CI 1.3 to 2.7). Teamwork and cooperation scores increased by 1.0 post-COVID (90% CI 0.8 to 1.3); all other subcomponent scores were equivalent. CONCLUSION: Non-technical skills before and after the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic were equivalent but not equal. A small but statistically significant improvement post-COVID was driven by an increase in teamwork and cooperation skills. These findings may reflect an improvement in team cohesion, which has been observed in teams under duress in other settings such as the military. Future work should explore the effect of the pandemic on OR culture, team cohesion, and resilience.

We Asked the Experts: The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations for Content and Implementation Adaptations.

BACKGROUND: As surgical systems are forced to adapt and respond to new challenges, so should the patient safety tools within those systems. We sought to determine how the WHO SSC might best be adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: 18 Panelists from five continents and multiple clinical specialties participated in a three-round modified Delphi technique to identify potential recommendations, assess agreement with proposed recommendations and address items not meeting consensus. RESULTS: From an initial 29 recommendations identified in the first round, 12 were identified for inclusion in the second round. After discussion of recommendations without consensus for inclusion or exclusion, four additional recommendations were added for an eventual 16 recommendations. Nine of these recommendations were related to checklist content, while seven recommendations were related to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This multinational panel has identified 16 recommendations for sites looking to use the surgical safety checklist during the COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations provide an example of how the SSC can adapt to meet urgent and emerging needs of surgical systems by targeting important processes and encouraging critical discussions.