ABSTRACT
Background: With many resources redirected to care for the those affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, the NHS faced unprecedented pressure to maintain oesophagogastric (OG) cancer resectional services. Our institution along with many tertiary units across the country were faced with limited access to essential critical care beds. The implementation of emergency contracts between the NHS and the independent sector (IS) allowed our unit to maintain a high volume resectional service by utilising the resources of a local private hospital with HDU/ ITU provision. We began operating within the IS shortly after the first UK lockdown in March 2020, and continued through till February 2022. During this period, we continued operating at our tertiary unit (TU) albeit at a reduced capacity. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing major OG resectional surgery between the two sites. Method(s): This retrospective study included all patients who underwent major OG resectional surgery (including GIST) from March 2020-February 2022. Operation type and site were identified using OPCS-4 clinical codes and combined with National OG Cancer Audit (NOGCA) data to compare basic patient demographics, length of stay, complication rates, COVID infection rates and 90-day mortality. Descriptive and statistical analysis between the two operating sites was performed. Result(s): A total of 204 major OG resections were undertaken, 44% (89) at our TU;57 oesophagectomies and 32 gastrectomies, with 56% (115) at a local IS hospital;86 oesophagectomies and 29 gastrectomies. Additionally, 13 (6.4%) open and close procedures were performed across both sites. Median patient age was similar, 69 (45-86) years at our TU v. 68 (38-85) years at the IS site. A higher proportion of ASA 3 patients (46%) were operated on at our TU. No difference in median length of stay was observed;TU= 8 (1-93) days v. IS =9 (3-69) days, this included all patients who were repatriated to the TU. Higher complication rates seemed to occur in patients operated at the IS site v. the TU though these did not reach statistical significance;18 (15.7%) patients suffered an anastomotic leak v. 9 (10.1%) respectively (p= 0.246). 21 (18.3%) v. 13 (14.6%) patients suffered a major respiratory (p=0.487) and 4 (3.5%) v. 1 (1.1%) a major cardiac (p=0.281) complication. There were no cases of COVID infection within 30 days of primary procedure at the IS site, with 2 cases within the TU cohort. Our 90-day mortality rates were similar (IS= 4.54% v. TU=5.32%), p=0.661. Conclusion(s): Our study demonstrates that resection of patients with OG cancer is feasible in an independent sector hospital if supported by critical care. It allowed a high-volume tertiary unit to continue offering potentially curative surgery to patients whose treatment options would have otherwise been limited to oncological therapy only. Long term survival data compared to non-resecting trusts is required to determine whether this approach was superior. When considering future pandemic planning, we have demonstrated the value of this model in maintaining major OG resectional services.
ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health care resources the world over, requiring health care providers to make resource allocation decisions under extraordinary pressures. A year later, our understanding of COVID-19 has advanced, but our process for making ethical decisions surrounding resource allocation has not. During the first wave of the pandemic, our institution uniformly ramped down clinical activity to accommodate the anticipated demands of COVID-19, resulting in resource waste and inefficiency. In preparation for the second wave of the pandemic, we sought to make such ramp-down decisions more prudently and ethically. Methods: We report the development of a tool that can be used to make fair and ethical decisions in times of resource scarcity. We formed an interprofessional team to develop and use this tool to ensure that the diverse range of stakeholder perspectives were represented in this development process. This team, called the Clinical Activity Recovery Team (CART), established institutional objectives that were combined with well-established procedural values, substantive ethical principles and decision-making criteria using the accountability for reasonableness ethical framework. The result of this is a stepwise, semi-quantitative, ethical decision tool that can be applied to proposed solutions to problems of resource allocation to reach a fair and ethically defensible decision. This ethical decision tool can be applied in almost all conceivable contexts and scales, from the multi-institution level to the provider level, and indeed this is how it is applied at our institution. As the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic strains health care resources, this tool can help clinical leaders to make fair decisions.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Globally planned surgical procedures have been deferred during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The study aimed to report the outcomes of planned urgent and cancer cases during the current pandemic using a multi-disciplinary prioritisation group. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of patients having urgent or cancer surgery at a NHS Trust from 1st March to 30th April 2020 who had been prioritised by a multi-disciplinary COVID Surgery group. Rates of post-operative PCR positive and suspected COVID-19 infections within 30 days, 30-day mortality and any death related to COVID-19 are reported. RESULTS: Overall 597 patients underwent surgery with a median age of 65 years (interquartile range (IQR) 54-74 years). Of these, 86.1% (514/597) had a current cancer diagnosis. During the period, 60.8% (363/597) of patients had surgery at the NHS Trust whilst 39.2% (234/597) had surgery at Independent Sector hospitals. The incidence of COVID-19 in the East Midlands was 193.7 per 100,000 population during the study period. In the 30 days following surgery, 1.3% (8/597) of patients tested positive for COVID-19 with all cases at the NHS site. Overall 30-day mortality was 0.7% (4/597). Following a PCR positive COVID-19 diagnosis, mortality was 25.0% (2/8). Including both PCR positive and suspected cases, 3.0% (18/597) developed COVID-19 infection with 1.3% at the independent site compared to 4.1% at the NHS Trust (p=0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of COVID-19 infection in the post-operative period were low especially in the Independent Sector site. Mortality following a post-operative diagnosis of COVID-19 was high.