Impact of COVID-19, gender, race, specialty and seniority on mental health during surgical training: an international study.

BACKGROUND: Superior patient outcomes rely on surgical training being optimized. Accordingly, we conducted an international, prospective, cross-sectional study determining relative impacts of COVID-19, gender, race, specialty and seniority on mental health of surgical trainees. METHOD: Trainees across Australia, New Zealand and UK enrolled in surgical training accredited by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons or Royal College of Surgeons were included. Outcomes included the short version of the Perceived Stress Scale, Oxford Happiness Questionnaire short scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and the effect on individual stress levels of training experiences affected by COVID-19. Predictors included trainee characteristics and local COVID-19 prevalence. Multivariable linear regression analyses were conducted to assess association between outcomes and predictors. RESULTS: Two hundred and five surgical trainees were included. Increased stress was associated with number of COVID-19 patients treated (P = 0.0127), female gender (P = 0.0293), minority race (P = 0.0012), less seniority (P = 0.001), and greater COVID-19 prevalence (P = 0.0122). Lower happiness was associated with training country (P = 0.0026), minority race (P = 0.0258) and more seniority (P < 0.0001). Greater depression was associated with more seniority (P < 0.0001). Greater COVID-19 prevalence was associated with greater reported loss of training opportunities (P = 0.0038), poor working conditions (P = 0.0079), personal protective equipment availability (P = 0.0008), relocation to areas of little experience (P < 0.0001), difficulties with career progression (P = 0.0172), loss of supervision (P = 0.0211), difficulties with pay (P = 0.0034), and difficulties with leave (P = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to specifically describe the relative impacts of COVID-19 community prevalence, gender, race, surgical specialty and level of seniority on stress, happiness and depression of surgical trainees on an international scale.

Cardiac surgery on patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on global surgery. In particular, deleterious effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the heart and cardiovascular system have been described. To inform surgical patients, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to characterize outcomes of COVID-19 positive patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021228533) and conformed with PRISMA 2020 and MOOSE guidelines. PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched between 1 January 2019 to 24 February 2022 for studies reporting outcomes on COVID-19 positive patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Study screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted in duplicate. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model where at least two studies had sufficient data for that variable. RESULTS: Searches identified 4223 articles of which 18 studies were included with a total 44 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Within these studies, 12 (66.7%) reported populations undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, three (16.7%) aortic valve replacements (AVR) and three (16.7%) aortic dissection repairs. Overall mean postoperative length of ICU stay was 3.39 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38, 6.39) and mean postoperative length of hospital stay was 17.88 (95% CI: 14.57, 21.19). CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated studies of limited quality which characterized cardiac surgery in COVID-19 positive patients and demonstrates that these patients have poor outcomes. Further issues to be explored are effects of COVID-19 on decision-making in cardiac surgery, and effects of COVID-19 on the cardiovascular system at a cellular level.

National Facilitators and Barriers to the Implementation of Incentives for Antibiotic Access and Innovation.

Prominent reports have assessed the challenges to antibiotic innovation and recommended implementing "pull" incentives, i.e., mechanisms that give increased and predictable revenues for important, marketed antibiotics. We set out to understand countries' perceptions of these recommendations, through frank and anonymous dialogue. In 2019 and 2020, we performed in-depth interviews with national policymakers and antibiotic resistance experts in 13 countries (ten European countries and three non-European) for a total of 73 individuals in 27 separate interviews. Interviewees expressed high-level support for antibiotic incentives in 11 of 13 countries. There is recognition that new economic incentives are needed to maintain a reliable supply to essential antibiotics. However, most countries are uncertain which incentives may be appropriate for their country, which antibiotics should be included, how to implement incentives, and how much it will cost. There is a preference for a multinational incentive, so long as it is independent of national pricing, procurement, and reimbursement processes. Nine countries indicated a preference for a model that ensures access to both existing and new antibiotics, with the highest priority for existing antibiotics. Twelve of thirteen countries indicated that shortages of existing antibiotics is a serious problem. Since countries are skeptical about the public health value of many recently approved antibiotics, there is a mismatch regarding revenue expectations between policymakers and antibiotic innovators. This paper presents important considerations for the design and implementation of antibiotic pull mechanisms. We also propose a multinational model that appears to match the needs of both countries and innovators.