Safety of day-case endoscopic sinus surgery in England: An observational study using an administrative dataset.

INTRODUCTION: As elective surgical services recover from the COVID-19 pandemic a movement towards day-case surgery may reduce waiting lists. However, evidence is needed to show that day-case surgery is safe for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The aim of this study was to investigate the safety of day-case ESS in England. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of administrative data. METHODS: We extracted data from the Hospital Episodes Statistics database for the 5 years from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2019. Patients undergoing elective ESS procedures aged ≥17 years were included. Exclusion criteria included malignant neoplasm, complex systemic disease and trans-sphenoidal pituitary surgery. The primary outcome was readmission within 30 days post-discharge. Multilevel, multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to compare outcomes for those operated on as day-cases and those with an overnight stay after adjusting for demographic, frailty, comorbidity and procedural covariates. RESULTS: Data were available for 49 223 patients operated on across 129 NHS hospital trusts. In trusts operating on more than 50 patients in the study period, rates of day-case surgery varied from 20.6% to 100%. Nationally, rates of day-case surgery increased from 64.0% in the financial year 2014/2015 to 78.7% in 2018/2019. Day-case patients had lower rates of 30-day emergency readmission (odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.81). Outcomes for patients operated on in trusts with ≥80% day-case rates compared with patients operated on in trusts with <50% rates of day-case surgery were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the view that ESS can safely be performed as day-case surgery in most cases, although it will not be suitable for all patients. There appears to be scope to increase rates of day-case ESS in some hospital trusts in England.

Investigating Decreased Rates of Nulliparous Cesarean Deliveries during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Preventing the first cesarean delivery (CD) is important as CD rates continue to rise. During the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, quality improvement metrics at our hospital identified lower rates of CD. We sought to investigate this change and identify factors that may have contributed to the decrease. STUDY DESIGN: We compared nulliparous singleton deliveries at a large academic hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic (April through July 2020 during a statewide "stay-at-home" order) to those in the same months 1 year prior to the pandemic (April through July 2019). The primary outcome, mode of delivery, was obtained from the electronic medical record system, along with indication for CD. RESULTS: The cohort included 1,913 deliveries: 892 in 2019 and 1,021 in 2020. Patient characteristics (age, body mass index, race, ethnicity, and insurance type) did not differ between the groups. Median gestational age at delivery was the same in both groups. The CD rate decreased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with prior (28.9 vs. 33.6%; p = 0.03). There was a significant increase in the rate of labor induction (45.7 vs. 40.6%; p = 0.02), but no difference in the proportion of inductions that were elective (19.5 vs. 20.7%; p = 0.66). The rate of CD in labor was unchanged (15.9 vs. 16.3%; p = 0.82); however, more women attempted a trial of labor (87.0 vs. 82.6%; p = 0.01). Thus, the proportion of CD without a trial of labor decreased (25.1 vs. 33.0%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: There was a statistically significant decrease in CD during the COVID-19 pandemic at our hospital, driven by a decrease in CD without a trial of labor. The increased rate of attempted trial of labor suggests the presence of patient-level factors that warrant further investigation as potential targets for decreasing CD rates. Additionally, in a diverse and medically complex population, increased rates of labor induction were not associated with increased rates of CD. KEY POINTS: · Primary CD rate fell during COVID-19 pandemic.. · Decrease was driven by more women attempting labor.. · Higher rate of induction without rise in CD rate was found..

Mid-trimester cesarean scar pregnancy: a case report.

BACKGROUND: This article reports a unique case of cesarean scar pregnancy, demonstrating importance of early management and diagnosis. CASE PRESENTATION: A 30-year-old pregnant woman with prior history of two cesarean sections found to have cesarean scar pregnancy at approximately 13 weeks' gestation and underwent a gravid hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: While rare, cesarean scar pregnancies should be considered on the differential diagnosis of any pregnant patient with history of cesarean section who presents in early pregnancy with vaginal bleeding and/or cramping. Given the increased rates of cesarean sections in the times of COVID-19, one may anticipate seeing more cases of cesarean scar pregnancies.

Tracheostomy care and decannulation during the COVID-19 pandemic. A multidisciplinary clinical practice guideline.

PURPOSE: Traditional critical care dogma regarding the benefits of early tracheostomy during invasive ventilation has had to be revisited due to the risk of COVID-19 to patients and healthcare staff. Standard practises that have evolved to minimise the risks associated with tracheostomy must be comprehensively reviewed in light of the numerous potential episodes for aerosol generating procedures. We meet the urgent need for safe practise standards by presenting the experience of two major London teaching hospitals, and synthesise our findings into an evidence-based guideline for multidisciplinary care of the tracheostomy patient. METHODS: This is a narrative review presenting the extensive experience of over 120 patients with tracheostomy, with a pragmatic analysis of currently available evidence for safe tracheostomy care in COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Tracheostomy care involves many potentially aerosol generating procedures which may pose a risk of viral transmission to staff and patients. We make a series of recommendations to ameliorate this risk through infection control strategies, equipment modification, and individualised decannulation protocols. In addition, we discuss the multidisciplinary collaboration that is absolutely fundamental to safe and effective practise. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 requires a radical rethink of many tenets of tracheostomy care, and controversy continues to exist regarding the optimal techniques to minimise risk to patients and healthcare workers. Safe practise requires a coordinated multidisciplinary team approach to infection control, weaning and decannulation, with integrated processes for continuous prospective data collection and audit.