Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ ; 39(12):A960-A964, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-2137852

ABSTRACT

1427 Figure 2Interrupted time series analysis assessing the impact of COVID restrictions on likelihood of survival (red horizontal lines indicate introduction and relaxation of ‘lockdown’ measures)[Figure omitted. See PDF] 1427 Table 1Comparison of demographics ‘lockdown’ and pre-COVID periodsPeriodPeriod24Mar19 – 03Jul19 (comparator)24Mar20 – 03Jul20 (lockdown 1)Absolute change [percentage point change (95%CI)] p-value01Nov18 – 16May19 (comparator)01Nov20 – 16May21 (lockdown 1)Absolute change [percentage point change (95%CI)] p-valueTotal2224317510-4733 (-21%)p<0.0001‡41016382622754 (–6.7%)p<0.0001‡Age (years), Median (IQR)67.6 (46.5–83.1)70.9 (50.3–84.2)3.3 (2.4 to 4.2)p<0.000169.1 (48.7–83.6)73.1 (53.3–85.1)4 (3.5 to 4.2)<0.0001Age bands, n(%)Age< 1138 (0.6%)130 (0.7%)-8 [0.1(-0.04 to 0.030)] p=0.14 281 (0.7%)234 (0.6%)-47 [0.1 (-0.2 to 0.04)]p=0.1979Age <16942 (4.2%)674 (3.8%)-268 [-0.4 (-0.8 to 0]p=0.05311444 (3.5%)1218 (3.2%)-226 [-0.3(-0.6 to – 0.1)p=0.0084Age 16 – 649561 (43%)6974 (39.8%)-2587 [-3.2(-4.1 to -2.2)P<0.000117173 (41.9%)13980 (36.5%)-3193 [-5.3(-6 to -5)]p<0.0001Age 65 and over11740 (52.8%)9862 (56.3%)-1878 [3.5 (2.5 to 4.5)]p<0.000122399 (54.6%)23064 (60.3%)665 [5.7(5 to 6.3)]P<0.0001Age 85 and over4610 (20.7%)4047 (23.1%)-563 [2.4(1.6 to 3.2)]p<0.00018903 (21.7%)9731 (25.4%)828 [3.7 (3.1 to 4.3)]p<0.0001Male, n(%)12316 (55.4%)9512 (54.3%)-2804 [-1 (-2 to -0.6)]p=0.037322146 (54%)19769 (51.7%)-2377 [-2.3 (-3 to -1.6)]<0.0001CCI*, n(%)CCI 09359 (42.1%)6220 (35.5%)-3139 [ -6.5 (-7.5 to -5.6)] p<0.000116665 (40.6%)12806 (33.5%)-3859 [-7.1(-7.8 to -6.5)]p<0.0001CCI 1 – 58538 (38.4%)6896 (39.4%)-1642 [1 (0.3 to 2)]p=0.042615899 (38.8%)15667 (40.9%)-232 [2.2 (1.5 to 2.9)]p<0.0001CCI 6 – 103032 (13.6%)3061 (17.5%)29 [3.8 (3.2 to 4.6)]p<0.00015987 (14.6%)6863 (17.9%)876 [3.3(2.8 to 3.8)]p<0.0001CCI > 10927 (4.2%)1024 (5.8%)97 [1.7(1.2 to 2.1)]p<0.00011648 (4%)2410 (6.3%)762 [2.3(2 to 2.6)]p<0.0001Not recorded387 (1.7%)309 (1.8%)-88 [0.2 (-0.2 to 0.3)]p=0.8513817 (2%)516 (1.3%)-301 [-0.6(-0.8 to -0.5)]p<0.0001MOI**: RTC, n(%)Car occupant1247 (30.7%)551 (20.4%)-696 [-10.4(-12.4 to -8.2)]p<0.00012485 (35.2%)1551 (31.3%)-934 [-3.9(-5.6 to -2.2)]p<0.0001Pedestrian661 (16.3%)288 (10.6%)-373 [-5.6 (-7.2 to -4)]p<0.00011629 (23.1%)962 (19.4%)-667 [-3.7(-5.1 to -2.2)]p<0.0001Motorcycles1196 (29.4%)711 (26.3%)-485 [-3.2(-5.3 to -1)]p<0.00011524 (21.6%)976 (19.7%)-548[ -1.9(-3.3 to -0.4)]p<0.0001Cyclist912 (22.4%)1139 (42.1%)227 [19.6(17.4 to 21.9)]p<0.00011315 (18.6%)1396 (28.2%)81 [9.5(8 to 11.1)]p<0.0001Other11 (0.3%)<9 ()-10 [ -0.2(-0.4 to -0.06)p=0.025131 (0.4%)10 (0.2%)-21 [-0.23(-0.4 to -0.04)]p=0.0281MOI: Intentional, n(%)Intentional assault130 (0.6%)88 (0.5 )-42 [-0.08 (-0.2 to 0.06)]p=0.2724227 (0.6%)175 (0.5%)-52 [-0.1(-0.2 to 0.002)]P=0.0570Self harm276 (1.2%)284 (1.6%)8 [0.4 (0.1 to 0.6)]p=0.0014525 (1.3%)562 (1.5%)37 [0.2 (0.02 to 0.3)]p=0.0223NAI63 (0.3%)27 (0.2%)-36 [-0.1(-0.2 to -0.03)]p=0.007297 (0.2%)90 (0.2%)-7 [-0.001(-0.07 to 0.07)]p=0.9701Shooting34 (0.2%)40 (0.2%)6 [0.08(-0.01 to 0.2)]p=0.082680 (0.2%)56 (0.1%)-24 [ -0.05(-0.1 to 0.001)]p=0.0979Stabbing450 (2%)312 (1.8%)-138 [-0.2(-0.5 to 0.03)]p=0.0816791 (1.9%)589 (1.5%)-202 [-0.4 (-0.6 to -0.2)]p<0.0001Blows1174 (5.3%)647 (3.7%)-527 [-1.6(-1.9 to -1.2)]p<0.00012059 (5%)1299 (3.4%)-760 [-1.6(-1.9 to -1.3)]p<0.0001Unintentional, n(%)Falls>2m2055 (9.2%)1757 (10%)-298 [0.8(0.2 to 1.4)]P=0.00753740 (9,1%)3528 (9.2%)-212 [0.1(-0.3 to 0.5)]p=0.6181Falls<2m13384 (60.2%)11314 (64.6%)-2070 [4.4 (3.5 to 5.4)]p<0.000125505 (62.2%)26203 (65.8%)698 [6.3 (5.6 to 6.9)]p<0.0001Sport449 (2%)320 (1.8%)-129 [-0.2 (-0.5 to 0.01]p=0.1697615 (1.5%)489 (1.3%)-126 [-0.2 (-0.4 to -0.006)]p=0.0079GCS bands , n(%)Mild19609 (88.2%)15449 (88.2%)4160 [0.1 (-0.6 to 0.7)]p=0.826435831 (87.4%)34051 (89%)-1780 [1.6 (1.2 to 2.1)]p<0.0001Moderate689 (3.1%)625 (3.6%)-64 [0.5(0.1 to 0.8)]p=0.00901333 (3.2%)1127 (2.9%)-206 [-0.3 (-0.5 t -0.06)]p=0.0135Severe955 (4.3%)765 (4.4%)-190 [0.1 (-0.3 to 0.5)]p=0.71361886 (4.6%)1464 (3.8%)-422 [-0.8(-1 to -0.5)]p<0.0001Not recorded990 (4.5%)671 (3.8%)-319 [ -0.6(-1 to -0.2)]p=0.00221966 (4.8%)1620 (4.2%)-346 [-0.6(-0.8 to -0.3)]p=0.0002ISS***, median (IQR)9 (9–18)9 (9–18)09 (9–18)9 (9–17)0ISS bands, n(%)ISS 1 – 84545 (20.4%)3062 (17.5%)-1483 [-3 (-4 to -2)]p=<0.00018266 (20.2%)7838 (20.5%)-428 [0.3(-0.2 to 0.9)]p=0.2457ISS 9 – 159290 (41.8%)7728 (44.1%)-1562 [2.4(1.4 to 3.3)]p<0.000117207 (42%)16969 (44.3%)-233 [2.4(1.7 to 3.1)]p<0.0001ISS >158408 (37.8%)6720 (38.4%)-1688 [5.6(-0.4 to 1.5)]p=0.239115543 (37.9%)13455 (35.2%)-2088 [-2.7 (-3.4 to -2)]p<0.0001ISS >253995 (18%)3127 (17.9%)-868 [-0.1(-0.9 to 0.7 )]p=0.79217521 (18.3%)6201 (16.2%)-1320 [-2.1(-2.6 to -1.6)]p<0.0001Body regions, n(%)Head AIS 3+5911 (26.6%)4670 (26.7%)-1241 [0.1 (-0.8 to 1)]p=0.830111128 (27.1%)9629 (25.2%)-1499 [ -2(-2.6 to -1.3)]p<0.0001Face AIS 3+63 (0.3%)41 (0.2%)-22 [-0.05 (-0.1 to 0.05)]p=0.341699 (0.2%)69 (0.2%)-30 [-0.06 (-0.1 to 0)]p=0.0618Chest AIS 3+4787 (21.5%)3915 (22.4%)-872 [8.3 (0.2 to 1.6)]<0.04508515 (20.8%)8075 (21.1%)-440 [0.3 (-0.2 to 0.9)]p=0.2337Abdomen AIS 3+872 (3.9%)690 (3.9%)-182 [0.02 (-0.3 to 0.4)]p=0.91771465 (3.6%)1179 (3.1%)-286 [-0.5 (-0.7 to -0.2)]p=0.0001Spine AIS 3+1985 (8.9%)1561 (8.9%)-424 [-0.01(-0.6 to 0.5)]p=0.97443784 (9.2%)3459 (9%)-325 [-0.2(-0.6 to 0.2)]p=0.3654Pelvis AIS 3+758 (3.4%)600 (3.4%)-158 [0.02(-0.3 to 0.4)]p=0.91841501 (3.7%)1386 (3.6%)-115 [-0.04(-0.3 to 0.2)]p=0.7802Limb AIS 3+5707 (25.7%)4892 (27.9%)-815 [2.3 (1.4 to 3.2)]p<0.000110719 (26.1%)10122 (26.5%)-597 [0.3(-0.3 to 0.9)]p=0.3053Other AIS 3+217 (1%)199 (1.1%)-18 [0.2 (-0.04 to 0.3)]p=0.1176375 (0.9%)396 (1%)21 [0.1 (-0.01 to 0.2]p=0.0836Polytrauma1622 (7.3%)1350 (7.7%)-272 [0.4 (-0.1 to 0.9)]p=0.11602984 (7.3%)2429 (6.3%)-555 [-0.9(-1.2 to 0.6)]p<0.0001*CCI Charlson Comorbidity Index**MOI Mechanism of injury***ISS Injury Severity Score‡ chi square test for uniform distribution 1427 Table 2Comparison care pathways ‘lockdown’ and pre-COVID periodsPeriodPeriod24Mar19 – 03Jul19 (comparator)24Mar20 – 03Jul20 (lockdown 1)Absolute Change01Nov18 – 16May19 (comparator)01Nov20 – 16May21 (lockdown 2)Absolute Change1st Hospital MTC9908 (44.5%)7376 (42.1%)-2532 [-2.4 (-3.4 to -1.4)]p<0.000118099 (44.1%)15928 (41.6%)-2171 [-2.5 (-3.2 to -1.8)]p<0.0001Treated at MTC11176 (50.2%)8256 (47.2%)-2920 [-3 (-4 to -2)]p<0.000120395 (49.7%)17852 (46.7%)-2543[-3 (-4 to -2.4)]p<0.0001Consultant ED8140 (36.6%)5562 (31.8%)-2578 [-4.8(-5.8 to -3.9)]p<0.000114779 (36%)12577 (32.9%)-2202 [-3.2 (-3.8 to -2.5)]p<0.0001CT within 1 hr5062 (31.9%)3992 (30.9%)-1070 [-0.9(-2 to 0.1)]p=0.09449203 (31.6%)7776 (27.1%)-1427 [-4(-5 to -3.7)]p<0.0001Whole body CT3348 (15.1%)3210 (18.3%)-138 [3 (2 to 4)]p<0.00016040 (14.7%)64 7 (16.8%)377 [2 (1.5 to 2.5)]p<0.0001ICU stay3092 (13.9%)2208 (12.6%)-884 [-1.3(-1.9 to -0.6) ]p=0.00025591 (13.6%)3850 (10.1%)-1741 [-3.6(-4 to -3)]p<0.0001Mortality*1417 (7.1%)1316 (8.3%)-101 [1.2 (0.6 to 1.7)]p<0.00012916 (7.9%)2858 (8.1%)-58 [0.2 (-0.1 to 0.6)] p=0.2040Discharge destination, n(%)Home (own)13800 (62%)10484 (59.9%)-3316 [-2(-3.1 to -1.2)]p<0.000124961 (60.9%)23368 (61.1%)-1593 [-0.7 (-1.4 to -0.05)]p=0.0340Home (relative/carer)473 (2.1%)372 (2.1%)-101 [0 (-0.3 to 0.3)]p=0.9890974 (2.4%)852 (2.2%)-122 [-0.1(-0.4 to 0.06)]p=0.1653Mortuary*1501 (6.7%)1323 (7.6%)-178 [0.8(0.3 to 1.3)]p=0.00193086 (7.5%)2977 (7.8%)-109 [0.1 (-0.3 to 0.5)]p=0.5113No fixed abode75 (0.3%)47 (0.3%)-28 (-37.3%)107 (0.3%)87 (0.2%)-20 (-18.7%)Not Known87 (0.4%)39 (0.2%)-48 (-55.2%)101 (0.2%)95 (0.2%)-6 (-5.9%)Nursing Home1190 (5.3%)1063 (6.1%)-127 [0.7(0.3 to 1.2)]p=0.00202448 (6%)2231 (5.8%)-217 [-0.2(-0.6 to 0.1)]p=0.1620Other Acute hospital2425 (10.9%)1736 (9.9%)-689 [-0.1(-1.6 to -0.4)]p=0.00144346 (10.6%)3313 (8.7%)-1033 [-0.1(-0.5 to 0.2)]p=0.4115Other institution526 (2.4%)516 (2.9%)-10 [0.6 (0.3 to 0.9)]p=0.0003980 (2.4%)870 (2.3%)-110 [-0.1 (-0.3 to 0.1)]p=0.2817Rehabilitation2077 (9.3%)1871 (10.7%)-206 [1.3(0.7 t 1.9)]p<0.00013851 (9.4%)4274 (11.2%)423 [ 1.7(1.3 to 2.2)]p<0.0001Social care63 (0.3%)50 (0.3%)-13 [0 (-0.1 to 0.1)]p=0.9657121 (0.3%)103 (0.3%)-18 [-0.2(-0.1 to 0.5)]p=0.4939*These totals do not correspond as mortality includes deaths in the community and is censored at 30 daysResults and ConclusionThe first ‘lockdown’ had a larger associated reduction in total trauma volume (-21%) compared to the pre-COVID period than the second ‘lockdown’ (-6.7%). Trauma volume increased for those 65 and over (3%) and 85 and over (9.3%) during the second ‘lockdown’.There was a reduction in likelihood of survival (-1.71;95% CI:-2.76 to -0.66) associated with the immediate introduction of the first ‘lockdown’. However, this was followed by a trend of improving survival (0.25;95% CI: 0.14 to 0.35) and likelihood of survival returned to pre-pandemic levels by the end of the first ‘lockdown’ period.Future research is needed understand the initial reduction in likelihood of survival after major trauma observed with the implementation of the first ‘lockdown’ to prevent this occurring if measures re-introduced.

2.
Foot Ankle Surg ; 28(7): 1055-1063, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1703922

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to determine the differences in COVID-19 infection rate and 30-day mortality in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery between different treatment pathways over the two phases of the UK-FALCON audit, spanning the first and second UK national lockdowns. SETTING: This was an ambispective (retrospective Phase 1 and prospective Phase 2) national audit of foot and ankle procedures in the UK in 2020 completed between 13th January 2020 and 30th November 2020. PARTICIPANTS: All adult patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery in an operating theatre during the study period were included from 46 participating centres in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients were categorised as either a green pathway (designated COVID-19 free) or blue pathway (no protocols to prevent COVID-19 infection). RESULTS: 10,846 patients were included, 6644 from phase 1 and 4202 from phase 2. Over the 2 phases the infection rate on a blue pathway was 1.07% (69/6470) and 0.21% on a green pathway (9/4280). In phase 1, there was no significant difference in the COVID-19 perioperative infection rate between the blue and green pathways in any element of the first phase (pre-lockdown (p = .109), lockdown (p = .923) or post-lockdown (p = .577)). However, in phase 2 there was a significant reduction in perioperative infection rate when using the green pathway in both the pre-lockdown (p < .001) and lockdown periods (Odd's Ratio 0.077, p < .001). There was no significant difference in COVID-19 related mortality between pathways. CONCLUSIONS: There was a five-fold reduction in the perioperative COVID-19 infection rate when using designated COVID-19 green pathways over the whole study period; however the success of the pathways only became significant in phase 2 of the study, where there was a 13-fold reduction in infection rate. The study shows a developing success to using green pathways in reducing the risk to patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Ankle/surgery , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Humans , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , United Kingdom/epidemiology
3.
Bone Jt Open ; 2(4): 216-226, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1172854

ABSTRACT

AIMS: The primary objective was to determine the incidence of COVID-19 infection and 30-day mortality in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery during the global pandemic. Secondary objectives were to determine if there was a change in infection and complication profile with changes introduced in practice. METHODS: This UK-based multicentre retrospective national audit studied foot and ankle patients who underwent surgery between 13 January and 31 July 2020, examining time periods pre-UK national lockdown, during lockdown (23 March to 11 May 2020), and post-lockdown. All adult patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery in an operating theatre during the study period were included. A total of 43 centres in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland participated. Variables recorded included demographic data, surgical data, comorbidity data, COVID-19 and mortality rates, complications, and infection rates. RESULTS: A total of 6,644 patients were included. Of the operated patients, 0.52% (n = 35) contracted COVID-19. The overall all-cause 30-day mortality rate was 0.41%, however in patients who contracted COVID-19, the mortality rate was 25.71% (n = 9); this was significantly higher for patients undergoing diabetic foot surgery (75%, n = 3 deaths). Matching for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and comorbidities, the odds ratio of mortality with COVID-19 infection was 11.71 (95% confidence interval 1.55 to 88.74; p = 0.017). There were no differences in surgical complications or infection rates prior to or after lockdown, and among patients with and without COVID-19 infection. After lockdown the COVID-19 infection rate was 0.15% and no patient died of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 infection was rare in foot and ankle patients even at the peak of lockdown. However, there was a significant mortality rate in those who contracted COVID-19. Overall surgical complications and postoperative infection rates remained unchanged during the period of this audit. Patients and treating medical personnel should be aware of the risks to enable informed decisions. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2021;2(4):216-226.

4.
Foot Ankle Surg ; 28(2): 205-216, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1160174

ABSTRACT

AIMS: This paper details the impact of COVID-19 on foot and ankle activity in the UK. It describes regional variations and COVID-19 infection rate in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery before, during and after the first national lock-down. PATIENTS & METHODS: This was a multicentre, retrospective, UK-based, national audit on foot and ankle patients who underwent surgery between 13th January and 31st July 2020. Data was examined pre- UK national lockdown, during lockdown (23rd March to 11th May 2020) and post-lockdown. All adult patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery in an operating theatre during the study period included from 43 participating centres in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Regional, demographic and COVID-19 related data were captured. RESULTS: 6644 patients were included. In total 0.53% of operated patients contracted COVID-19 (n = 35). The rate of COVID-19 infection was highest during lockdown (2.11%, n = 16) and lowest after lockdown (0.16%, n = 3). Overall mean activity during lockdown was 24.44% of pre-lockdown activity with decreases in trauma, diabetic and elective foot and ankle surgery; the change in elective surgery was most marked with only 1.73% activity during lock down and 10.72% activity post lockdown as compared to pre-lockdown. There was marked regional variation in numbers of cases performed, but the proportion of decrease in cases during and after lockdown was comparable between all regions. There was also a significant difference between rates of COVID-19 and timing of peak, cumulative COVID-19 infections between regions with the highest rate noted in South East England (3.21%). The overall national peak infection rate was 1.37%, occurring during the final week of lockdown. General anaesthetic remained the most common method of anaesthesia for foot and ankle surgery, although a significant increase in regional anaesthesia was witnessed in the lock-down and post-lockdown periods. CONCLUSIONS: National surgical activity reduced significantly for all cases across the country during lockdown with only a slow subsequent increase in elective activity. The COVID-19 infection rate and peaks differed significantly across the country.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Ankle/surgery , Communicable Disease Control , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
5.
Surgeon ; 19(6): e331-e337, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1127043

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on the 11th of March 2020 with the NHS deferring all non-urgent activity from the 15th of April 2020. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on Trauma and Orthopaedic trainees nationally. METHODS: Trauma and Orthopaedic (T&O) specialty trainees nationally were asked to complete an electronic survey specifically on the impact of COVID-19 on their training. This UK based survey was conducted between May 2020 and July 2020. RESULTS: A total of 185 out of 975 (19%) T&O specialty trainees completed the survey. Redeployment was experienced by 25% of trainees. 84% of respondents had experienced a fall in total operating numbers in comparison with the same time period in 2019. 89% experienced a fall in elective operating and 63% experienced a fall in trauma operating. The pandemic has also had an effect on the delivery of teaching, with face to face teaching being replaced by webinar-based teaching. 63% of training programmes delivered regular weekly teaching, whilst 19% provided infrequent sessions and 11% provided no teaching. CONCLUSION: This study has objectively demonstrated the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on all aspects of T&O training.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Orthopedics , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
6.
Foot (Edinb) ; 46: 101772, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1002529

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: COVID-19 has had a significant impact on orthopaedic surgery globally. This paper aims to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on foot and ankle trauma in a major trauma centre. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of prospectively collected data was performed. All foot and ankle trauma patients over a 33 week period (1st December 2019-16th July 2020) were analysed. All patients with trauma classified by the AO/OTA as occurring at locations 43 and 81-88 were included. RESULTS: Over the 33 weeks analysed, there was a total of 1661 trauma cases performed; of these, only 230 (13.85%) were foot and ankle trauma cases. As percentage of cases during each period of lockdown, foot and ankle made up 15.20% (147 out of 967) pre-lockdown, 8.81% (17 out of 193) during lockdown and 13.17% (66 out of 501) post lockdown. This difference was statistically significant (p < .001). The most significant change in trauma management was the treatment of malleolar fractures. Further analysis showed that during the lockdown period 29 foot and ankle fractures were treated the same and 13 were treated differently, (i.e. 31% of fractures were treated conservatively, when the consultants preferred practice would have been surgical intervention). Of the 13 patients, 3 have had surgical management since lockdown has been eased. CONCLUSION: It is evident that the trauma case activity within foot and ankle was significantly reduced during the COVID-19 period. The consequences of change in management were mitigated due to a reduction in case load.


Subject(s)
Ankle Injuries/surgery , COVID-19/epidemiology , Foot Injuries/surgery , Health Care Rationing , Trauma Centers/organization & administration , Humans , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Triage , United Kingdom/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL