Patient characteristics, anaesthetic workload and techniques in the UK: an analysis from the 7th National Audit Project (NAP7) activity survey.

Detailed contemporary knowledge of the characteristics of the surgical population, national anaesthetic workload, anaesthetic techniques and behaviours are essential to monitor productivity, inform policy and direct research themes. Every 3-4 years, the Royal College of Anaesthetists, as part of its National Audit Projects (NAP), performs a snapshot activity survey in all UK hospitals delivering anaesthesia, collecting patient-level encounter data from all cases under the care of an anaesthetist. During November 2021, as part of NAP7, anaesthetists recorded details of all cases undertaken over 4 days at their site through an online survey capturing anonymous patient characteristics and anaesthetic details. Of 416 hospital sites invited to participate, 352 (85%) completed the activity survey. From these, 24,177 reports were returned, of which 24,172 (99%) were included in the final dataset. The work patterns by day of the week, time of day and surgical specialty were similar to previous NAP activity surveys. However, in non-obstetric patients, between NAP5 (2013) and NAP7 (2021) activity surveys, the estimated median age of patients increased by 2.3 years from median (IQR) of 50.5 (28.4-69.1) to 52.8 (32.1-69.2) years. The median (IQR) BMI increased from 24.9 (21.5-29.5) to 26.7 (22.3-31.7) kg.m-2 . The proportion of patients who scored as ASA physical status 1 decreased from 37% in NAP5 to 24% in NAP7. The use of total intravenous anaesthesia increased from 8% of general anaesthesia cases to 26% between NAP5 and NAP7. Some changes may reflect the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the anaesthetic population, though patients with confirmed COVID-19 accounted for only 149 (1%) cases. These data show a rising burden of age, obesity and comorbidity in patients requiring anaesthesia care, likely to impact UK peri-operative services significantly.

GLOBAL CLINICIAN PERSPECTIVES ON NON-OPERATIVE HIP FRACTURE MANAGEMENT DURING COVID-19

There are currently no guidelines regarding clinician decision making in the type of hip fracture management among older adults. Cultural, social, structural and economic differences between global healthcare systems may result in differing approaches. This study's objectives were to identify possible factors influencing clinicians' decision to undertake a non-operative hip fracture management approach among older adults, and to determine whether there is global heterogeneity regarding these factors between high income countries (HIC), and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) clinicians. A SurveyMonkey questionnaire was distributed to clinicians through the Fragility Fracture Network's Perioperative Special Interest Group and clinicians' personal networks between May 24 and July 25, 2021. 406 respondents from 51 countries returned the questionnaire, of which 225 respondents came from HIC and 180 from LMIC. Clinicians from HIC reported a greater median [IQR] estimated proportion of admitted patients with hip fracture undergoing surgery (96% [95–99]) than those from LMIC (85% [75–95]) of mean (SD) at 94% (8) compared to 81% (16) among LMIC clinicians (p=2.94e-23). Several factors seemed to influence the clinician hip fracture management decision making process. Global heterogeneity seems to exist between HIC and LMIC clinicians regarding factors such as anticipated life expectancy, ability to pay, treatment costs, insufficient resources, and perception of risk in hip fracture management decision-making. This is the first international sampling of clinician perspectives regarding hip fracture management. Further research is necessary for the development of best practice guidelines to improve hip fracture management decision-making and quality of hip fracture care among older adults.

The effect of patient ethnicity on the accuracy of peripheral pulse oximetry in patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis: a single-centre, retrospective analysis.

Pulse oximetry is used widely to titrate oxygen therapy and for triage in patients who are critically ill. However, there are concerns regarding the accuracy of pulse oximetry in patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis and in patients who have a greater degree of skin pigmentation. We aimed to determine the impact of patient ethnicity on the accuracy of peripheral pulse oximetry in patients who were critically ill with COVID-19 pneumonitis by conducting a retrospective observational study comparing paired measurements of arterial oxygen saturation measured by co-oximetry on arterial blood gas analysis (SaO2 ) and the corresponding peripheral oxygenation saturation measured by pulse oximetry (Sp O2 ). Bias was calculated as the mean difference between SaO2 and Sp O2 measurements and limits of agreement were calculated as bias ±1.96 SD. Data from 194 patients (135 White ethnic origin, 34 Asian ethnic origin, 19 Black ethnic origin and 6 other ethnic origin) were analysed consisting of 6216 paired SaO2 and Sp O2 measurements. Bias (limits of agreement) between SaO2 and Sp O2 measurements was 0.05% (-2.21-2.30). Patient ethnicity did not alter this to a clinically significant degree: 0.28% (1.79-2.35), -0.33% (-2.47-2.35) and -0.75% (-3.47-1.97) for patients of White, Asian and Black ethnic origin, respectively. In patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis, Sp O2 measurements showed a level of agreement with SaO2 values that was in line with previous work, and this was not affected by patient ethnicity.

Guideline for the management of hip fractures 2020: Guideline by the Association of Anaesthetists.

We convened a multidisciplinary Working Party on behalf of the Association of Anaesthetists to update the 2011 guidance on the peri-operative management of people with hip fracture. Importantly, these guidelines describe the core aims and principles of peri-operative management, recommending greater standardisation of anaesthetic practice as a component of multidisciplinary care. Although much of the 2011 guidance remains applicable to contemporary practice, new evidence and consensus inform the additional recommendations made in this document. Specific changes to the 2011 guidance relate to analgesia, medicolegal practice, risk assessment, bone cement implantation syndrome and regional review networks. Areas of controversy remain, and we discuss these in further detail, relating to the mode of anaesthesia, surgical delay, blood management and transfusion thresholds, echocardiography, anticoagulant and antiplatelet management and postoperative discharge destination. Finally, these guidelines provide links to supplemental online material that can be used at readers' institutions, key references and UK national guidance about the peri-operative care of people with hip and periprosthetic fractures during the COVID-19 pandemic.