Supporting COVID-19 elective recovery through scalable wait list modelling: Specialty-level application to all hospitals in England.

The recovery of elective waiting lists represents a major challenge and priority for the health services of many countries. In England's National Health Service (NHS), the waiting list has increased by 45% in the two years since the COVID-19 pandemic was declared in March 2020. Long waits associate with worse patient outcomes and can deepen inequalities and lead to additional demands on healthcare resources. Modelling the waiting list can be valuable for both estimating future trajectories and considering alternative capacity allocation strategies. However, there is a deficit within the current literature of scalable solutions that can provide managers and clinicians with hospital and specialty level projections on a routine basis. In this paper, a model representing the key dynamics of the waiting list problem is presented alongside its differential equation based solution. Versatility of the model is demonstrated through its calibration to routine publicly available NHS data. The model has since been used to produce regular monthly projections of the waiting list for every hospital trust and specialty in England.

Towards a standardised method of patient prioritisation that accounts for clinical harm.

COVID-19 has highlighted the need for a standardised approach for prioritising patients requiring elective care. The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS) developed guidance at the start of the pandemic for prioritising surgical patients based on the urgency of different procedures. Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (ICHT) has extended this to all aspects of elective care to enable standardised decision-making based on clinical priority, clinical harm and patient vulnerability. This was a clinically led project that involved close collaboration with lay partners, who were concerned that the RCS guidance lacked the sensitivity to reflect individual patients' needs. Our novel elective care recovery matrix is designed to be applicable across all elective care services and at Trust or system level. Implementation at ICHT progressed rapidly: as of 28 August 2020 >200 consultants have received training on the process and 58% of all surgical orders have been prioritised using the new framework (5,134/8,800). While COVID-19 was the driver, the applicability can be wider and could inform new ways of working. The framework enables rapid quantification of individual patient care requirements, thus enabling clinicians to target more accurately those patients with the greatest need and those who would see the greatest benefit.

The perception of patient safety in an alternate site of care for elective surgery during the first wave of the novel coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom: a survey of 158 patients.

BACKGROUND: We undertook a prospective qualitative survey to ascertain the perceptions and experience of National Health Service patients in the United Kingdom who underwent planned or elective procedures and surgery at alternate 'clean' hospital sites during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. These alternate 'clean' hospital sites were independent hospitals running active staff and patient testing programmes for COVID-19 and which did not admit or treat patients suffering with COVID-19. METHODS: A prospective survey was undertaken to include patients at least 30 days after a planned surgery or procedure conducted at a 'clean' alternate hospital site during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study was conducted using structured interviews undertaken by trained assessors. A 20% sample group of patients were randomly selected to participate in this study. Qualitative data related to confidence, safety and perceptions of safety were collected. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients (60%) reported that they had prior worries or concerns about undergoing an elective procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 47 patients (30%) had delayed their surgery at least once because of these concerns. A total of 150 patients (95%) felt that the precautions in place to protect their safety in the setting of an alternate 'clean' hospital site were well thought out and proportionate. Patients reported high levels of confidence in the measures undertaken. Separation of patient pathways using the independent sector and patient testing were identified by patients as having the greatest impact on their perception of safety. CONCLUSIONS: Patient confidence will be key to ensuring uptake of planned and elective procedures and surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perceptions of safety will be key to this confidence and efforts to demonstrably enhance safety are well received by patients. In particular, patients felt that a dedicated programme of patient testing and separation of patient pathways provided the greatest levels of confidence in the safety of their treatment.

The long road to recovery: at six months since the first COVID-19 wave, elective orthopedic care has still not fully recovered in Belgium.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of our study was to investigate elective orthopaedic care during the first wave government-imposed COVID-19 lockdown and at four weeks and 21 weeks after resuming elective care. The secondary aim of our study was to evaluate the implementation of the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) COVID-19 Guidelines and Recommendations for Resuming Elective Surgery in the clinical practice of Belgian knee surgeons. METHODS: We sent three anonymous online surveys to 102 Belgian Knee Society members (BKS) at times mentioned above. Addressed topics were: (1) participant demographics, (2) elective surgeries, (3) outpatient visits, (4) ESSKA Guidelines, (5) patient and surgeon safety. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 lockdown, there was a decrease of 97% in elective knee surgeries and 91% in outpatient visits. At four and 21 weeks after resuming elective care, volumes were respectively 67% and 89% for elective surgeries and 81% and 91% for outpatient visits. Regarding ESSKA guidelines, 91% of surgeons had no COVID-19 testing prior to resuming elective care. Ninety-two per cent reported preoperative (< 72 h) patient PCR testing, and 45% gave preference to young patients without comorbidities. Seventy-two per cent did not use additional personal protective equipment (PPE) if a patient PCR test was negative. Forty-nine per cent continued to give preference to general anaesthesia. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that elective surgeries and outpatient visits were almost completely interrupted during the COVID-19 lockdown and were still below normal at four and 21 weeks after resuming elective care. Regarding ESSKA COVID-19 guidelines, our study observes good compliance in preoperative patient COVID-19 testing, but lower compliance for preoperative health care personnel testing, patient selection, use of PPE, and locoregional anaesthesia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

Public Perceptions of Resuming Elective Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Many U.S. health systems are grappling with how to safely resume elective surgery amid the COVID-19 pandemic. We used online crowdsourcing to explore public perceptions and concerns toward resuming elective surgery during the pandemic, and to determine factors associated with the preferred timing of surgery after health systems reopen. METHODS: A 21-question survey was completed by 722 members of the public using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with the timing of preferred surgery after health systems reopen. RESULTS: Most (61%) participants were concerned with contracting COVID-19 during the surgical process, primarily during check-in and in waiting room areas, as well as through excessive interactions with staff. Overall, 57% would choose to have their surgery at a hospital over an outpatient surgery center. About 1 in 4 (27%) would feel comfortable undergoing elective surgery in the first month of health systems reopening. After multivariable adjustment, native English speaking (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.04-6.4; P = .042), male sex (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.7; P < .001), and Veterans Affairs insurance (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.1-18.7; P = .036) were independent predictors of preferring earlier surgery. CONCLUSION: Women and non-native English speakers may be more hesitant to undergo elective surgery amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite concerns of contagion, more than half of the public favors a hospital setting over an outpatient surgery center for their elective surgery. Concerted efforts to minimize patient congestion and unnecessary face-to-face interactions may prove most effective in reducing public anxiety and concerns over the safety of resuming elective care.