Changes in Burn Surgery Operative Volume and Metrics due to COVID-19.

Due to COVID-19, hospitals underwent drastic changes to operating room policy to mitigate the spread of the disease. Given these unprecedented measures, we aimed to look at the changes in operative volume and metrics of the burn surgery service at our institution. A retrospective review was conducted for operative cases and metrics for the months of March to May for 2019, 2020, and 2021, which correspond with pre-COVID, early COVID (period without elective cases), and late COVID (period with resumed elective cases). Inclusion criteria were cases related to burns. Case types and operative metrics were compared amongst the three time-periods. Compared to the hospital, the burn service had a smaller decrease in volume during early COVID (28.7% vs 50.1%) and exceeded prepandemic volumes during late COVID (+21.8% vs -4.6%). There was a significant increase in excision and grafting cases in early and late COVID periods (P < .0001 and P < .002). There was a significant decrease in laser scar procedures that persisted even during late COVID (P < .0001). The projected and actual lengths of cases significantly increased and persisted into late COVID (P < .01). COVID-19 related operating room closures led to an expected decrease in the number of operative cases. However, there was no significant decline in the number of burn specific cases. The elective cases were largely replaced with excision and grafting cases and this shift has persisted even after elective cases have resumed. This change is also reflected in increased operative times.

RSTNCOVID Burns: A multi-centre service evaluation and stakeholder survey of the impact of COVID-19 on burns care in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

As the UK entered the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Health Service published consensus guidance to the UK burns services advising changes to the acute management of burns to allow the continuation of safe care while protecting limited hospital resources. We aimed to describe the demographics of burns service users, changes to clinical pathways and experiences of the burns team during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. All burns services in the UK were invited to participate in a national collaborative, trainee-led study supported by the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network. The study consisted of (1) a service evaluation of patients receiving burns treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) a multidisciplinary team survey. Analyses were descriptive and narrative depending on data types. Collaborators from 18 sites contributed data from burns MDT surveys and 512 patients. Patient demographics were consistent with typical burns patterns in the UK. The delayed presentation occurred in 20% of cases, with 24 patients developing complications. MDT surveys indicated substantial adaptations and challenges as a result of the pandemic. Access to theatres and critical care were limited, yet a comprehensive acute burns service was maintained. Telemedicine was utilised heavily to reduce patient footfall. Adaptations in the provision of burns care, including greater outpatient care and telemedicine, have emerged out of necessity with reported success. The impact of reduced scar therapy and psychological interventions for burns patients during the pandemic requires longer-term follow-up. Lessons from the UK experience can be used to strategise for future pandemics.

St Andrew's COVID-19 surgery safety (StACS) study: The Burns Centre experience.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has the potential to significantly impact burns patients both directly through infective complications of an immunocompromised cohort, and indirectly through disruption of care pathways and resource limitations. The pandemic presents new challenges that must be overcome to maintain patient safety; in particular, the potential increased risks of surgical intervention, anaesthesia and ventilation. This study comprehensively reviews the measures implemented to adapt referral pathways and mitigate the risk posed by COVID-19 during the height of the pandemic, within a large Burns Centre. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was designed to assess patients treated at the Burns Centre during the UK COVID-19 pandemic peak (April-May 2020), following implementation of new safety measures. All patients were analysed for 30-day mortality. In addition, a prospective controlled cohort study was undertaken on all inpatients and a random sample of outpatients with telephone follow-up at 30 days. These patients were divided into three groups (operative inpatients, non-operative inpatients, outpatients). COVID-19 related data collected included test results, contact with proven cases, isolation status and symptoms. The implemented departmental service COVID-19 safety adaptations are described. RESULTS: Of 323 patients treated at the Burns Centre during the study period, no 30-day COVID-19 related deaths occurred (0/323). Of the 80 patients analysed in the prospective controlled cohort section of the study, 51 underwent COVID-19 testing, 3.9% (2/51) were positive. Both cases were in the operative group, however in comparison to the non-operative and outpatient groups, there was no significant increase in COVID-19 incidence in operative patients. CONCLUSIONS: We found no COVID-19 related mortality during the study period. With appropriate precautions, burns patients were not exposed to an increased COVID-19 risk. Similarly, burns patients undergoing operative management were not at a significantly increased risk of contracting COVID-19 in comparison to non-operative groups.

Rapid redesign and effect on clinical workload of a supra-regional burns and plastic surgery service during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In March 2020, South Wales experienced the most significant COVID-19 outbreak in the UK outside of London. We share our experience of the rapid redesign and subsequent change in activity in one of the busiest supra-regional burns and plastic surgery services in the UK. METHODS: A time-matched retrospective service evaluation was completed for a 7-week "COVID-19" study period and the equivalent weeks in 2018 and 2019. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate plastic surgery theatre use and the impact of service redesign. Comparison between study periods was tested for statistical significance using two-tailed t-tests. RESULTS: Operation numbers reduced by 64% and total operating time by 70%. General anaesthetic cases reduced from 41% to 7% (p<0.0001), and surgery was mainly carried out in ringfenced daycase theatres. Emergency surgery decreased by 84% and elective surgery by 46%. Cancer surgery as a proportion of total elective operating increased from 51% to 96% (p<0.0001). The absolute number of cancer-related surgeries undertaken was maintained despite the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Rapid development of COVID-19 SOPs minimised inpatient admissions. There was a significant decrease in operating while maintaining emergency and cancer surgery. Our ringfenced local anaesthetic Plastic Surgery Treatment Centre was essential in delivering a service. COVID-19 acted as a catalyst for service innovations and the uptake of activities such as telemedicine, virtual MDTs, and online webinars. Our experiences support the need for a core burns and plastic service during a pandemic, and show that the service can be effectively redesigned at speed.

St Andrew's COVID-19 surgery safety (StACS) study: Elective plastic surgery, trauma & burns.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates COVID-19 related patient risk, when undergoing management within one of the largest specialist centres in Europe, which rapidly implemented national COVID-19 safety guidelines. METHOD: A prospective cohort study was undertaken in all patients who underwent surgical (n = 1429) or non-operative (n = 191) management during the UK COVID-19 pandemic peak (April-May 2020); all were evaluated for 30-day COVID-19 related death. A representative sample of elective/trauma/burns patients (surgery group, n = 729) were selected and also sub-analysed within a controlled cohort study design. Comparison was made to a random selection of non-operatively managed (non-operative group, n = 100) or waiting list (control group, n = 250) patients. These groups were prospectively followed-up and telephoned from the end of June (control group) or at 30 days post-first assessment (non-operative group)/post-operatively (surgery group). RESULTS: Complex general (9.2%, 136/1483) or regional (5.0%, 74/1483) anaesthesia cases represented 14.2% (210/1483) of operations undertaken. There were no 30-day post-operative (0/1429)/first assessment (0/191) COVID-19 related deaths. Neither the three sub-speciality plastic surgery, or non-operative groups, displayed increases in post-operative/first assessment symptoms in comparison to each other, or to control. The proportion of COVID-19 positive tests were: 7.1% (1/14) (non-operative), 5.9% (2/34) (burns) and 3.0% (3/99) (trauma); there were however no significant differences between these groups, the elective (0%, 0/54) and control (0%, 0/24) groups (p = 0.236). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that even heterogeneous sub-speciality patient groups, who required operative/non-operative management, did not incur an increased COVID-19 risk compared to each other or to control. These highly encouraging results were achieved with described, rapidly implemented service changes that were tailored to protect each patient group and staff.