Evaluation of Postoperative Complication with Medically Necessary, Time-Sensitive Scoring System During Acute COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: High scores in the Medically Necessary, Time-Sensitive (MeNTS) scoring system, used for elective surgical prioritization during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, are assumed to be associated with worse outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the MeNTS scoring system in patients undergoing elective surgery during restricted capacity of our institution, with or without moderate or severe postoperative complications. STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective observational study, MeNTS scores of patients undergoing elective operations during May and June 2020 were calculated. Postoperative complication severity (classified as Group Clavien-Dindo < II or Group Clavien-Dindo ≥ II), as well as Duke Activity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, presence of smoking, leukocytosis, lymphopenia, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), operation and anesthesia characteristics, intensive care requirement and duration, length of hospital stay, rehospitalization, and mortality were noted. RESULTS: There were 223 patients analyzed. MeNTS score was higher in the Clavien-Dindo ≥ II Group compared with the Clavien-Dindo < II Group (50.98 ± 8.98 vs 44.27 ± 8.90 respectively, p < 0.001). Duke activity status index (DASI) scores were lower, and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class, presence of smoking, leukocytosis, lymphopenia, elevated CRP, and intensive care requirement were higher in the Clavien-Dindo ≥ II Group (p < 0.01). Length of hospital stay was longer in the Clavien-Dindo ≥ II Group (15 [range 2-90] vs 4 [1-30] days; p < 0.001). Mortality was observed in 8 patients. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of MeNTS and DASI were 0.69 and 0.71, respectively, for predicting moderate/severe complications. CONCLUSIONS: Although significant, MeNTS score had low discriminating power in distinguishing patients with moderate/severe complications. Incorporation of a cardiovascular functional capacity measure could improve the scoring system.

New geographic model of care to manage the post-COVID-19 elective surgery aftershock in England: a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The suspension of elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented and has resulted in record volumes of patients waiting for operations. Novel approaches that maximise capacity and efficiency of surgical care are urgently required. This study applies Markov multiscale community detection (MMCD), an unsupervised graph-based clustering framework, to identify new surgical care models based on pooled waiting-lists delivered across an expanded network of surgical providers. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using Hospital Episode Statistics. SETTING: Public and private hospitals providing surgical care to National Health Service (NHS) patients in England. PARTICIPANTS: All adult patients resident in England undergoing NHS-funded planned surgical procedures between 1 April 2017 and 31 March 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The identification of the most common planned surgical procedures in England (high-volume procedures (HVP)) and proportion of low, medium and high-risk patients undergoing each HVP. The mapping of hospitals providing surgical care onto optimised groupings based on patient usage data. RESULTS: A total of 7 811 891 planned operations were identified in 4 284 925 adults during the 1-year period of our study. The 28 most common surgical procedures accounted for a combined 3 907 474 operations (50.0% of the total). 2 412 613 (61.7%) of these most common procedures involved 'low risk' patients. Patients travelled an average of 11.3 km for these procedures. Based on the data, MMCD partitioned England into 45, 16 and 7 mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive natural surgical communities of increasing coarseness. The coarser partitions into 16 and seven surgical communities were shown to be associated with balanced supply and demand for surgical care within communities. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled waiting-lists for low-risk elective procedures and patients across integrated, expanded natural surgical community networks have the potential to increase efficiency by innovatively flexing existing supply to better match demand.

Triaging Interventional Pain Procedures During COVID-19 or Related Elective Surgery Restrictions: Evidence-Informed Guidance from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the pain and suffering of chronic pain patients due to stoppage of "elective" interventional pain management and office visits across the United States. The reopening of America and restarting of interventional techniques and elective surgical procedures has started. Unfortunately, with resurgence in some states, restrictions are once again being imposed. In addition, even during the Phase II and III of reopening, chronic pain patients and interventional pain physicians have faced difficulties because of the priority selection of elective surgical procedures.Chronic pain patients require high intensity care, specifically during a pandemic such as COVID-19. Consequently, it has become necessary to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures, or related elective surgery restrictions during a pandemic. OBJECTIVES: The aim of these guidelines is to provide education and guidance for physicians, healthcare administrators, the public and patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our goal is to restore the opportunity to receive appropriate care for our patients who may benefit from interventional techniques. METHODS: The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-19 Task Force in order to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures or related elective surgery restrictions to provide appropriate access to interventional pain management (IPM) procedures in par with other elective surgical procedures. In developing the guidance, trustworthy standards and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest were applied with a section of a panel of experts from various regions, specialties, types of practices (private practice, community hospital and academic institutes) and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification was reviewed. The evidence -- informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge was utilized, instead of a simplified evidence-based approach. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge. RESULTS: The Task Force defined the medical urgency of a case and developed an IPM acuity scale for elective IPM procedures with 3 tiers. These included urgent, emergency, and elective procedures. Examples of urgent and emergency procedures included new onset or exacerbation of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), acute trauma or acute exacerbation of degenerative or neurological disease resulting in impaired mobility and inability to perform activities of daily living. Examples include painful rib fractures affecting oxygenation and post-dural puncture headaches limiting the ability to sit upright, stand and walk. In addition, emergency procedures include procedures to treat any severe or debilitating disease that prevents the patient from carrying out activities of daily living. Elective procedures were considered as any condition that is stable and can be safely managed with alternatives. LIMITATIONS: COVID-19 continues to be an ongoing pandemic. When these recommendations were developed, different stages of reopening based on geographical regulations were in process. The pandemic continues to be dynamic creating every changing evidence-based guidance. Consequently, we provided evidence-informed guidance. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in IPM creating needless suffering for pain patients. Many IPM procedures cannot be indefinitely postponed without adverse consequences. Chronic pain exacerbations are associated with marked functional declines and risks with alternative treatment modalities. They must be treated with the concern that they deserve. Clinicians must assess patients, local healthcare resources, and weigh the risks and benefits of a procedure against the risks of suffering from disabling pain and exposure to the COVID-19 virus.