Shared Decision-Making in General Surgery: Prospective Comparison of Telemedicine vs In-Person Visits.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated a shift toward virtual telemedicine appointments with surgeons. While this form of healthcare delivery has potential benefits for both patients and surgeons, the quality of these interactions remains largely unstudied. We hypothesize that telemedicine visits are associated with lower quality of shared decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a mixed-methods, prospective, observational cohort trial. All patients presenting for a first-time visit at general surgery clinics between May 2021 and June 2022 were included. Patients were categorized by type of visit: in-person vs telemedicine. The primary outcome was the level of shared decision-making as captured by top box scores of the CollaboRATE measure. Secondary outcomes included quality of shared decision-making as captured by the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and satisfaction with consultation survey. An adjusted analysis was performed accounting for potential confounders. A qualitative analysis of open-ended questions for both patients and practitioners was performed. RESULTS: During a 13-month study period, 387 patients were enrolled, of which 301 (77.8%) underwent in-person visits and 86 (22.2%) underwent telemedicine visits. The groups were similar in age, sex, employment, education, and generic quality-of-life scores. In an adjusted analysis, a visit type of telemedicine was not associated with either the CollaboRATE top box score (odds ratio 1.27; 95% CI 0.74 to 2.20) or 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (ß -0.60; p = 0.76). Similarly, there was no difference in other outcomes. Themes from qualitative patient and surgeon responses included physical presence, time investment, appropriateness for visit purpose, technical difficulties, and communication quality. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, prospective study, there does not appear to be a difference in quality of shared decision making in patients undergoing in-person vs telemedicine appointments.

Global perioperative surgery research: A call to Latin America / Investigación global sobre el perioperatorio quirúrgico: un llamado a América Latina

Every year, around 300 million surgical procedures are performed worldwide 1,2, with an estimated 4% early postoperative mortality rate. 3,4 However, little is known about global quality of surgery, specifically in middle-income countries. Colombia, similar to other Latin American countries, has an interesting diversity of healthcare needs. In urban settings, the healthcare offered is among the best in Latin America, with top-quality hospitals and educational programs comparable to those in the USA or Europe. In contrast, in most rural areas of Latin America, including some of the most remote locations in the world (like the Pacific Coast or the Amazon forest), a frail and fragmented healthcare system prevails, similar to the conditions in very low-income countries. At least 7.1 million people (15.1% of the population) lack hospital access within a 2-hour drive, and despite these characteristics, the early reported postoperative mortality is low - 0.74%.

Cada año se realizan alrededor de 300 millones de intervenciones quirúrgicas en todo el mundo 1,2, con una tasa estimada de mortalidad postoperatoria temprana del 4%. 3,4 Sin embargo, poco se sabe sobre la calidad global de la cirugía, específicamente en los países de ingresos medios. Colombia, al igual que otros países latinoamericanos, presenta una interesante diversidad de necesidades de atención médica. En los entornos urbanos, la oferta sanitaria se encuentra entre las mejores de América Latina, con hospitales de primera calidad y programas educativos comparables a los de Estados Unidos o Europa. En cambio, en la mayoría de las zonas rurales de América Latina, incluidas algunas de las localidades más remotas del mundo (como la costa del Pacífico o la selva amazónica), prevalece un sistema sanitario frágil y fragmentado, similar a las condiciones de los países de muy bajos ingresos. Al menos 7,1 millones de personas (el 15,1% de la población) carecen de acceso a un hospital a menos de 2 horas de viaje, y a pesar de estas características, la mortalidad postoperatoria temprana reportada es baja: 0,74%.

Evaluation of patients undergoing emergency surgery in a COVID-19 pandemic hospital: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is threatening healthcare systems and hospital operations on a global scale. Treatment algorithms have changed in general surgery clinics, as in other medical disciplines providing emergency services, with greater changes seen especially in pandemic hospitals. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the follow-up of patients undergoing emergency surgery in our hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study conducted in a tertiary-level public hospital. METHODS: The emergency surgeries carried out between March 11 and April 2, 2020, in the general surgery clinic of a tertiary-care hospital that has also taken on the functions of a pandemic hospital, were retrospectively examined. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients were included, among whom 20 were discharged without event, one remained in the surgical intensive care unit, two are under follow-up by the surgery service and two died. Upon developing postoperative fever and shortness of breath, two patients underwent thoracic computed tomography (CT), although no characteristics indicating COVID-19 were found. The discharged patients had no COVID-19 positivity at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The data that we obtained were not surgical results from patients with COVID-19 infection. They were the results from emergency surgeries on patients who were not infected with COVID-19 but were in a hospital largely dealing with the pandemic. Analysis on the cases in this study showed that both the patients with emergency surgery and the patients with COVID infection were successfully treated, without influencing each other, through appropriate isolation measures, although managed in the same hospital. In addition, these successful results were supported by 14-day follow-up after discharge.

Harmonized procedure coding system for surgical procedures and analysis of surgical site infections (SSI) of five European countries.

BACKGROUND: The use of routine data will be essential in future healthcare research. Therefore, harmonizing procedure codes is a first step to facilitate this approach as international research endeavour. An example for the use of routine data on a large scope is the investigation of surgical site infections (SSI). Ongoing surveillance programs evaluate the incidence of SSI on a national or regional basis in a limited number of procedures. For example, analyses by the European Centre for Disease Prevention (ECDC) nine procedures and provides a mapping table for two coding systems (ICD9, National Healthcare Safety Network [NHSN]). However, indicator procedures do not reliably depict overall SSI epidemiology. Thus, a broader analysis of all surgical procedures is desirable. The need for manual translation of country specific procedures codes, however, impedes the use of routine data for such an analysis on an international level. This project aimed to create an international surgical procedure coding systems allowing for automatic translation and categorization of procedures documented in country-specific codes. METHODS: We included the existing surgical procedure coding systems of five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom [UK]). In an iterative process, country specific codes were grouped in ever more categories until each group represented a coherent unit based on method of surgery, interventions performed, extent and site of the surgical procedure. Next two ID specialist (arbitrated by a third in case of disagreement) independently assigned country-specific codes to the resulting categories. Finally, specialist from each surgical discipline reviewed these assignments for their respective field. RESULTS: A total number of 153 SALT (Staphylococcus aureus Surgical Site Infection Multinational Epidemiology in Europe) codes from 10 specialties were assigned to 15,432 surgical procedures. Almost 4000 (26%) procedure codes from the SALT coding system were classified as orthopaedic and trauma surgeries, thus this medical field represents the most diverse group within the SALT coding system, followed by abdominal surgical procedures with 2390 (15%) procedure codes. CONCLUSION: Mapping country-specific codes procedure codes onto to a limited number of coherent, internally and externally validated codes proofed feasible. The resultant SALT procedure code gives the opportunity to harmonize big data sets containing surgical procedures from international centres, and may simplify comparability of future international trial findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov under NCT03353532 on November 27th, 2017.

Triage admission protocol with a centralized quarantine unit for patients after acute care surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A tertiary center experience in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 surge in Taiwan, the Far East Memorial Hospital established a system including a centralized quarantine unit and triage admission protocol to facilitate acute care surgical inpatient services, prevent nosocomial COVID-19 infection and maintain the efficiency and quality of health care service during the pandemics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing acute care surgery. The triage admission protocol was based on rapid antigen tests, Liat® PCR and RT-PCT tests. Type of surgical procedure, patient characteristics, and efficacy indices of the centralized quarantine unit and emergency department (ED) were collected and analyzed before (Phase I: May 11 to July 2, 2021) and after (Phase II: July 3 to July 31, 2021) the system started. RESULTS: A total of 287 patients (105 in Phase I and 182 in Phase II) were enrolled. Nosocomial COVID-19 infection occur in 27 patients in phase I but zero in phase II. More patients received traumatological, orthopedic, and neurologic surgeries in phase II than in phase I. The patients' surgical risk classification, median total hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and the number of patients requiring postoperative ICU care were similar in both groups. The duration of ED stay and waiting time for acute care surgery were longer in Phase II (397 vs. 532 minutes, p < 0.0001). The duration of ED stay was positively correlated with the number of surgical patients visiting the ED (median = 66 patients, Spearman's ρ = 0.207) and the occupancy ratio in the centralized quarantine unit on that day (median = 90.63%, Spearman's ρ = 0.191). CONCLUSIONS: The triage admission protocol provided resilient quarantine needs and sustainable acute care surgical services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The efficiency was related to the number of medical staff dedicated to the centralized quarantine unit and number of surgical patients visited in ED.

Tranexamic Acid in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative bleeding is common in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic drug that may safely decrease such bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive tranexamic acid (1-g intravenous bolus) or placebo at the start and end of surgery (reported here) and, with the use of a partial factorial design, a hypotension-avoidance or hypertension-avoidance strategy (not reported here). The primary efficacy outcome was life-threatening bleeding, major bleeding, or bleeding into a critical organ (composite bleeding outcome) at 30 days. The primary safety outcome was myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, or symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (composite cardiovascular outcome) at 30 days. To establish the noninferiority of tranexamic acid to placebo for the composite cardiovascular outcome, the upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the hazard ratio had to be below 1.125, and the one-sided P value had to be less than 0.025. RESULTS: A total of 9535 patients underwent randomization. A composite bleeding outcome event occurred in 433 of 4757 patients (9.1%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 561 of 4778 patients (11.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 0.87; absolute difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to -1.4; two-sided P<0.001 for superiority). A composite cardiovascular outcome event occurred in 649 of 4581 patients (14.2%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 639 of 4601 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.14; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 1.14; absolute difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7; one-sided P = 0.04 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, the incidence of the composite bleeding outcome was significantly lower with tranexamic acid than with placebo. Although the between-group difference in the composite cardiovascular outcome was small, the noninferiority of tranexamic acid was not established. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03505723.).

The Perioperative Patient Experience During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Access to elective surgical procedures has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We sought to understand the patient experience by developing and distributing an anonymous online survey to those who underwent non-emergency surgery at a large academic tertiary medical center between March and October 2020. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 184 patients; the majority were white (84%), female (74.6%), and ranged from 18 to 88 years old. Patients were likely unaware of case delay as only 23.6% reported a delay, 82% of which agreed with that decision. Conversely, 44% felt that the delay negatively impacted their quality of life. Overall, 82.7% of patients indicated high satisfaction with their care. African American patients more often indicated a "neutral" vs "satisfactory" hospital experience (P < .05) and considered postponing their surgery (P < .01). Interestingly, younger patients (<60) were more likely than older (≥60) patients to note anxiety associated with having surgery during the pandemic (P < .01), feeling unprepared for discharge (P < .02), not being allowed visitors (P < .02), and learning about the spread of COVID-19 from health care providers (P < .02). DISCUSSION: These results suggest that patients are resilient and accepting of changes to health care delivery during the current pandemic; however, certain patient populations may have higher levels of anxiety which could be addressed by their care provider. These findings can help inform and guide ongoing and future health care delivery adaptations in response to care disruptions.

Trends in US Surgical Procedures and Health Care System Response to Policies Curtailing Elective Surgical Operations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected every aspect of medical care, including surgical treatment. It is critical to understand the association of government policies and infection burden with surgical access across the United States. Objective: To describe the change in surgical procedure volume in the US after the government-suggested shutdown and subsequent peak surge in volume of patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative claims from a nationwide health care technology clearinghouse. Claims from pediatric and adult patients undergoing surgical procedures in 49 US states within the Change Healthcare network of health care institutions were used. Surgical procedure volume during the 2020 initial COVID-19-related shutdown and subsequent fall and winter infection surge were compared with volume in 2019. Data were analyzed from November 2020 through July 2021. Exposures: 2020 policies to curtail elective surgical procedures and the incidence rate of patients with COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated from a Poisson regression comparing total procedure counts during the initial shutdown (March 15 to May 2, 2020) and subsequent COVID-19 surge (October 22, 2020-January 31, 2021) with corresponding 2019 dates. Surgical procedures were analyzed by 11 major procedure categories, 25 subcategories, and 12 exemplar operative procedures along a spectrum of elective to emergency indications. Results: A total of 13 108 567 surgical procedures were identified from January 1, 2019, through January 30, 2021, based on 3498 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. This included 6 651 921 procedures in 2019 (3 516 569 procedures among women [52.9%]; 613 192 procedures among children [9.2%]; and 1 987 397 procedures among patients aged ≥65 years [29.9%]) and 5 973 573 procedures in 2020 (3 156 240 procedures among women [52.8%]; 482 637 procedures among children [8.1%]; and 1 806 074 procedures among patients aged ≥65 years [30.2%]). The total number of procedures during the initial shutdown period and its corresponding period in 2019 (ie, epidemiological weeks 12-18) decreased from 905 444 procedures in 2019 to 458 469 procedures in 2020, for an IRR of 0.52 (95% CI, 0.44 to 0.60; P < .001) with a decrease of 48.0%. There was a decrease in surgical procedure volume across all major categories compared with corresponding weeks in 2019. During the initial shutdown, otolaryngology (ENT) procedures (IRR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.46; P < .001) and cataract procedures (IRR, 0.11; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.32; P = .03) decreased the most among major categories. Organ transplants and cesarean deliveries did not differ from the 2019 baseline. After the initial shutdown, during the ensuing COVID-19 surge, surgical procedure volumes rebounded to 2019 levels (IRR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.00; P = .10) except for ENT procedures (IRR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.75; P < .001). There was a correlation between state volumes of patients with COVID-19 and surgical procedure volume during the initial shutdown (r = -0.00025; 95% CI, -0.0042 to -0.0009; P = .003), but there was no correlation during the COVID-19 surge (r = -0.00034; 95% CI, -0.0075 to 0.00007; P = .11). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that the initial shutdown period in March through April 2020, was associated with a decrease in surgical procedure volume to nearly half of baseline rates. After the reopening, the rate of surgical procedures rebounded to 2019 levels, and this trend was maintained throughout the peak burden of patients with COVID-19 in fall and winter; these findings suggest that after initial adaptation, health systems appeared to be able to self-regulate and function at prepandemic capacity.

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID19) pandemic on the morbidity and mortality of high risk patients undergoing surgery: a non-inferiority retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 crisis it was necessary to generate a specific care network and reconvert operating rooms to attend emergency and high-acuity patients undergoing complex surgery. The aim of this study is to classify postoperative complications and mortality and to assess the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic may have had on the results. METHODS: this is a non-inferiority retrospective observational study. Two different groups of surgical patients were created: Pre-pandemic COVID and Pandemic COVID. Severity of illness was rated according to the Diagnosis-related Groups (DRG) score. Comparisons were made between groups and between DRG severity score-matched samples. Non-inferiority was set at up to 10 % difference for grade III to V complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and up to 2 % difference in mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1649 patients in the PreCOVID group and 763 patients in the COVID group were analysed; 371 patients were matched for DRG severity score 3-4 (236 preCOVID and 135 COVID). No differences were found in relation to re-operation (22.5 % vs. 21.5 %) or late admission to critical care unit (5.1 % vs. 4.5 %). Clavien grade III to V complications occurred in 107 patients (45.3 %) in the PreCOVID group and in 56 patients (41.5 %) in the COVID group, and mortality was 12.7 % and 12.6 %, respectively. During the pandemic, 3 % of patients tested positive for Covid-19 on PCR: 12 patients undergoing elective surgery and 11 emergency surgery; there were 5 deaths, 3 of which were due to respiratory failure following Covid-19-induced pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study has some limitations, it has shown the non-inferiority of surgical outcomes during the COVID pandemic, and indicates that resuming elective surgery is safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04780594 .

Developing the 'checking' discipline.

We explore how engagement with checklists and adoption of a strict 'checking' discipline help avoid unintentional individual, team and systemic errors. Paradoxically, this is equally important when performing repetitive mundane tasks as well as during times of high-stress workload. In this article, we aim to discuss the different types of checklists and explain how deviations from a 'checking' discipline can lead to never events such as wrong side or site surgery. Well-designed checklists function as mental notes and prompts in clinical situations where the combination of fatigue and stress can contribute to a decline in cognitive performance. Furthermore, the need for proactive discussion by all members of the team during the implementation of the surgical checklist also reinforces the concept of teamwork and contributes towards effective communication. Patient safety is often a product of good communication, teamwork and anticipation: a 'checking' mentality remains the lynchpin which links these factors.

The impact of COVID-19 on surgical procedures in Japan: analysis of data from the National Clinical Database.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The spread of COVID-19 has restricted the delivery of standard medical care to surgical patients dramatically. Surgical triage is performed by considering the type of disease, its severity, the urgency for surgery, and the condition of the patient, in addition to the scale of infectious outbreaks in the region. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of surgical procedures performed and whether the effects were more prominent during certain periods of widespread infection and in the affected regions. METHODS: We selected 20 of the most common procedures from each surgical field and compared the weekly numbers of each operation performed in 2020 with the respective numbers in 2018 and 2019, as recorded in the National Clinical Database (NCD). The surgical status during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the relationship between surgical volume and the degree of regional infection were analyzed extensively. RESULTS: The rate of decline in surgery was at most 10-15%. Although the numbers of most oncological and cardiovascular procedures decreased in 2020, there was no significant change in the numbers of pancreaticoduodenectomy and aortic replacement procedures performed in the same period. CONCLUSION: The numbers of most surgical procedures decreased in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, the precise impact of surgical triage on decrease in detection of disease warrants further investigation.