Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 841
Filter
1.
Urol J ; 17(6): 560-561, 2021 Jan 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20242698

ABSTRACT

In this correspondence the authors try to show that guidelines and recommendations including what was published by EAU rapid reaction group must be further updated and tailored according to different epidemiologic data in different countries. The authors assign the countries worldwide in three categories. First category comprises countries that experience the secondary surges smoother than the first one. The second category include countries with stronger or -merging and rising-secondary surges and the third category encompasses countries with successful initial response and secondary stronger but still more controllable surges. Authors proclaim that after passing the first baffling impact we find out that postponement strategies preached in many of these scout treatises are no more suitable at least for the countries delineated in the second category and can culminate in performance of procedures in worse. The authors proffer Iranian Urology Association COVID-19 Taskforce Pamphlet(IUA-CTP) as a paragonic document mentioning it's the time we must recognise the wide variability of the situation in different regions and any advisory position must consider this huge variance in epidemiologic profile.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Urologic Surgical Procedures/standards , Appointments and Schedules , Elective Surgical Procedures/standards , Humans , Iran/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Br J Surg ; 108(12): 1448-1464, 2021 Dec 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20239571

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. METHODS: This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January-October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P < 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P < 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.


This study compared death rates in patients who developed pulmonary complications of surgery before and during the pandemic in two large, international studies. Patients who underwent surgery during the pandemic tended to be younger and fitter. Overall, 4.3 per cent were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection after surgery in the pandemic cohort. Deaths within 30 days after surgery tripled during the first wave of the pandemic (from 0.7 to 2.0 per cent), whereas the rate of pulmonary complications remained the similar (7.1 to 6.3 per cent). Over half of these excess deaths (54.8 per cent) were estimated to be related to SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Elective Surgical Procedures , Postoperative Complications/mortality , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Abdominal Neoplasms/surgery , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics
5.
Int J Qual Health Care ; 35(1)2023 Mar 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2319492

ABSTRACT

Last-minute cancellations in urological surgery are a global issue, resulting in the wastage of resources and delays to patient care. In addition to non-cessation of anticoagulants and inadequately treated medical comorbidities, untreated urinary tract infections are a significant cause of last-minute cancellations. This study aimed to ascertain whether the introduction of a specialist nurse clinic resulted in a reduction of last-minute cancellations of elective urological surgery as part of our elective recovery plan following the Coronavirus disease 2019, the contagious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. A specialist urology nurse-led clinic was introduced to review urine culture results preoperatively. Specialist nurses contacted patients with positive urine cultures and their general practitioners by telephone and email to ensure a minimum of 2 days of 'lead-in' antibiotics were given prior to surgery. Patients unfit for surgery were postponed and optimized, and vacant slots were backfilled. A new guideline was created to improve the timing and structure of the generic preassessment. Between 1 January 2021 and 30 June 2021, a mean of 40 cases was booked each month, with average cancellations rates of 9.57/40 (23.92%). After implementing changes on 1 July 2021, cancellations fell to 4/124 (3%) for the month. On re-audit, there was a sustained and statistically significant reduction in cancellation rates: between 1 July 2021 and 31 December 2021 cancellations averaged 4.2/97.5 (4.3%, P < .001). Two to nine (2%-16%) patients were started on antibiotics each month, while another zero to two (0%-2%) were contacted for other reasons. The implementation of a specialist urology nurse-led preassessment clinic resulted in a sustained reduction in cancellations of last-minute elective urological procedures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Elective Surgical Procedures , Ambulatory Care Facilities , Appointments and Schedules
6.
J Bras Nefrol ; 42(2 suppl 1): 12-14, 2020 Aug 26.
Article in English, Portuguese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2291145

ABSTRACT

Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease are among those individuals at increased risk for developing more serious forms of Covid-19. This increased risk starts in the pre-dialysis phase of the disease. Providing useful information for these patients, in language that facilitates the understanding of the disease, can help nephrologists and other healthcare professionals to establish a more effective communication with these patients and help minimize contagion and the risks of serious illness in this population.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Education as Topic/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/complications , Activities of Daily Living , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Elective Surgical Procedures , Hand Hygiene/methods , Hand Hygiene/standards , Health Facilities , Health Personnel , Humans , Nephrology/standards , Personal Space , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Renal Dialysis , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Symptom Assessment
8.
BMJ Open ; 13(4): e060770, 2023 04 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2296694

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The majority of the cancelled elective surgeries caused by the COVID-19 pandemic globally were estimated to occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where surgical services had long been in short supply even before the pandemic. Therefore, minimising disruption to existing surgical care in LMICs is of crucial importance during a pandemic. This study aimed to explore contributory factors to the continuity of surgical care in LMICs in the face of a pandemic. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted over zoom with surgical leaders of 25 tertiary hospitals from 11 LMICs in South and Southeast Asia in September to October 2020. Key themes were subsequently identified from the interview transcripts using the Braun and Clarke's method of thematic analysis. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic affected all surgical services of participating institutions to varying degrees. Overall, elective surgeries suffered the gravest disruption, followed by outpatient surgical care, and finally emergency surgeries. Keeping healthcare workers safe and striving for continuity of essential surgical care emerged as notable response strategies observed across all participating institutions. CONCLUSION: This study suggested that four factors are important for the resilience of surgical care against COVID-19: adequate COVID-19 testing capacity and effective institutional infection control measures, designated COVID-19 treatment facilities, whole-system approach to balancing pandemic response and meeting essential surgical needs, and active community engagement. These findings can inform healthcare institutions in other countries, especially LMICs, in their effort to tread a fine line between preserving healthcare capacity for pandemic response and protecting surgical services against pandemic disruption.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Elective Surgical Procedures , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19 Testing , Pandemics/prevention & control , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Asia, Southeastern
9.
EuroIntervention ; 16(14): 1177-1186, 2021 Feb 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2254842

ABSTRACT

The rearrangement of healthcare services required to face the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a drastic reduction in elective cardiac invasive procedures. We are already facing a "second wave" of infections and we might be dealing during the next months with a "third wave" and subsequently new waves. Therefore, during the different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic we have to face the problems of how to perform elective cardiac invasive procedures in non-COVID patients and which patients/procedures should be prioritised. In this context, the interplay between the pandemic stage, the availability of healthcare resources and the priority of specific cardiac disorders is crucial. Clear pathways for "hot" or presumed "hot" patients and "cold" patients are mandatory in each hospital. Depending on the local testing capacity and intensity of transmission in the area, healthcare facilities may test patients for SARS-CoV-2 infection before the interventional procedure, regardless of risk assessment for COVID-19. Pre-hospital testing should always be conducted in the presence of symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In cases of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 positive patients, full personal protective equipment using FFP 2/N95 masks, eye protection, gowning and gloves is indicated during cardiac interventions for healthcare workers. When patients have tested negative for COVID-19, medical masks may be sufficient. Indeed, individual patients should themselves wear medical masks during cardiac interventions and outpatient visits.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiovascular Surgical Procedures , Elective Surgical Procedures , Pandemics , Humans , Masks , Personal Protective Equipment , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 67(6): 703-705, 2023 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2253053

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pre-anaesthesia assessment is crucial to ensure the quality and safety of anaesthesia and surgery. However, despite being very common and essential for many patients undergoing elective surgery, little is known about the different pre-anaesthesia assessment approaches. Hence, this article outlines a study protocol for a scoping review aiming to, systematically, map the literature on pre-anaesthetic assessment approaches and outcomes, synthesise existing evidence, and identify knowledge gaps for future research. METHODS: We will conduct a scoping review of all study designs following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Moreover, the five steps set forth by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by Levac will guide the review process. Studies with adults (≥18 years) scheduled for elective surgery are included. Data regarding trial characteristics, patients, clinicians performing the pre-anaesthetic assessment, interventions and outcomes are included using a combination of Covidence and Excel. Quantitative data are summarised using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data are presented through a descriptive synthesis. CONCLUSION: The outlined scoping review will provide a synthesis of the literature, which can support the development of new evidence-based practices for safe perioperative management of adult patients undergoing elective surgery.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia , Anesthetics , Adult , Humans , Elective Surgical Procedures , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Preoperative Care , Research Design , Systematic Reviews as Topic
13.
S Afr J Surg ; 60(3): 154-159, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2273920

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a massive backlog of elective cases. Delays in the provision of "elective" surgical care have dire consequences for the patient: progression of disease and comorbidities, higher complication rates, and lower overall survival. Delays in elective surgery also have significant consequences for the health system: added emotional strain on healthcare workers, a reduction in training opportunities, increased costs, and increased inequality in health-service provision. As the virus is likely to become endemic, the recovery of surgical services from the initial shock of the first three waves needs to be carefully planned, in order to mitigate the further loss of elective surgical services. This article presents a narrative review of the latest international guidelines and recommendations pertaining to surgical recovery strategies in the COVID-19 pandemic. To begin with, any recovery plan should be led by a local governance committee, who need to design and implement a number of strategies across the three phases of recovery. The preparation phase includes deciding on a system of case prioritisation, assessing and organising resources, and planning innovative ways to reorganise the service itself. The perioperative phase involves putting measures in place to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. The post discharge phase includes the implementation of telemedicine for follow-up, as well as methods of service audit to enable continuous adjustment and improvement. Surgical service recovery presents many challenges; however, these also present a unique opportunity to reassess and improve the efficiency of surgical care delivery.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aftercare , COVID-19/epidemiology , Elective Surgical Procedures , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Discharge
14.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(22)2022 Nov 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2255117

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine hospital services globally. The cancellation of elective surgeries placed a psychological burden on patients. A questionnaire study was conducted to identify the psychological impact of canceling cataract operations on patients at Kowloon East Cataract Center, Tseung Kwan O Hospital, Hong Kong, from April to June 2020. In total, 99 participants aged 59 years old and above, who had their cataract surgeries postponed or as scheduled, were studied using the standardized patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) and generalized anxiety disorder questionnaire (GAD-7). None of the patients who had their cataract surgeries rescheduled reached the cutoff score for major depression in PHQ-9, whereas, according to GAD-7, five patients had mild symptoms of anxiety, and one had severe symptoms. There was no significant psychosocial impact of the cancellation of cataract surgeries on patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cataract , Depressive Disorder, Major , Humans , Middle Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Elective Surgical Procedures
16.
Med J Malaysia ; 78(1): 32-34, 2023 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2218866

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to major changes in the provision of surgical services and also affected patients' health-seeking behaviour. This contributes to delayed presentation of many surgical conditions resulting in poorer outcomes. Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who present with acute surgical emergencies such as complete bowel obstruction, perforation, bleeding or sepsis often require immediate intervention. This study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the proportion of emergency surgery in CRC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study. All CRC patients who underwent elective and emergency surgery from January until December 2019 (pre-COVID era) and September 2020 until August 2021 (COVID era) were included. Patient demographics, presentation, tumour stage, surgery performed and waiting time for surgery were collected. Data were then compared. RESULTS: Seventy-seven and 76 new cases of CRC underwent surgery before and during COVID-19, respectively. The proportions of emergency surgery before and during COVID-19 are 29% vs 33% (p=0.562). Of those who required emergency surgery, the proportions of patients who required stoma formation are 59% vs 72% (p= 0.351). There was no difference in median waiting time for patients requiring elective surgery (p= 0.668). CONCLUSION: The proportion of emergency surgery for CRC patients is not statistically higher during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Elective Surgical Procedures
17.
Natl Med J India ; 35(4): 197-200, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2226590

ABSTRACT

Background Planned elective surgery had to be postponed for a large number of patients who tested positive for Covid-19 in the preoperative period. We aimed to assess the postoperative outcomes of patients who were operated on for elective indications, following recovery from Covid-19 infection. Methods We did a retrospective study of patients who underwent elective general surgery between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021, following recovery from Covid-19. The 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality were analysed. The data relevant for the study were retrieved from the hospital's electronic medical records. Results Of the 109 patients included, 54.1% were women and the median (range) age was 49 (16-76) years; 53.2% of operations were performed for benign indications and the rest were for malignancies. Eighty-five (78%) patients underwent surgery following recovery from an asymptomatic Covid-19 infection and 23 (21.1%) patients following recovery from mild Covid-19 infection; 73.3% of the operations were performed following a planned delay of 2- 5 weeks from the diagnosis of Covid-19. The 30-day major postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) was 6.4%, the postoperative pulmonary morbidity was 0.9%, and there was no 30-day mortality. Conclusions Elective general surgical procedures can be done safely in patients who have recovered from asymptomatic and mild Covid-19 infection, following a minimum wait period of 2 weeks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Tertiary Care Centers , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Morbidity , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology
18.
J. coloproctol. (Rio J., Impr.) ; 42(4): 327-334, Oct.-Dec. 2022. tab
Article in English | WHO COVID, LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-2186467

ABSTRACT

The SARS-Cov-2 pandemic and its immediate public health impact has caused severe disruption of regular medical care provision. The morbimortality of other diseases continues to affect people regardless of the viral infection. Indeed, it would be reasonable to assume that they have been aggravated by the period of most restrictive public health measures that were adopted against the virus. Recovery and maintenance of healthcare provision is required despite the ongoing threat. Therefore, it is critical to resume services in a structured and safe way, otherwise greater harm could come to our patients and to ourselves. The present article proposes to be a broad guide to the recovery and maintenance of elective outpatient, surgical and lower endoscopic services, aiding the colorectal surgeon in identifying risks, assessing their multiple dimensions, and implementing risk management strategies in a pragmatic and efficacious way. (AU)


A pandemia de SARS-Cov-2 e suas imediatas consequências para a saúde coletiva causaram enormes restrições ao atendimento médico-hospitalar normal. A despeito disso, os riscos de morbimortalidade relacionados a outras doenças e agravos à saúde são incessantes. E é razoável de presumi-los como aumentados pela falta de atendimento regular no período restrições mais severas decorrentes das medidas sanitárias contra a epidemia. A retomada do atendimento é necessária, ainda que o vírus permaneça uma ameaça. Portanto, é crítico que esta seja feita de forma estruturada e segura, sob pena de causar mal adicional aos nossos pacientes e a nós mesmos. O presente artigo se propõe a servir como guia para a retomada e manutenção dos atendimentos eletivos ambulatorial, cirúrgico e endoscópico baixo, auxiliando o coloproctologista a identificar os riscos, avaliar a suas dimensões e implementar medidas de controle de forma pragmática e eficaz. (AU)


Subject(s)
Elective Surgical Procedures , Colorectal Surgery , COVID-19 , Risk Management , Endoscopy , Waiting Rooms
19.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 22(1): 1545, 2022 Dec 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2196261

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The first SARS-CoV-2 pandemic wave in Germany involved a tradeoff between saving the lives of COVID-19 patients by providing sufficient intensive care unit (ICU) capacity and foregoing the health benefits of elective procedures. This study aims to quantify this tradeoff. METHODS: The analysis is conducted at both the individual and population levels. The analysis calculates quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to facilitate a comparison between the health gains from saving the lives of COVID-19 patients in the ICU and the health losses associated with postponing operative procedures. The QALYs gained from saving the lives of COVID-19 patients are calculated based on both the real-world ICU admissions and deaths averted from flattening the first wave. Scenario analysis was used to account for variation in input factors. RESULTS: At the individual level, the resource-adjusted QALY gain of saving one COVID-19 life is predicted to be 3 to 15 times larger than the QALY loss of deferring one operation (the average multiplier is 9). The real-world QALY gain at the population level is estimated to fall within the range of the QALY loss due to delayed procedures. The modeled QALY gain by flattening the first wave is 3 to 31 times larger than the QALY loss due to delayed procedures (the average multiplier is 17). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of the pandemic, the resource-adjusted health gain from treating one COVID-19 patient in the ICU was found to be much larger than the health loss from deferring one operation. At the population level, flattening the first wave led to a much larger health gain than the health loss from delaying operative procedures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Pandemics/prevention & control , Elective Surgical Procedures , Cost-Benefit Analysis
20.
Lancet ; 400(10363): 1607-1617, 2022 Nov 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2184637

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The 2015 Lancet Commission on global surgery identified surgery and anaesthesia as indispensable parts of holistic health-care systems. However, COVID-19 exposed the fragility of planned surgical services around the world, which have also been neglected in pandemic recovery planning. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel index to support local elective surgical system strengthening and address growing backlogs. METHODS: First, we performed an international consultation through a four-stage consensus process to develop a multidomain index for hospital-level assessment (surgical preparedness index; SPI). Second, we measured surgical preparedness across a global network of hospitals in high-income countries (HICs), middle-income countries (MICs), and low-income countries (LICs) to explore the distribution of the SPI at national, subnational, and hospital levels. Finally, using COVID-19 as an example of an external system shock, we compared hospitals' SPI to their planned surgical volume ratio (SVR; ie, operations for which the decision for surgery was made before hospital admission), calculated as the ratio of the observed surgical volume over a 1-month assessment period between June 6 and Aug 5, 2021, against the expected surgical volume based on hospital administrative data from the same period in 2019 (ie, a pre-pandemic baseline). A linear mixed-effects regression model was used to determine the effect of increasing SPI score. FINDINGS: In the first phase, from a longlist of 103 candidate indicators, 23 were prioritised as core indicators of elective surgical system preparedness by 69 clinicians (23 [33%] women; 46 [67%] men; 41 from HICs, 22 from MICs, and six from LICs) from 32 countries. The multidomain SPI included 11 indicators on facilities and consumables, two on staffing, two on prioritisation, and eight on systems. Hospitals were scored from 23 (least prepared) to 115 points (most prepared). In the second phase, surgical preparedness was measured in 1632 hospitals by 4714 clinicians from 119 countries. 745 (45·6%) of 1632 hospitals were in MICs or LICs. The mean SPI score was 84·5 (95% CI 84·1-84·9), which varied between HIC (88·5 [89·0-88·0]), MIC (81·8 [82·5-81·1]), and LIC (66·8 [64·9-68·7]) settings. In the third phase, 1217 (74·6%) hospitals did not maintain their expected SVR during the COVID-19 pandemic, of which 625 (51·4%) were from HIC, 538 (44·2%) from MIC, and 54 (4·4%) from LIC settings. In the mixed-effects model, a 10-point increase in SPI corresponded to a 3·6% (95% CI 3·0-4·1; p<0·0001) increase in SVR. This was consistent in HIC (4·8% [4·1-5·5]; p<0·0001), MIC (2·8 [2·0-3·7]; p<0·0001), and LIC (3·8 [1·3-6·7%]; p<0·0001) settings. INTERPRETATION: The SPI contains 23 indicators that are globally applicable, relevant across different system stressors, vary at a subnational level, and are collectable by front-line teams. In the case study of COVID-19, a higher SPI was associated with an increased planned surgical volume ratio independent of country income status, COVID-19 burden, and hospital type. Hospitals should perform annual self-assessment of their surgical preparedness to identify areas that can be improved, create resilience in local surgical systems, and upscale capacity to address elective surgery backlogs. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery, NIHR Academy, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel Research UK, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, and Medtronic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Male , Humans , Female , COVID-19/epidemiology , Elective Surgical Procedures , Global Health , Hospitals
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL