Is Re-introducing Major Open and Minimally Invasive Surgery during COVID-19 Safe for Patients and Healthcare Workers? An International, Multi-centre Cohort Study in the Field of Oesophago-gastric Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unparalleled changes to patient care, including the suspension of cancer surgery. Concerns regarding COVID-19-related risks to patients and healthcare workers with the re-introduction of major complex minimally invasive and open surgery have been raised. This study examines the COVID-19 related risks to patients and healthcare workers following the re-introduction of major oesophago-gastric (EG) surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an international, multi-centre, observational study of consecutive patients treated by open and minimally invasive oesophagectomy and gastrectomy for malignant or benign disease. Patients were recruited from nine European centres serving regions with a high population incidence of COVID-19 between 1 May and 1 July 2020. The primary endpoint was 30-day COVID-19-related mortality. All staff involved in the operative care of patients were invited to complete a health-related survey to assess the incidence of COVID-19 in this group. RESULTS: In total, 158 patients were included in the study (71 oesophagectomy, 82 gastrectomy). Overall, 87 patients (57%) underwent MIS (59 oesophagectomy, 28 gastrectomy). A total of 403 staff were eligible for inclusion, of whom 313 (78%) completed the health survey. Approaches to mitigate against the risks of COVID-19 for patients and staff varied amongst centres. No patients developed COVID-19 in the post-operative period. Two healthcare workers developed self-limiting COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Precautions to minimise the risk of COVID-19 infection have enabled the safe re-introduction of minimally invasive and open EG surgery for both patients and staff. Further studies are necessary to determine the minimum requirements for mitigations against COVID-19.

Accuracy of routinely collected comorbidity data in patients undergoing colectomy: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: This paper aimed to determine the baseline accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of routinely collected comorbidity data in patients undergoing any types of colectomy. METHODS: All patients aged >18 who underwent right hemicolectomy, left hemicolectomy, sigmoid colectomy, subtotal colectomy, or total colectomy between 1 January 2015 and 1 November 2016 were identified. The following comorbidities were considered: hypertension, ischemic heart disease (IHD), diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebrovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and hypercholesterolemia. The comorbidity data from clinical notes were compared with corresponding data in hospital episode statistics (HES) database in order to calculate accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of HES codes for comorbidities. In order to assess the agreement between clinical notes and HES data, we also calculated Cohen's kappa index value as a more robust measure of agreement. RESULTS: Overall, 267 patients comprising 2136 comorbidity codes were included. Overall, HES codes for comorbidities in patients undergoing colectomy had substandard accuracy 94% (kappa 0.542), sensitivity (39%), and NPV (89%). The HES codes were 100% specific with PPV of 100%. The results were consistent when individual comorbidities were analyzed separately. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that HES comorbidity codes in patients undergoing colectomy are specific with good positive predictive value; however, they have substandard accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value. Better documentation of comorbidities in admission clerking proforma may help to improve the quality of source documents for coders, which in turn may improve the accuracy of coding.