ABSTRACT
Introduction Distractions in operating theatres prevent team members from concentrating on the complex tasks required for a successful operation. This can be a potential hazard to care for, and previously, correlations have been made between increased theatre distractions and adverse events. However, it remains unclear how frequently such events occur during routine care in theatres. The present study aims to quantify distractions and analyse any differences between staff groups, operative stages, and modes of operation. Methods A single-centre prospective study was conducted to assess disruptions in general surgical theatres. Events were recorded using a previously described categorization system on a proforma by a single researcher. The source and severity of distraction were recorded, as well as the mode of operation (elective/emergency), stage of operation, and staff team (scrubbed/floor). Results A total of 4,219 minutes of surgery were observed over four weeks, and 1,095 distraction events were recorded. Of the 14 elective and nine emergency procedures recorded, there was a mean of 54.8 distractions per procedure and a frequency of one distraction every three minutes and 51 seconds (15.6 hr-1). Irrelevant communication relating to the patient's case was the most common source, accounting for 24.7% of all distractions. The most frequently disrupted stage of the procedure for scrubbed staff was during anastomosis/resection for both elective and emergency procedures, with 16.9 and 32.6 distractions occurring per hour, respectively. Scrubbed staff were significantly more susceptible to distraction in emergency procedures than the floor staff. Discussion Our study reflects previous assessments with irrelevant communications and emergency procedures yielding the highest prevalence of distraction. This investigation provides novel information about the different stages of general surgery and the frequency of distractions that occur.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The development of prolonged post-operative ileus (POI) remains a significant problem in the general surgical patient population. The aetiology of ileus is poorly understood and management options/preventative measures are currently extremely limited. The pathophysiology leading to a post-operative ileus is relatively poorly understood, and there is no validated method to estimate ileus occurrence or duration. Ileus in the post-operative period commonly occurs following major colorectal surgery and leads to painful abdominal distension, vomiting, nutritional deficit, pneumonia, prolonged hospital stays and susceptibility to hospital-acquired infection. An increased hospital stay, the burden of treatment costs and the burden on the health system highlight the importance of future research on finding definitions, preventions and predictions of ileus. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the rate of ileus on various treatments for prolonged post-operative ileus following colorectal surgery. A confidence evaluation in a meta-analysis were performed using CINeMA. Direct and indirect comparisons of all interventions were simultaneously carried out using a network meta-analysis. The level of certainty was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. The method of assessing the risk of bias, the quality assessment, used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (RoB2). RESULTS: Among the seven included studies, the majority suffered from considerable within-study bias, affecting the confidence rates of study findings. Heterogeneity and incoherence made the pairwise meta-analysis and ranking of interventions unfeasible. Indirect comparisons were considered unreliable due to this incoherence. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review, with a confidence evaluation in the network meta-analysis, determined that there is a knowledge gap in the field of study on prolonged ileus following digestive surgery. The current evidence suffers from heterogeneity and incoherence more than imprecision. There is a gap in the data on ileus occurrence in interventional trials for digestive surgery. This could inform clinicians and trialists to better appraise the current literature and plan future trials.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Opioids are recommended for moderate-to-severe cancer pain; however, in patients with cancer, impaired hepatic function can affect opioid metabolism. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for the use of opioids in patients with cancer with hepatic impairment. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted and the following databases searched: AMED (-2021), MEDLINE (-2021), EMBASECLASSIC + EMBASE (-2021) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (-2021). Eligible studies met the following criteria: patients with cancer-related pain, taking an opioid (as defined by the WHO Guidelines for the pharmacological and radiotherapeutic management of cancer pain in adults and adolescents); >18 years of age; patients with hepatic impairment defined using recognised or study-defined definitions; clinical outcome hepatic impairment related; and primary studies. All eligible studies were appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. RESULTS: Three studies (n=95) were eligible but heterogeneity meant meta-analysis was not possible. Each individual study focused on only one each of oxycodone±hydrocotarnine, oxycodone/naloxone and morphine. No recommendations could be formulated on the preferred opioid in patients with hepatic impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Morphine is the preferred opioid in hepatic impairment owing to clinical experience and pharmacokinetics. This review, however, found little clinical evidence to support this. Dose adjustments of morphine and the oxycodone formulations reviewed remain necessary in the absence of quality evidence. Overall, the quality of existing evidence on opioid treatments in cancer pain and hepatic impairment is low and there remains a need for high-quality clinical studies examining this.
