Aerosol precautions and airway complications: a national prospective multicentre cohort study.

The perceived risk of transmission of aerosolised viral particles from patients to airway practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the widespread use of aerosol precautions, including personal protective equipment and modifications to anaesthetic technique. The risk of these aerosol precautions on peri-operative airway complications has not been assessed outside of simulation studies. This prospective, national, multicentre cohort study aimed to quantify this risk. Adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia for elective or emergency procedures over a 96-hour period were included. Data collected included use of aerosol precautions by the airway practitioner, airway complications and potential confounding variables. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to assess the risk of individual aerosol precautions on overall and specific airway complications. Data from 5905 patients from 70 hospital sites were included. The rate of airway complications was 10.0% (95%CI 9.2-10.8%). Use of filtering facepiece class 2 or class 3 respirators was associated with an increased risk of airway complications (odds ratio 1.38, 95%CI 1.04-1.83), predominantly due to an association with difficult facemask ventilation (odds ratio 1.68, 95%CI 1.09-2.61) and desaturation on pulse oximetry (odds ratio 2.39, 95%CI 1.26-4.54). Use of goggles, powered air-purifying respirators, long-sleeved gowns, double gloves and videolaryngoscopy were not associated with any alteration in the risk of airway complications. Overall, the use of filtering facepiece class 2 or class 3 respirators was associated with an increased risk of airway complications, but most aerosol precautions used during the COVID-19 pandemic were not.

Recruitment to higher specialty training in anaesthesia in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national survey.

There were more applications for higher specialty training posts in anaesthesia in the UK starting in August 2021 than in previous years, with approximately two-thirds being unsuccessful. We surveyed applicants to investigate their experience of the recruitment process (response rate 536/1056; 51%). Approximately 61% of respondents were not offered ST3 posts (n = 326). We enquired about their career plans for the next 12-24 months. Most respondents (79%) intended to take up a post equivalent to a third year of core training or a clinical fellow post from August 2021. Other options considered included: pursuing work abroad (17%); embarking on career breaks (16%); taking up higher training posts in intensive care medicine (15%); and permanently leaving medicine (9%). Nine per cent of respondents also expressed plans to pursue training in another medical specialty. Some expressed an intention to pursue further education or research (10%). A large proportion (42%) expressed a lack of confidence in being able to achieve the training requirements to later apply for a higher training post. The majority reported not feeling confident in achieving specialist registration in anaesthesia in the future without a training number (75%), and noted disruption to their wider life plans from the impending time out of training (78%). Sentiment analysis of free-text responses indicated generally negative sentiment about the recruitment process. Themes elicited included: feeling the recruitment process was unfair; burnout and negative impact on well-being; difficulties in making life plans; and feeling undervalued and abandoned. These results suggest that junior anaesthetic doctors in the UK negatively perceived postgraduate training structures and changes to the postgraduate curriculum and experienced difficulties in securing higher training.

Treatment threshold for intra-operative hypotension in clinical practice-a prospective cohort study in older patients in the UK.

Intra-operative hypotension frequently complicates anaesthesia in older patients and is implicated in peri-operative organ hypoperfusion and injury. The prevalence and corresponding treatment thresholds of hypotension are incompletely described in the UK. This study aimed to identify prevalence of intra-operative hypotension and its treatment thresholds in UK practice. Patients aged ≥ 65 years were studied prospectively from 196 UK hospitals within a 48-hour timeframe. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension (mean arterial pressure <65 mmHg; systolic blood pressure reduction >20%; systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg). Secondary outcomes included the treatment blood pressure threshold for vasopressors; incidence of acute kidney injury; myocardial injury; stroke; and in-hospital mortality. Additionally, anaesthetists providing care for included patients were asked to complete a survey assessing their intended treatment thresholds for hypotension. Data were collected from 4750 patients. Hypotension affected 61.0% of patients when defined as mean arterial pressure <65 mmHg, 91.3% of patients had >20% reduction in systolic blood pressure from baseline and 77.5% systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg. The mean (SD) blood pressure triggering vasopressor therapy was mean arterial pressure 64.2 (11.6) mmHg and the mean (SD) stated intended treatment threshold from the survey was mean arterial pressure 60.6 (9.7) mmHg. A composite adverse outcome of myocardial injury, kidney injury, stroke or death affected 345 patients (7.3%). In this representative sample of UK peri-operative practice, the majority of older patients experienced intra-operative hypotension and treatment was delivered below suggested thresholds. This highlights both potential for intra-operative organ injury and substantial opportunity for improving treatment of intra-operative hypotension.

Perceptions of UK clinicians towards postoperative critical care.

Postoperative critical care is a finite resource that is recommended for high-risk patients. Despite national recommendations specifying that such patients should receive postoperative critical care, there is evidence that these recommendations are not universally followed. We performed a national survey aiming to better understand how patients are risk-stratified in practice; elucidate clinicians' opinions about how patients should be selected for critical care; and determine factors which affect the actual provision of postoperative critical care. As part of the second Sprint National Anaesthesia Project, epidemiology of critical care after surgery study, we distributed a paper survey to anaesthetists, surgeons and intensivists providing peri-operative care during a single week in March 2017. We collected data on respondent characteristics, and their opinions of postoperative critical care provision, potential benefits and real-world challenges. We undertook both quantitative and qualitative analyses to interpret the responses. We received 10,383 survey responses from 237 hospitals across the UK. Consultants used a lower threshold for critical care admission than other career grades, indicating potentially more risk-averse behaviour. The majority of respondents reported that critical care provision was inadequate, and cited the value of critical care as being predominantly due to higher nurse: patient ratios. Use of objective risk assessment tools was poor, and patients were commonly selected for critical care based on procedure-specific pathways rather than individualised risk assessment. Challenges were highlighted in the delivery of peri-operative critical care services, such as an overall lack of capacity, competition for beds with non-surgical cases and poor flow through the hospital leading to bed 'blockages'. Critical care is perceived to provide benefit to high-risk surgical patients, but there is variation in practice about the definition and determination of risk, how patients are referred and how to deal with the lack of critical care resources. Future work should focus on evaluating 'enhanced care' units for postoperative patients, how to better implement individualised risk assessment in practice, and how to improve patient flow through hospitals.

Risks to healthcare workers following tracheal intubation of patients with COVID-19: a prospective international multicentre cohort study.

Healthcare workers involved in aerosol-generating procedures, such as tracheal intubation, may be at elevated risk of acquiring COVID-19. However, the magnitude of this risk is unknown. We conducted a prospective international multicentre cohort study recruiting healthcare workers participating in tracheal intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Information on tracheal intubation episodes, personal protective equipment use and subsequent provider health status was collected via self-reporting. The primary endpoint was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis or new symptoms requiring self-isolation or hospitalisation after a tracheal intubation episode. Cox regression analysis examined associations between the primary endpoint and healthcare worker characteristics, procedure-related factors and personal protective equipment use. Between 23 March and 2 June 2020, 1718 healthcare workers from 503 hospitals in 17 countries reported 5148 tracheal intubation episodes. The overall incidence of the primary endpoint was 10.7% over a median (IQR [range]) follow-up of 32 (18-48 [0-116]) days. The cumulative incidence within 7, 14 and 21 days of the first tracheal intubation episode was 3.6%, 6.1% and 8.5%, respectively. The risk of the primary endpoint varied by country and was higher in women, but was not associated with other factors. Around 1 in 10 healthcare workers involved in tracheal intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 subsequently reported a COVID-19 outcome. This has human resource implications for institutional capacity to deliver essential healthcare services, and wider societal implications for COVID-19 transmission.

A retrospective analysis of case-load and supervision from a large anaesthetic logbook database.

The recent development of electronic logbooks with secure off-device data storage provides a rich resource for research. We present the largest analysis of anaesthetic logbooks to date, with data from 494,235 cases logged by 964 anaesthetists over a 4-year period. Our analysis describes and compares the annual case-load and supervision levels of different grades of anaesthetists across the UK and Republic of Ireland. We calculated the number of cases undertaken per year by grade (median (IQR [range]) core trainees = 388 (252-512 [52-1204]); specialist trainees = 344 (228-480 [52-1144]); and consultants = 328 (204-500 [52-1316]). Overall, the proportion of cases undertaken with direct consultant supervision was 56.7% and 41.6% for core trainees and specialist trainees, respectively. The proportion of supervised cases reduced out-of-hours, for both core trainees (day 93.5%, evening 86.3%, night 78.6%) and specialist trainees (day 81.0%, evening 67.7%, night 56.4%).

Cancelled operations: a 7-day cohort study of planned adult inpatient surgery in 245 UK National Health Service hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Cancellation of planned surgery impacts substantially on patients and health systems. This study describes the incidence and reasons for cancellation of inpatient surgery in the UK NHS. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study over 7 consecutive days in March 2017 in 245 NHS hospitals. Occurrences and reasons for previous surgical cancellations were recorded. Using multilevel logistic regression, we identified patient- and hospital-level factors associated with cancellation due to inadequate bed capacity. RESULTS: We analysed data from 14 936 patients undergoing planned surgery. A total of 1499 patients (10.0%) reported previous cancellation for the same procedure; contemporaneous hospital census data indicated that 13.9% patients attending inpatient operations were cancelled on the day of surgery. Non-clinical reasons, predominantly inadequate bed capacity, accounted for a large proportion of previous cancellations. Independent risk factors for cancellation due to inadequate bed capacity included requirement for postoperative critical care [odds ratio (OR)=2.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.12-4.02; P<0.001] and the presence of an emergency department in the treating hospital (OR=4.18; 95% CI, 2.22-7.89; P<0.001). Patients undergoing cancer surgery (OR=0.32; 95% CI, 0.22-0.46; P<0.001), obstetric procedures (OR=0.17; 95% CI, 0.08-0.32; P<0.001), and expedited surgery (OR=0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.56; P<0.001) were less likely to be cancelled. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients presenting for surgery have experienced a previous cancellation for the same procedure. Cancer surgery is relatively protected, but bed capacity, including postoperative critical care requirements, are significant risk factors for previous cancellations.