Variation in Hospital Neuraxial Labor Analgesia Rates in California

BACKGROUND

Neuraxial analgesia provides effective pain relief during labor. However, it is unclear whether neuraxial analgesia prevalence differs across US hospitals. Our aim was to assess hospital variation in neuraxial analgesia prevalence in California.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed birthing patients who underwent labor in 200 California hospitals from 2016 to 2020. The primary exposure was the delivery hospital. The outcomes were hospital neuraxial analgesia prevalence and between-hospital variability, before and after adjustment for patient and hospital factors. Median odds ratio and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) quantified between-hospital variability. The median odds ratio estimated the odds of a patient receiving neuraxial analgesia when moving between hospitals. The ICC quantified the proportion of the total variance in neuraxial analgesia use due to variation between hospitals.

RESULTS

Among 1,510,750 patients who underwent labor, 1,040, 483 (68.9%) received neuraxial analgesia. Both unadjusted and adjusted hospital prevalence exhibited a skewed distribution characterized by a long-left tail. The unadjusted and adjusted prevalence at the 1 st percentile were 5.4% and 6.0%; 5 th percentile were 21.0% and 21.2%; 50 th percentile were 70.6% and 70.7%; 95 th percentile were 75.8% and 76.6%; and 99 th percentile were 75.9% and 78.6%. The adjusted median odds ratio (2.3; 95% CI, 2.1 - 2.5) indicated a substantially increased odds of a patient receiving neuraxial analgesia if they moved from a hospital with a lower to higher odds of neuraxial analgesia. The hospital explained only a moderate portion of the overall variability in neuraxial analgesia (ICC=19.1%; 95% CI, 18.8 - 20.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

A long left tail in the distribution and wide variation exist in the neuraxial analgesia prevalence across California hospitals, not explained by patient and hospital factors. Addressing the low prevalence among hospitals in the left tail requires exploration of the interplay between patient preferences, staffing availability, and care providers' attitudes towards neuraxial analgesia.

Lessons Learned From a Systematic, Hospital-Wide Implementation of the ABCDEF Bundle: A Survey Evaluation

Objective

We recently reported the first part of a study testing the impact of data literacy training on "assessing pain, spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, choice of analgesia and sedation, delirium monitoring/management, early exercise/mobility, and family and patient empowerment" [ABCDEF [A-F]) compliance. The purpose of the current study, part 2, was to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation approach by surveying clinical staff to examine staff knowledge, skill, motivation, and organizational resources.

DESIGN

The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis framework was used to study knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences. Assumed influences identified in the literature were used to design the A-F bundle implementation strategies. The influences were validated against a survey distributed to the ICU interprofessional team.

SETTING

Single-center study was conducted in eight adult ICUs in a quaternary academic medical center.

SUBJECTS

Interprofessional ICU clinical team.

INTERVENTIONS

A quantitative survey was sent to 386 participants to evaluate the implementation design postimplementation. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to understand the relationship between the KMO influences and the questions posed to validate the influence. Descriptive statistics were used to identify strengths needed to sustain performance and weaknesses that required improvement to increase A-F bundle adherence.

MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS

The survey received an 83% response rate. The exploratory factor analysis confirmed that 38 of 42 questions had a strong relationship to the KMO influences, validating the survey's utility in evaluating the effectiveness of implementation design. A total of 12 KMO influences were identified, 8 were categorized as a strength and 4 as a weakness of the implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study used an evidence-based gap analysis framework to demonstrate key implementation approaches needed to increase A-F bundle compliance. The following drivers were recommended as essential methods required for successful protocol implementation: data literacy training and performance monitoring, organizational support, value proposition, multidisciplinary collaboration, and interprofessional teamwork activities. We believe the learning generated in this two-part study is applicable to implementation design beyond the A-F bundle.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Consensus Guidelines for Emergency Laparotomy Part 3: Organizational Aspects and General Considerations for Management of the Emergency Laparotomy Patient

BACKGROUND

This is Part 3 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses organizational aspects of care.

METHODS

Experts in management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations.

RESULTS

Components of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines are based on best current available evidence for organizational aspects of an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and include discussion of less common aspects of care for the surgical patient, including end-of-life issues. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Part 2-Emergency Laparotomy: Intra- and Postoperative Care

BACKGROUND

This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care.

METHODS

Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS^® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS^® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL.

RESULTS

Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS^® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Health Care Professionals' Perceptions About a Telehealth Model of Therapy After NICU Discharge

The Baby Bridge program is an implementation strategy to improve access to in-person early therapy services following neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) discharge. The objective of this study was to evaluate acceptability of Baby Bridge telehealth services among health care providers. Interviews with health care providers were conducted, transcribed, and coded in NVivo. Deductive analysis was used to organize data into negative and positive comments, suggestions for optimization, and perceptions about the first visit. Next, a conventional approach was used to organize the data into themes. Telehealth was viewed as an acceptable, but not necessarily preferable, form of Baby Bridge delivery. Providers identified how telehealth may improve access to care, but with potential challenges in delivery. Suggestions for optimization of the Baby Bridge telehealth model were proposed. Identified themes included delivery model, family demographics, therapist and organizational characteristics, parent engagement, and therapy facilitation. These findings provide important insights to consider when transitioning from in-person therapy to telehealth.

Mode of anesthesia is not associated with outcomes following emergency hip fracture surgery: a population-level cohort study

Background

Hip fractures often occur in frail patients with several comorbidities. In those undergoing emergency surgery, determining the optimal anesthesia modality may be challenging, with equipoise concerning outcomes following either spinal or general anesthesia. In this study, we investigated the association between mode of anesthesia and postoperative morbidity and mortality with subgroup analyses.

Methods

This is a retrospective study using all consecutive adult patients who underwent emergency hip fracture surgery in Orebro County, Sweden, between 2013 and 2017. Patients were extracted from the Swedish National Hip Fracture Registry, and their electronic medical records were reviewed. The association between the type of anesthesia and 30-day and 90-day postoperative mortality, as well as in-hospital severe complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥3a), was analyzed using Poisson regression models with robust SEs, while the association with 1-year mortality was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. All analyses were adjusted for potential confounders.

Results

A total of 2437 hip fracture cases were included in the study, of whom 60% received spinal anesthesia. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of 30-day postoperative mortality (adjusted incident rate ratio (IRR) (95% CI): 0.99 (0.72 to 1.36), p=0.952), 90-day postoperative mortality (adjusted IRR (95% CI): 0.88 (0.70 to 1.11), p=0.281), 1-year postoperative mortality (adjusted HR (95% CI): 0.98 (0.83 to 1.15), p=0.773), or in-hospital severe complications (adjusted IRR (95% CI): 1.24 (0.85 to 1.82), p=0.273), when comparing general and spinal anesthesia.

Conclusions

Mode of anesthesia during emergency hip fracture surgery was not associated with an increased risk of postoperative mortality or in-hospital severe complications in the study population or any of the investigated subgroups.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management, level III

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Abdominal and Pelvic Surgery at Primary and Secondary Hospitals in Low-Middle-Income Countries (LMIC's): Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendation

Background

This is the first Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline for primary and secondary hospitals in low–middle-income countries (LMIC’s) for elective abdominal and gynecologic care.

Methods

The ERAS LMIC Guidelines group was established by the ERAS® Society in collaboration with different representatives of perioperative care from LMIC’s. The group consisted of seven members from the ERAS® Society and eight members from LMIC’s. An updated systematic literature search and evaluation of evidence from previous ERAS® guidelines was performed by the leading authors of the Colorectal (2018) and Gynecologic (2019) surgery guidelines (Gustafsson et al in World J Surg 43:6592–695, Nelson et al in Int J Gynecol Cancer 29(4):651–668). Meta-analyses randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies from both HIC’s and LMIC’s were considered for each perioperative item. The members in the LMIC group then applied the current evidence and adapted the recommendations for each intervention as well as identifying possible new items relevant to LMIC’s. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE) methodology was used to determine the quality of the published evidence. The strength of the recommendations was based on importance of the problem, quality of evidence, balance between desirable and undesirable effects, acceptability to key stakeholders, cost of implementation and specifically the feasibility of implementing in LMIC’s and determined through discussions and consensus.

Results

In addition to previously described ERAS® Society interventions, the following items were included, revised or discussed: the Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC), preoperative routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing in countries with a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS (CD4 and viral load for those patients that are HIV positive), delirium screening and prevention, COVID 19 screening, VTE prophylaxis, immuno-nutrition, prehabilitation, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and a standardized postoperative monitoring guideline.

Conclusions

These guidelines are seen as a starting point to address the urgent need to improve perioperative care and to effect data-driven, evidence-based care in LMIC’s.

Developing and validating a predictive model for future emergency hospital admissions

Although many emergency hospital admissions may be unavoidable, a proportion of these admissions represent a failure of the care system. The adverse consequences of avoidable emergency hospital admissions affect patients, carers, care systems and substantially increase care costs. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a risk prediction model to estimate the individual probability of emergency admission in the next 12 months within a regional population. We deterministically linked routinely collected data from secondary care with population level data, resulting in a comprehensive research dataset of 190,466 individuals. The resulting risk prediction tool is based on a logistic regression model with five independent variables. The model indicated a discrimination of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.9384 (95% CI 0.9325-0.9443). We also experimented with different probability cut-off points for identifying high risk patients and found the model's overall prediction accuracy to be over 95% throughout. In summary, the internally validated model we developed can predict with high accuracy the individual risk of emergency admission to hospital within the next year. Its relative simplicity makes it easily implementable within a decision support tool to assist with the management of individual patients in the community.

Emergency Laparotomy

Emergency laparotomy is a high-risk surgical procedure with mortality and morbidity up to 10 times higher than for a similar procedure performed electively. An enhanced recovery approach has been shown to improve outcomes. A focus on rapid correction of underlying deranged acute physiology and proactive management of conditions associated with aging such as frailty and delirium are key. Patients are at high risk of complications and prevention and avoidance of failure to rescue are essential to improve outcomes. Other enhanced recovery components such as opioid-sparing analgesia and early postoperative mobilization are beneficial.

An Observational Study of Disparities in Telemedicine Utilization in Primary Care Patients Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: The rapid scale up of telemedicine due to the COVID-19 pandemic may have disadvantaged patients less able to use technology. Objectives: We tested the hypothesis that certain patient groups may have been disadvantaged in accessing primary care using telemedicine. Design: We compared visit type and patient characteristics for April-May 2019 with April-May 2020 at a large urban academic medical center. Variables of interest included age, gender, race, ethnicity, language, visit type, visit status, insurance type, and zip code to approximate average income. Results: There was a 5% increase in patient visits in the observation period from 2019 to 2020. Care shifted from 100% in person to 83% telemedicine, 60% of which occurred through video and 23% by telephone. In 2020, there was a significant increase in the percentage of older patients, patients of lower income, patients whose preferred language was not English, and patients without commercial insurance who accessed care. For patients who completed a telemedicine visit, racial minority status, Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, older age, and non-English language preference significantly increased the likelihood of a telephone visit compared with younger adult, white, non-Hispanic/Latino and English-preference patients. Conclusions: The increase in visits in 2020 and particularly visits by older, non-English preference and lower income patients, demonstrates that the telemedicine scale-up increased access and reached patients regardless of age, language, and income. However, varied usage of televideo and telephone visits for certain groups suggests the need to explore the differences between these modalities to ensure quality telemedicine care for all patients.

U.S. trends in elective and emergent major abdominal surgical procedures from 2002 to 2014 in older adults

BACKGROUND

The U.S. population is aging and projected to undergo an increasing number of general surgical procedures. However, recent trends in the frequency of major abdominal procedures in older adults are currently unknown as improvements in non-operative interventions may obviate the need for major surgery. Thus, we evaluated the trends of major abdominal surgical procedures in older adults in the United States.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2014 with trend analysis using National Cancer Institute's Joinpoint Trend Analysis Software. We identified the average annual percent change (AAPC) in the yearly frequency of major abdominal surgical procedures in older adults (≥50 years of age).

RESULTS

Our cohort included a total of 3,951,947 survey-weighted discharges that included a major abdominal surgery in adults ≥50 years of age between 2002 and 2014. Of these discharges, 2,529,507 (64.0%) were for elective abdominal surgeries, 2,062,835 (52.0%) were for female patients, and mean (SD) age was 61.4 (15.9) years. The frequency of major abdominal procedures (elective and emergent) decreased for adults aged 65-74 (AAPC: -1.43, -1.75, -1.11, p < 0.0001), 75-84 (AAPC: -2.75, -3.33, -2.16, p < 0.001), and ≥85 (AAPC: -4.07, -4.67, -3.47, p < 0.0001). The AAPC for elective procedures decreased for older adults aged 75-84 (AAPC = -1.65; -2.44, -0.85: p = 0.0001) and >85 (AAPC = -3.53; -4.57, -2.48: p < 0.0001). All age groups showed decreases in emergent procedures in 50-64 (AAPC = -1.76, -2.00, -1.52, p < 0.0001), 65-74 (AAPC = -3.59, -4.03, -3.14, p < 0.0001), 75-84 (AAPC = -3.90, -4.34, -3.46, p < 0.0001), ≥85 (AAPC = -4.58, -4.98, -4.17, p < 0.0001) age groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort of older adults, the frequency of emergent and elective major abdominal procedures in adults ≥65 years of age decreased with significant variation among individual procedure types. Future studies are needed to identify the generalizability of our findings to other surgical procedures.

Postoperative mortality in hip fracture patients stratified by the Revised Cardiac Risk Index: a Swedish nationwide retrospective cohort study

Objectives

The Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) is a tool that can be used to evaluate the 30-day risk of postoperative myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest and mortality. This study aims to confirm its association with postoperative mortality in patients who underwent hip fracture surgery.

Methods

All adults who underwent primary emergency hip fracture surgery in Sweden between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2017 were included in this study. The database was retrieved by cross-referencing the Swedish National Quality Register for hip fractures with the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare registers. The outcomes of interest were the association between the RCRI score and mortality at 30 days, 90 days and 1 year postoperatively.

Results

134 915 cases were included in the current study. There was a statistically significant linear trend in postoperative mortality with increasing RCRI scores at 30 days, 90 days and 1 year. An RCRI score ≥4 was associated with a 3.1 times greater risk of 30-day postoperative mortality (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 3.13, p<0.001), a 2.5 times greater risk of 90-day postoperative mortality (adjusted IRR 2.54, p<0.001) and a 2.8 times greater risk of 1-year postoperative mortality (adjusted HR 2.81, p<0.001) compared with that observed with an RCRI score of 0.

Conclusion

An increasing RCRI score is strongly associated with an elevated risk 30-day, 90-day and 1-year postoperative mortality after primary hip fracture surgery. The objective and easily retrievable nature of the variables included in the RCRI calculation makes it an appealing choice for risk stratification in the clinical setting.

Levels of evidence

Level III.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations: Part 1-Preoperative: Diagnosis, Rapid Assessment and Optimization

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications and costs for a large number of elective surgical procedures. A similar, structured approach appears to improve outcomes, including mortality, for patients undergoing high-risk emergency general surgery, and specifically emergency laparotomy. These are the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of these patients using an ERAS approach.

METHODS

Experts in aspects of management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on non-emergency patients when appropriate. The Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. The guideline has been divided into two parts: Part 1-Preoperative Care and Part 2-Intraoperative and Postoperative management. This paper provides guidelines for Part 1.

RESULTS

Twelve components of preoperative care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines are based on the best available evidence for an ERAS approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Initial management is particularly important for patients with sepsis and physiological derangement. These guidelines should be used to improve outcomes for these high-risk patients.

Losing the wait: improving patient cycle time in primary care

Inefficient clinic systems leading to prolonged wait times at primary care clinics are a source of frustration for patients, physicians, staff and administration. Measuring and shortening cycle time has the potential to improve patient experience, staff satisfaction and patient access by moving more patients through in a shorter cycle time. Limited studies have demonstrated that improvements can be made to cycle time and may result in improved patient satisfaction. Most of these studies have focused their efforts on improving efficiency at the front end of the cycle. Our aim was to improve cycle time for the whole visit to less than 60 min within 1 year by engaging our team in brainstorming solutions, presenting regular measurements to our team for review and holding regular meetings to plan rapid improvement cycles. Over the course of 1 year (2017), we were able to reduce cycle time by 12% from 71 to 65 min and to improve patient satisfaction with care. Despite the reduction in cycle time, we maintained high satisfaction scores from patients who felt that the doctor spent enough time with them. We learnt the value of engaging our team, frequent measurement for reporting, adequate staffing at the beginning of clinic, and the value of MA staff acting in a flow coordinator role. We have not only maintained this improvement but also made further small gains over the subsequent 2 years, and by April 2019, our cycle time is at 60 min, despite a marked increase in patient volume. Additional work on the time after the patient is roomed and waiting for a doctor, and further analysis of the physician workflow would be important next steps to drive further improvement.

Improving perioperative brain health: an expert consensus review of key actions for the perioperative care team

Delirium and postoperative neurocognitive disorder are the commonest perioperative complications in patients more than 65 yr of age. However, data suggest that we often fail to screen patients for preoperative cognitive impairment, to warn patients and families of risk, and to take preventive measures to reduce the incidence of perioperative neurocognitive disorders. As part of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Perioperative Brain Health Initiative, an international group of experts was invited to review published best practice statements and guidelines. The expert group aimed to achieve consensus on a small number of practical recommendations that could be implemented by anaesthetists and their partners to reduce the incidence of perioperative neurocognitive disorders. Six statements were selected based not only on the strength of the evidence, but also on the potential for impact and the feasibility of widespread implementation. The actions focus on education, cognitive and delirium screening, non-pharmacologic interventions, pain control, and avoidance of antipsychotics. Strategies for effective implementation are discussed. Anaesthetists should be key members of multidisciplinary perioperative care teams to implement these recommendations.

Reasons for readmission after hospital discharge in patients with chronic diseases-Information from an international dataset

Background

Chronic diseases are increasingly prevalent in Western countries. Once hospitalised, the chance for another hospitalisation increases sharply with large impact on well-being of patients and costs. The pattern of readmissions is very complex, but poorly understood for multiple chronic diseases.

Methods

This cohort study of administrative discharge data between 2009–2014 from 21 tertiary hospitals (eight USA, five UK, four Australia, four continental Europe) investigated rates and reasons of readmissions to the same hospital within 30 days after unplanned admission with one of the following chronic conditions; heart failure; atrial fibrillation; myocardial infarction; hypertension; stroke; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); bacterial pneumonia; diabetes mellitus; chronic renal disease; anaemia; arthritis and other cardiovascular disease. Proportions of readmissions with similar versus different diseases were analysed.

Results

Of 4,901,584 admissions, 866,502 (17.7%) were due to the 12 chronic conditions. In-hospital, 43,573 (5.0%) patients died, leaving 822,929 for readmission analysis. Of those, 87,452 (10.6%) had an emergency 30-day readmission, rates ranged from 2.8% for arthritis to 18.4% for COPD. One third were readmitted with the same condition, ranging from 53% for anaemia to 11% for arthritis. Reasons for readmission were due to another chronic condition in 10% to 35% of the cases, leaving 30% to 70% due to reasons other than the original 12 conditions (most commonly, treatment related complications and infections). The chance of being readmitted with the same cause was lower in the USA, for female patients, with increasing age, more co-morbidities, during study period and with longer initial length of stay.

Conclusion

Readmission in chronic conditions is very common and often caused by diseases other than the index hospitalisation. Interventions to reduce readmissions should therefore focus not only on the primary condition but on a holistic consideration of all the patient’s comorbidities.

Towards high-quality peri-operative care: a global perspective

Article 25 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the right to health and well-being for every individual. However, universal access to high-quality healthcare remains the purview of a handful of wealthy nations. This is no more apparent than in peri-operative care, where an estimated five billion individuals lack access to safe, affordable and timely surgical care. Delivery of surgery and anaesthesia in low-resource environments presents unique challenges that, when unaddressed, result in limited access to low-quality care. Current peri-operative research and clinical guidance often fail to acknowledge these system-level deficits and therefore have limited applicability in low-resource settings. In this manuscript, the authors priority-set the need for equitable access to high-quality peri-operative care and analyse the system-level contributors to excess peri-operative mortality rates, a key marker of quality of care. To provide examples of how research and investment may close the equity gap, a modified Delphi method was adopted to curate and appraise interventions which may, with subsequent research and evaluation, begin to address the barriers to high-quality peri-operative care in low- and middle-income countries.

Hospital-level evaluation of the effect of a national quality improvement programme: time-series analysis of registry data

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A clinical trial in 93 National Health Service hospitals evaluated a quality improvement programme for emergency abdominal surgery, designed to improve mortality by improving the patient care pathway. Large variation was observed in implementation approaches, and the main trial result showed no mortality reduction. Our objective therefore was to evaluate whether trial participation led to care pathway implementation and to study the relationship between care pathway implementation and use of six recommended implementation strategies.

METHODS

We performed a hospital-level time-series analysis using data from the Enhanced Peri-Operative Care for High-risk patients trial. Care pathway implementation was defined as achievement of >80% median reliability in 10 measured care processes. Mean monthly process performance was plotted on run charts. Process improvement was defined as an observed run chart signal, using probability-based 'shift' and 'runs' rules. A new median performance level was calculated after an observed signal.

RESULTS

Of 93 participating hospitals, 80 provided sufficient data for analysis, generating 800 process measure charts from 20 305 patient admissions over 27 months. No hospital reliably implemented all 10 processes. Overall, only 279 of the 800 processes were improved (3 (2-5) per hospital) and 14/80 hospitals improved more than six processes. Mortality risk documented (57/80 (71%)), lactate measurement (42/80 (53%)) and cardiac output guided fluid therapy (32/80 (40%)) were most frequently improved. Consultant-led decision making (14/80 (18%)), consultant review before surgery (17/80 (21%)) and time to surgery (14/80 (18%)) were least frequently improved. In hospitals using ≥5 implementation strategies, 9/30 (30%) hospitals improved ≥6 care processes compared with 0/11 hospitals using ≤2 implementation strategies.

CONCLUSION

Only a small number of hospitals improved more than half of the measured care processes, more often when at least five of six implementation strategies were used. In a longer term project, this understanding may have allowed us to adapt the intervention to be effective in more hospitals.

A national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery: the EPOCH stepped-wedge cluster RCT

Background

Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients.

Objectives

The objectives were to assess whether or not the QI programme improves 90-day survival after emergency abdominal surgery; to assess effects on 180-day survival, hospital stay and hospital readmission; and to better understand these findings through an integrated process evaluation, ethnographic study and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Design

This was a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial. Hospitals were organised into 15 geographical clusters, and commenced the QI programme in random order over 85 weeks. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was analysed using a mixed-effects parametric survival model, adjusting for time-related effects. Ethnographic and economics data were collected in six hospitals. The process evaluation included all hospitals.

Setting

The trial was set in acute surgical services of 93 NHS hospitals.

Participants

Patients aged ≥ 40 years who were undergoing emergency abdominal surgery were eligible.

Intervention

The intervention was a QI programme to implement an evidence-based care pathway.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were mortality within 180 days, length of hospital stay and hospital readmission within 180 days. The main economic measure was the quality-adjusted life-years.

Data sources

Data were obtained from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit database; qualitative interviews and ethnographic observations; quality-of-life and NHS resource use data were collected via questionnaires.

Results

Of 15,873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 participants in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. The primary outcome occurred in 1393 participants in the usual care group (16%), compared with 1210 patients in the QI group (16%) [QI vs. usual care hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.28]. No differences were found in mortality at 180 days or hospital readmission; there was a small increase in hospital stay in the QI group (HR for discharge 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97). There were only modest improvements in care processes following QI implementation. The ethnographic study revealed good QI engagement, but limited time and resources to implement change, affecting which processes teams addressed, the rate of change and eventual success. In some sites, there were challenges around prioritising the intervention in busy environments and in obtaining senior engagement. The intervention is unlikely to be cost-effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds, but may be cost-effective over the lifetime horizon.

Limitations

Substantial delays were encountered in securing data access to national registries. Fewer patients than expected underwent surgery and the mortality rate was lower than anticipated.

Conclusions

There was no survival benefit from a QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. The modest impact of the intervention on process measures, despite good clinician engagement, may have been limited by the time and resources needed to improve patient care.

Future work

Future QI programmes must balance intervention complexity with the practical realities of NHS services to ensure that such programmes can be delivered with the resources available.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80682973 and The Lancet protocol 13PRT/7655.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Does the Implementation of a Quality Improvement Care Bundle Reduce the Incidence of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Emergency Laparotomy?

PURPOSE

Previous work has demonstrated a survival improvement following the introduction of an enhanced recovery protocol in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (the emergency laparotomy pathway quality improvement care (ELPQuiC) bundle). Implementation of this bundle increased the use of intra-operative goal directed fluid therapy and ICU admission, both evidence-based strategies recommended to improve kidney outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine if the observed mortality benefit could be explained by a difference in the incidence of AKI pre- and post-implementation of the protocol.

METHOD

The primary outcome was the incidence of AKI in the pre- and post-ELPQuiC bundle patient population in four acute trusts in the United Kingdom. Secondary outcomes included the KDIGO stage specific incidence of AKI. Serum creatinine values were obtained retrospectively at baseline, in the post-operative period and the maximum recorded creatinine between day 1 and day 30 were obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 303 patients pre-ELPQuiC bundle and 426 patients post-ELPQuiC bundle implementation were identified across the four centres. The overall AKI incidence was 18.4% in the pre-bundle group versus 19.8% in the post bundle group p = 0.653. No significant differences were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite this multi-centre cohort study demonstrating an overall survival benefit, implementation of the quality improvement care bundle did not affect the incidence of AKI.

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients.

METHODS

We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973.

FINDINGS

Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28).

INTERPRETATION

No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme.

Evaluation of the Collaborative Use of an Evidence-Based Care Bundle in Emergency Laparotomy

Question

Is a quality improvement collaborative approach to implementation of a care bundle associated with reductions in mortality from emergency laparotomy?

Findings

In this study of a collaborative project involving 28 hospitals and a total of 14 809 patients, reductions in mortality and length of stay were seen after implementation of a care bundle. Improvement took time to occur and was not seen until the second year of the collaborative project.

Meaning

The findings suggest that hospitals should consider adopting a care bundle approach and participating in a collaborative group to see improvement in outcomes for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy.

Importance

Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy have high mortality, but few studies exist to improve outcomes for these patients.

Objective

To assess whether a collaborative approach to implement a 6-point care bundle is associated with reduction in mortality and length of stay and improvement in the delivery of standards of care across a group of hospitals.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Emergency Laparotomy Collaborative (ELC) was a UK-based prospective quality improvement study of the implementation of a care bundle provided to patients requiring emergency laparotomy between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2017. Participants were 28 National Health Service hospitals and emergency surgical patients who were treated at these hospitals and whose data were entered into the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) database. Post-ELC implementation outcomes were compared with baseline data from July 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015. Data entry and collection were performed through the NELA.

Interventions

A 6-point, evidence-based care bundle was used. The bundle included prompt measurement of blood lactate levels, early review and treatment for sepsis, transfer to the operating room within defined time goals after the decision to operate, use of goal-directed fluid therapy, postoperative admission to an intensive care unit, and multidisciplinary involvement of senior clinicians in the decision and delivery of perioperative care. Change management and leadership coaching were provided to ELC leadership teams.

Main Outcome and Measures

Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, both crude and Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM) risk-adjusted, and length of stay. Secondary outcomes were the changes after implementation of the separate metrics in the care bundle.

Results

A total of 28 hospitals participated in the ELC and completed the project. The baseline group included 5562 patients (2937 female [52.8%] and a mean [range] age of 65.3 [18.0-114.0] years), whereas the post-ELC group had 9247 patients (4911 female [53.1%] and a mean [range] age of 65.0 [18.0-99.0] years). Unadjusted mortality rate decreased from 9.8% at baseline to 8.3% in year 2 of the project, and so did risk-adjusted mortality from a baseline of 5.3% to 4.5% post-ELC. Mean length of stay decreased from 20.1 days during year 1 to 18.9 days during year 2. Significant changes in 5 of the 6 metrics in the care bundle were achieved.

Conclusions and Relevance

A collaborative approach using a quality improvement methodology and a care bundle appeared to be effective in reducing mortality and length of stay in emergency laparotomy, suggesting that hospitals should adopt such an approach to see better patient outcomes and care delivery performance.

Cohort analysis of outcomes in 69 490 emergency general surgical admissions across an international benchmarking collaborative

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to use the Dr Foster Global Comparators Network (GC) database to examine differences in outcomes following high-risk emergency general surgery (EGS) admissions in participating centres across 3 countries and to determine whether hospital infrastructure factors can be linked to the delivery of high-quality care.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort analysis of high-risk EGS admissions using GC's international administrative data set.

SETTING

23 large hospitals in Australia, England and the USA.

METHODS

Discharge data for a cohort of high-risk EGS patients were collated. Multilevel hierarchical logistic regression analysis was performed to examine geographical and structural differences between GC hospitals.

RESULTS

69 490 patients, admitted to 23 centres across Australia, England and the USA from 2007 to 2012, were identified. For all patients within this cohort, outcomes defined as: 7-day and 30-day inhospital mortality, readmission and length of stay appeared to be superior in US centres. A subgroup of 19 082 patients (27%) underwent emergency abdominal surgery. No geographical differences in mortality were seen at 7 days in this subgroup. 30-day mortality (OR=1.47, p<0.01) readmission (OR=1.42, p<0.01) and length of stay (OR=1.98, p<0.01) were worse in English units. Patient factors (age, pathology, comorbidity) were significantly associated with worse outcome as were structural factors, including low intensive care unit bed ratios, high volume and interhospital transfers. Having dedicated EGS teams cleared of elective commitments with formalised handovers was associated with shorter length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Key factors that influence outcomes were identified. For patients who underwent surgery, outcomes were similar at 7 days but not at 30 days. This may be attributable to better infrastructure and resource allocation towards EGS in the US and Australian centres.

Estimated costs before, during and after the introduction of the emergency laparotomy pathway quality improvement care (ELPQuIC) bundle

Implementation of a quality improvement bundle for peri-operative management of emergency laparotomy (ELPQuIC) improved mortality in a previous study. We used data from one site that participated in that study to examine whether it was associated with the cost of care. We collected data from 396 patients: 144 before, 144 during and 108 after implementation of the bundle. We estimated costs incurred using previously published methodology based on the time the patient spent in hospital, in the operating theatre and in critical care. Duration of stay in hospital and critical care did not differ between time periods, p = 0.14 and p = 0.28, respectively. The costs per patient and per survivor did not differ between the time periods, p = 0.87 and p = 0.17, respectively. Costs were similar for patients aged < 80 years vs. ≥ 80 years. Implementation of a quality improvement bundle for emergency laparotomy has the capacity to save lives without increasing hospital costs.

Use of a pathway quality improvement care bundle to reduce mortality after emergency laparotomy

Background

Emergency laparotomies in the UK, USA and Denmark are known to have a high risk of death, with accompanying evidence of suboptimal care. The emergency laparotomy pathway quality improvement care (ELPQuiC) bundle is an evidence-based care bundle for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, consisting of: initial assessment with early warning scores, early antibiotics, interval between decision and operation less than 6 h, goal-directed fluid therapy and postoperative intensive care.

Methods

The ELPQuiC bundle was implemented in four hospitals, using locally identified strategies to assess the impact on risk-adjusted mortality. Comparison of case mix-adjusted 30-day mortality rates before and after care-bundle implementation was made using risk-adjusted cumulative sum (CUSUM) plots and a logistic regression model.

Results

Risk-adjusted CUSUM plots showed an increase in the numbers of lives saved per 100 patients treated in all hospitals, from 6·47 in the baseline interval (299 patients included) to 12·44 after implementation (427 patients included) (P < 0·001). The overall case mix-adjusted risk of death decreased from 15·6 to 9·6 per cent (risk ratio 0·614, 95 per cent c.i. 0·451 to 0·836; P = 0·002). There was an increase in the uptake of the ELPQuiC processes but no significant difference in the patient case-mix profile as determined by the mean Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity risk (0·197 and 0·223 before and after implementation respectively; P = 0·395).

Conclusion

Use of the ELPQuiC bundle was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death following emergency laparotomy.

Current UK practice in emergency laparotomy

INTRODUCTION

Emergency laparotomy is a common procedure, with 30,000-50,000 performed annually in the UK. This large scale study reports the current spectrum of emergency laparotomies, and the influence of the surgical procedure, underlying pathology and subspecialty of the operating surgeon on mortality.

METHODS

Anonymised data on consecutive patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy were submitted for a three-month period. The primary outcome measure was unadjusted 30-day mortality. Appendicectomy and cholecystectomy were among the procedures excluded.

RESULTS

Data from 1,708 patients from 35 National Health Service hospitals were analysed. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 14.8%. 'True' emergency laparotomies (ie those classified by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death as immediate or urgent) comprised 86.5% of cases. The mortality rate rose from 8.0% among expedited cases to 14.3% among urgent cases and to 25.7% among laparotomies termed immediate. Among the most common index procedures, small bowel resection exhibited the highest 30-day mortality rate of 21.1%. The presence of abdominal sepsis was associated with raised 30-day mortality (17.5% in the presence of sepsis vs 12.6%, p=0.027). Colorectal procedures comprised 44.3% and within this group, data suggest that mortality from laparotomy may be influenced by surgical subspecialisation.

CONCLUSIONS

This report of a large number of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy in the UK confirms a remarkably high mortality by modern standards across the range. Very few pathologies or procedures can be considered anything other than high risk. The need for routine consultant involvement and critical care is evident, and the case distribution helps define the surgical skill set needed for a modern emergency laparotomy service. Preliminary data relating outcomes from emergency colonic surgery to surgical subspecialty require urgent further study.

Current UK practice in emergency laparotomy

Introduction

Emergency laparotomy is a common procedure, with 30,000–50,000 performed annually in the UK. This large scale study reports the current spectrum of emergency laparotomies, and the influence of the surgical procedure, underlying pathology and subspecialty of the operating surgeon on mortality.

Methods

Anonymised data on consecutive patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy were submitted for a three-month period. The primary outcome measure was unadjusted 30-day mortality. Appendicectomy and cholecystectomy were among the procedures excluded.

Results

Data from 1,708 patients from 35 National Health Service hospitals were analysed. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 14.8%. ‘True’ emergency laparotomies (ie those classified by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death as immediate or urgent) comprised 86.5% of cases. The mortality rate rose from 8.0% among expedited cases to 14.3% among urgent cases and to 25.7% among laparotomies termed immediate. Among the most common index procedures, small bowel resection exhibited the highest 30-day mortality rate of 21.1%. The presence of abdominal sepsis was associated with raised 30-day mortality (17.5% in the presence of sepsis vs 12.6%, p=0.027). Colorectal procedures comprised 44.3% and within this group, data suggest that mortality from laparotomy may be influenced by surgical subspecialisation.

Conclusions

This report of a large number of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy in the UK confirms a remarkably high mortality by modern standards across the range. Very few pathologies or procedures can be considered anything other than high risk. The need for routine consultant involvement and critical care is evident, and the case distribution helps define the surgical skill set needed for a modern emergency laparotomy service. Preliminary data relating outcomes from emergency colonic surgery to surgical subspecialty require urgent further study.

Variations in mortality after emergency laparotomy: the first report of the UK Emergency Laparotomy Network

BACKGROUND

Emergency laparotomy is a common intra-abdominal procedure. Outcomes are generally recognized to be poor, but there is a paucity of hard UK data, and reports have mainly been confined to single-centre studies.

METHODS

Clinicians were invited to join an 'Emergency Laparotomy Network' and to collect prospective non-risk-adjusted outcome data from a large number of NHS Trusts providing emergency surgical care. Data concerning what were considered to be key aspects of perioperative care, including thirty-day mortality, were collected over a 3 month period.

RESULTS

Data from 1853 patients were collected from 35 NHS hospitals. The unadjusted 30 day mortality was 14.9% for all patients and 24.4% in patients aged 80 or over. There was a wide variation between units in terms of the proportion of cases subject to key interventions that may affect outcomes. The presence of a consultant surgeon in theatre varied between 40.6% and 100% of cases, while a consultant anaesthetist was present in theatre for 25-100% of cases. Goal-directed fluid management was used in 0-63% of cases. Between 0% and 68.9% of the patients returned to the ward (level one) after surgery, and between 9.7% and 87.5% were admitted to intensive care (level three). Mortality rates varied from 3.6% to 41.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that emergency laparotomy in the UK carries a high mortality. The variation in clinical management and outcomes indicates the need for a national quality improvement programme.

Out-of-theatre tracheal intubation: prospective multicentre study of clinical practice and adverse events

BACKGROUND

Tracheal intubation is commonly performed outside the operating theatre and is associated with higher risk than intubation in theatre. Recent guidelines and publications including the 4th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists have sought to improve the safety of out-of-theatre intubations.

METHODS

We performed a prospective observational study examining all tracheal intubations occurring outside the operating theatre in nine hospitals over a 1 month period. Data were collected on speciality and grade of intubator, presence of essential safety equipment and monitoring, and adverse events.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-four out-of-theatre intubations were identified (excluding those where intubation occurred as part of the management of cardiac arrest). The most common indication for intubation was respiratory failure [74 cases (45%)]. Doctors with at least 6 month's experience in anaesthesia performed 136 intubations (83%); consultants were present for 68 cases (41%), and overall a second intubator was present for 94 procedures (57%). Propofol was the most common induction agent [124 cases (76%)] and 157 patients (96%) received neuromuscular blocking agents. An airway rescue device was available in 139 cases (87%). Capnography was not used in 52 cases (32%). Sixty-four patients suffered at least one adverse event (39%) around the time of tracheal intubation.

CONCLUSIONS

Out-of-theatre intubation frequently occurs in the absence of essential safety equipment, despite the existing guidelines. The associated adverse event rate is high.

The Science of Improvement as it Relates to Quality and Safety in the ICU

This paper seeks to explain some of the science and concepts used in quality improvement, including the use of run charts and control charts, the development and use of ‘bundles’ and the need to reduce variability to improve quality in critical care.

Determinants of outcome in critically ill octogenarians after surgery: an observational study

BACKGROUND

The population in the UK is growing older and the number of elderly patients cared for on intensive care units (ICU) is increasing. This study was designed to identify risk factors for mortality in critically ill patients of >80 yr of age after surgery.

METHODS

We identified 275 patients, aged 80 yr or greater, admitted to the ICU after surgery. After exclusions, 255 were selected for further analysis. Multivariate analysis was then performed to determine the covariates associated with hospital mortality.

RESULTS

The overall ICU and hospital mortality was 20.4% and 33.3%, respectively. Patients who received i.v. vasoactive drugs on days 1 and 2 had hospital mortality of 54.4% and 60.5%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that requirement for i.v. vasoactive drugs within the first 24 h on ICU [odds ratio (OR) 4.29; 95% CI, 2.35-7.84, P<0.001] and requirement for i.v. vasoactive drugs for a further 24 h (OR 3.63; 95% CI, 1.58-8.37, P<0.01) were associated with hospital mortality. The requirement for i.v. vasoactive drugs was also strongly associated with hospital mortality in all the subgroups studied (elective surgery, emergency surgery, and emergency laparotomy).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients aged 80 yr and more, admitted to ICU after surgery, the requirement for i.v. vasoactive drugs in the first and second 24 h was the strongest predictor of hospital mortality.

Traumatic pulmonary pseudocysts

We describe a case of a 19-year-old man who developed traumatic pulmonary pseudocysts after a rollover road traffic crash. These were associated with significant pulmonary haemorrhage requiring a period of mechanical ventilation, but resolved without specific intervention. Review of the literature confirms that this rare complication of blunt chest trauma occurs usually in young adults and, although normally benign, can be associated with life-threatening haemoptysis and secondary infection.

Monitoring patients during anaesthesia for radiological procedures

The past year has seen a number of reports discussing the future possibilities of image-guided surgery and interventional radiology. One of the most exciting developments is intra-operative magnetic resonance imaging. The anaesthesiologist plays a central role in these developments, ensuring that patients undergoing procedures in the radiology department are adequately monitored and safely maintained.

The effect of intravenous dexmedetomidine premedication on the dose requirement of propofol to induce loss of consciousness in patients receiving alfentanil

Dexmedetomidine reduces the dose requirements for opioids and anaesthetic agents. We conducted a single-centre, open-label, noncomparative phase II study of the effect of intravenous dexmedetomidine on the dose requirement of propofol to induce loss of consciousness in 49 ASA I and II patients. The initial dexmedetomidine infusion scheme was reduced twice because of adverse events. Forty patients who received the final infusion scheme were randomly allocated to receive one of five stepped propofol infusions; loss of consciousness was assessed after 21 min. The ED50 for the final infusion rate of propofol to suppress consciousness was 3.45 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1) (95% CL 2.7-4.2): ED95 was 6.68 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1) (95% CL 5.1-19.1), EC50 was 1.69 microg x ml(-1) (95% CL 0.95-2.5) and EC95 was 5.7 microg x ml(-1) (95% CL 3.2 to > 10). Our final dose of dexmedetomidine of 0.63 microg x kg(-1) caused a reduction in the overall concentration and dose of propofol required to produce loss of consciousness, but no significant shift in the dose-response curve compared with other studies.

Magnetic resonance imaging and P300 (event-related auditory evoked potentials) in the assessment of postoperative cerebral injury following coronary artery bypass graft surgery

Cerebral injury following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery was investigated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and P300, a long-latency endogenous evoked potential associated with psychological processing of stimulus information. Twelve patients were studied before and after surgery. Prior to surgery, MRI abnormalities were found in all but one patient. After surgery, five patients had new abnormalities, mainly deep white-matter lesions (DWML). Postoperative P300 latency was significantly increased in six patients. P300 topographical distribution showed a shift from predominantly posterior cerebral regions to frontal regions in most patients. Postoperative P300 and MRI deficits were found in three of the five patients. One of the patients with marked MRI change (DWML in caudate nucleus) did not show P300 deficit.

Feasibility of day case laparoscopic cholecystectomy in unselected patients

The feasibility of day case laparoscopic cholecystectomy was assessed in unselected patients using a standard anaesthetic protocol. Postoperative pain and nausea were assessed at 6 and 24 h postoperatively (visual analogue scale, range 0-10). Thirty-two patients were studied (23 female, 9 male, mean age 49.6 years). The mean duration of surgery was 68 min. At 6 h after surgery, 10 patients (31%) had no pain at rest. For the group as a whole, the median pain score was 3 at rest (range 0-6), 4 on movement (0-9), and 5 on coughing (0-9) and eight patients (25%) were nauseated. At 24 h, 15 (46.9%) had no pain at rest. For the group as a whole, the median pain score was 1 at rest (0-7), 3 (0-6) on movement and 3 on coughing (0-9). The same eight patients were nauseated. Ten patients (31.3%) were judged fit for discharge at 6 h, and 28 (87.5%) by 24 h. There was no statistical difference in mean age or duration of surgery in those judged fit for early discharge compared to the study group as a whole. Nausea was an important factor in those unfit for discharge at 24 h. Selection criteria might improve these figures. From the results of our study, 24 h admission is a more realistic goal and will be suitable for most patients requiring laparoscopic cholecystectomy.