1,720,971 research outputs found
Risk assessment tools validated for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: a systematic review
Emergency laparotomies are performed commonly throughout the world, but one in six patients die within a month of surgery. Current international initiatives to reduce the considerable associated morbidity and mortality are founded upon delivering individualised perioperative care. However, while the identification of high-risk patients requires the routine assessment of individual risk, no method of doing so has been demonstrated to be practical and reliable across the commonly encountered spectrum of presentations, co-morbidities and operative procedures. A systematic review of Embase and Medline identified 20 validation studies assessing 25 risk assessment tools in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The most frequently studied general tools were APACHE II, ASA-PS and P-POSSUM. Comparative, quantitative analysis of tool performance was not feasible due to the heterogeneity of study design, poor reporting and infrequent within-study statistical comparison of tool performance. Reporting of calibration was notably absent in many prognostic tool validation studies. APACHE II demonstrated the most consistent discrimination of individual outcome across a variety of patient groups undergoing emergency laparotomy when used either preoperatively or postoperatively (area under the curve 0.76-0.98). While APACHE systems were designed for use in critical care, the ability of APACHE II to generate individual risk estimates from objective, exclusively preoperative data items may lead to better-informed shared decisions, triage and perioperative management of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Future endeavours should include the recalibration of APACHE II and P-POSSUM in contemporary cohorts, modifications to enable prediction of morbidity and assessment of the impact of adoption of these tools on clinical practice and patient outcomes
Patient reported outcome of adult perioperative anaesthesia in the United Kingdom: a cross-sectional observational study
Background. Understanding the patient perspective on healthcare is central to the evaluation of quality. This study measured selected patient-reported outcomes after anaesthesia in order to identify targets for research and quality improvement.
Methods. This cross-sectional observational study in UK National Health Service hospitals, recruited adults undergoing non-obstetric surgery requiring anaesthesia care over a 48 h period. Within 24 h of surgery, patients completed the Bauer questionnaire (measuring postoperative discomfort and satisfaction with anaesthesia care), and a modified Brice questionnaire to elicit symptoms suggestive of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (AAGA). Patient, procedural and pharmacological data were recorded to enable exploration of risk factors for these poor outcomes.
Results. 257 hospitals in 171 NHS Trusts participated (97% of eligible organisations). Baseline characteristics were collected on 16,222 patients; 15,040 (93%) completed postoperative questionnaires. Anxiety was most frequently cited as the worst aspect of the perioperative experience. Thirty-five per cent of patients reported severe discomfort in at least one domain: thirst (18.5%; 95% CI 17.8-19.1), surgical pain (11.0%; 10.5-11.5) and drowsiness (10.1%; 9.6-10.5) were most common. Despite this, only 5% reported dissatisfaction with any aspect of anaesthesia-related care. Regional anaesthesia was associated with a reduced burden of side-effects. The incidence of reported AAGA was one in 800 general anaesthetics (0.12%)
Conclusions. Anxiety and discomfort after surgery are common; despite this, satisfaction with anaesthesia care in the UK is high. The inconsistent relationship between patient-reported outcome, patient experience and patient satisfaction supports using all three of these domains to provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality of anaesthesia care
Enhanced recovery from surgery in the UK: an audit of the enhanced recovery partnership programme 2009-2012
This study is the largest assessment of the relationship between Enhanced Recovery protocol compliance and outcome in four surgical specialties. The data suggest that higher compliance with an Enhanced Recovery protocol has a weak association with shorter length of stay. This suggests that changes in process, resulting from highly protocolised pathways, may be as important in reducing perioperative length of stay as any individual element of Enhanced Recovery protocols in isolation
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
Survival after postoperative morbidity: a longitudinal observational cohort study.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that there may be long-term harm associated with postoperative complications. Uncertainty exists however, because of the need for risk adjustment and inconsistent definitions of postoperative morbidity. METHODS: We did a longitudinal observational cohort study of patients undergoing major surgery. Case-mix adjustment was applied and morbidity was recorded using a validated outcome measure. Cox proportional hazards modelling using time-dependent covariates was used to measure the independent relationship between prolonged postoperative morbidity and longer term survival. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 1362 patients. The median length of stay was 9 days and the median follow-up time was 6.5 yr. Independent of perioperative risk, postoperative neurological morbidity (prevalence 2.9%) was associated with a relative hazard for long-term mortality of 2.00 [P=0.001; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-3.04]. Prolonged postoperative morbidity (prevalence 15.6%) conferred a relative hazard for death in the first 12 months after surgery of 3.51 (P<0.001; 95% CI 2.28-5.42) and for the next 2 yr of 2.44 (P<0.001; 95% CI 1.62-3.65), returning to baseline thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged morbidity after surgery is associated with a risk of premature death for a longer duration than perhaps is commonly thought; however, this risk falls with time. We suggest that prolonged postoperative morbidity measured in this way may be a valid indicator of the quality of surgical healthcare. Our findings reinforce the importance of research and quality improvement initiatives aimed at reducing the duration and severity of postoperative complications
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
