Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has the potential to significantly impact burns patients both directly through infective complications of an immunocompromised cohort, and indirectly through disruption of care pathways and resource limitations. The pandemic presents new challenges that must be overcome to maintain patient safety; in particular, the potential increased risks of surgical intervention, anaesthesia and ventilation. This study comprehensively reviews the measures implemented to adapt referral pathways and mitigate the risk posed by COVID-19 during the height of the pandemic, within a large Burns Centre.Methods: A prospective cohort study was designed to assess patients treated at the Burns Centre during the UK COVID-19 pandemic peak (April-May 2020), following implementation of new safety measures. All patients were analysed for 30-day mortality. In addition, a prospective controlled cohort study was undertaken on all inpatients and a random sample of outpatients with telephone follow-up at 30 days. These patients were divided into three groups (operative inpatients, non-operative inpatients, outpatients). COVID-19 related data collected included test results, contact with proven cases, isolation status and symptoms. The implemented departmental service COVID-19 safety adaptations are described.Results: Of 323 patients treated at the Burns Centre during the study period, no 30-day COVID-19 related deaths occurred (0/323). Of the 80 patients analysed in the prospective controlled cohort section of the study, 51 underwent COVID-19 testing, 3.9% (2/51) were positive. Both cases were in the operative group, however in comparison to the non-operative and outpatient groups, there was no significant increase in COVID-19 incidence in operative patients.Conclusions: We found no COVID-19 related mortality during the study period. With appropriate precautions, burns patients were not exposed to an increased COVID-19 risk. Similarly, burns patients undergoing operative management were not at a significantly increased risk of contracting COVID-19 in comparison to non-operative groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Adaptation is vital to ensure successful healthcare recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hand trauma represents the most common acute emergency department presentation internationally. This study prospectively evaluates the COVID-19 related patient risk, when undergoing management within one of the largest specialist tertiary referral centres in Europe, which rapidly implemented national COVID-19 safety guidelines., Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort study was undertaken in all patients referred to the integrated hand trauma service, during the UK COVID-19 pandemic peak (April-May 2020); all were evaluated for 30-day COVID-19 related death. Random selection was undertaken for patients with hand trauma who either underwent non-operative (control group) or operative (surgery group) management; these groups were prospectively followed-up within a controlled cohort study design and telephoned at 30 days following first intervention (control group) or postoperatively (surgery group)., Results: Of 731 referred patients (566 operations), there were no COVID-19 related deaths. Both groups were matched for sex, age, ethnicity, body mass index, comorbidities, smoking, preoperative/first assessment COVID-19 symptoms, pre- and postoperative/first assessment isolation and positive COVID-19 contact ( p  > 0.050). There were no differences in high service satisfaction (10/10 compared with 10/10; p  = 0.067) and treatment outcome (10/10 compared with 10/10; p  = 0.961) scores, postoperative/first assessment symptoms (1%, 1/100 compared with 0.8%, 2/250; p  = 1.000) or proportion of positive tests (7.1%, 1/14 compared with 2.2%, 2/92; p  = 0.349), between the control ( n =  100) and surgery ( n =  250) groups., Conclusion: These data support continued and safe service provision and no increased risk to patients who require surgical management. Such findings are vital for healthcare providers when considering service adaptations to reinstate patient treatment.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyze the decision-making process in emergency general surgery in an attempt to ascertain whether surgeons make the correct decision when decisions not to operate in high-risk acutely unwell surgical patients are taken., Background: A decision not to operate is sometimes associated with a certain degree of uncertainty as to the accuracy of the decision. Difficulty lies with the fact that the decisions are made on assumptions, and the tools available are not fool proof., Methods: We retrospectively evaluated "decisions not to operate" over a period of 32 months from April 2013 to August 2015 in a district general hospital in United Kingdom and compared with consecutive similar number of patients who had an operation as recorded in the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) database (from January 2014 to August 2015). We looked at the demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Portsmouth-Physiological and Operative Severity Score for enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (P-POSSUM) score, functional status, and 30-day mortality., Results: Two groups (operated [n = 43] and conservative [n = 42]) had similar characteristics. Patients for conservative management had a higher P-POSSUM score ( P < .001) and a poorer functional status ( P < .001) at the time of decision-making compared to those who had surgery. Mortality at 30 days was significantly higher for patients decided for conservative management when compared with those who had surgery (76.2% and 18.6%, respectively)., Conclusions: Elderly patients with poorer functional status and predicted risks more often drive multidisciplinary discussions on whether to operate. Within the limitations of not knowing the outcome otherwise, it appears surgeons take a reasonable approach when deciding not to operate.