Search

Background Major surgery accounts for a substantial proportion of health service activity and resource consumption, due not only to the primary procedure, but also the short and long-term implications of perioperative complications. It is likely that both compliance with best practice processes and outcomes from major surgery vary substantially between hospitals and therefore could be targets for quality improvement. Methods The Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP) patient study is a multi-centre prospective cohort study which recruits participants undergoing major inpatient non-cardiac surgery with three main aims: to measure and improve processes of care and outcome from major surgery; to implement and evaluate a complex intervention aiming to enhance the use of data for improvement by clinical teams; and to create a national database to support collaborative research and efficient study design. The prospective dataset combines variables for risk adjustment, process measures and both objective and patient reported outcome data. Longer-term outcomes are collected through linkage to national administrative datasets (mortality and readmissions). PQIP deploys a theoretically underpinned improvement methodology to support the use of data for improvement by perioperative clinicians, incorporating action research principles to enable changes to be made in response to user feedback. Dissemination of interim findings (non-inferential) form a part of the improvement methodology and are provided to participating centres at regular intervals, including near-real-time feedback of key process measures. Inferential analyses will be published in the peer-reviewed literature, supported by a multi-modal communications strategy to patients, public, policy makers and academic audiences as well as clinicians. Discussion PQIP is the first national effort in the UK to measure and report risk-adjusted complications, patient-reported outcome and mortality rates for patients undergoing major surgery across multiple surgical specialties in the UK. Its main limitation is the risk of sampling bias due to the requirement for patient consent, and because local resource constraints may lead hospitals to recruit a convenience sample, rather than a truly random sample. We will evaluate this risk by using Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) to identify all patients undergoing PQIP eligible procedures, and undertaking sensitivity analyses comparing common data points in the PQIP sample and the HES population. As the purpose of PQIP is to support quality improvement and research as opposed to quality assurance or institutional comparisons, even if they exist, such sampling biases are unlikely to materially affect the ability of the programme to achieve its aims.

Introduction Major surgery accounts for a substantial proportion of health service activity, due not only to the primary procedure, but the longer-term health implications of poor short-term outcome. Data from small studies or from outside the UK indicate that rates of complications and failure to rescue vary between hospitals, as does compliance with best practice processes. Within the UK, there is currently no system for monitoring postoperative complications (other than short-term mortality) in major non-cardiac surgery. Further, there is variation between national audit programmes, in the emphasis placed on quality assurance versus quality improvement, and therefore the principles of measurement and reporting which are used to design such programmes. Methods and analysis The PQIP patient study is a multi-centre prospective cohort study which recruits patients undergoing major surgery. Patient provide informed consent and contribute baseline and outcome data from their perspective using a suite of patient-reported outcome tools. Research and clinical staff complete data on patient risk factors and outcomes in-hospital, including two measures of complications. Longer-term outcome data are collected through patient feedback and linkage to national administrative datasets (mortality and readmissions). As well as providing a uniquely granular dataset for research, PQIP provides feedback to participating sites on their compliance with evidence-based processes and their patients’ outcomes, with the aim of supporting local quality improvement. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted by the Health Research Authority in the UK. Dissemination of interim findings (non-inferential) will form a part of the improvement methodology and will be provided to participating centres at regular intervals, including near-real time feedback of key process measures. Inferential analyses will be published in the peer-reviewed literature, supported by a comprehensive multi-modal communications strategy including to patients, policy makers and academic audiences as well as clinicians.

Accurately monitoring peri-operative core temperature is a cornerstone of good practice. Relatively invasive devices such as oesophageal temperature probes and pulmonary artery catheters facilitate this, but are inappropriate for many patients. There remains a need for accurate monitors of core temperature that can be used in awake patients. This study compared the accuracy of two core temperature thermometers that can be used for this purpose: the 3M Bair Hugger™ Temperature Monitoring System Zero Flux Thermometer and the CorTempR™ Wireless Ingestible Temperature Sensor. Readings were compared with the oesophageal probe, the current intraoperative standard. Thirty patients undergoing elective surgical procedures under general anaesthesia were recruited. The ingestible sensor was ingested prior to induction of anaethesia, and post induction, the zero-flux electrode attached above the right eyebrow and oesophageal probe inserted. During surgery, the temperature on each device was recorded every minute. Measurements were compared using Bland-Altman analysis. The ingestible sensor experienced interference from use of diathermy and fluoroscopy in the operating theatre, rendering 39% of its readings unusable. These were removed from analysis. With remaining readings the bias compared with oesophageal probe was + 0.42 °C, with 95% limits of agreement - 2.4 °C to 3.2 °C. 75.4% of readings were within ± 0.5 °C of the OTP reading. The bias for the zero flux electrode compared to oesophageal probe was + 0.02 °C with 95% limits of agreement - 0.5 °C to 0.5 °C. 97.7% of readings were within ± 0.5 °C of the oesophageal probe. The study findings suggest the zero-flux thermometer is sufficiently accurate for clinical use, whereas the ingestible sensor is not.Trial registration The study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT Number: NCT02121574.

Introduction The Advanced Trauma Life Support protocol for emergent management of pelvic ring disruptions includes advising circumferential application of a bed sheet. A number of purpose-designed pelvic circumferential compression devices are commercially available. We assessed whether the Advanced Trauma Life Support-recommended simple bed sheet was able to generate the same pelvic pressure as provided by a pelvic circumferential compression device. Methods A healthy volunteer was laid supine on an examination trolley and a pressure transducer was placed overlying the volunteer’s greater trochanters. Two pelvic compression devices, a commercially available SAM Pelvic Sling II™ and a standard hospital bed sheet, were applied single handedly. The SAM Sling was applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions and the bed sheet was applied in the way the participant felt best. The pressures generated at the level of the greater trochanters were measured at 2 min. The mean of the left and right pressures was recorded. Following removal of the first device, the second device was then placed and the pressures were again recorded at 2 min. Results Twelve participants completed the study. The mean (standard deviation) pressure generated by the SAM sling was 107 (28.4) mmHg and by the bed sheet 54 (26.3) mmHg; the SAM sling generated significantly greater pressure ( p Conclusion In patients with a suspected pelvic fracture, a bed sheet is unable to reliably generate pressures approaching those of a commercially available pelvic circumferential compression device.