Search

Aging is the single largest risk factor for most chronic diseases, and thus possesses large socioeconomic interest to continuously aging societies. Consequently, the field of aging research is expanding alongside a growing focus from the industry and investors in aging research. This year's 8th Annual Aging Research and Drug Discovery (ARDD) meeting was organized as a hybrid meeting from August 30th to September 3rd 2021 with more than 130 attendees participating on-site at the Ceremonial Hall at University of Copenhagen, Denmark, and 1800 engaging online. The conference comprised of presentations from 75 speakers focusing on new research in topics including mechanisms of aging and how these can be modulated as well as the use of AI and new standards of practices within aging research. This year, a longevity workshop was included to build stronger connections with the clinical community.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To identify and discuss emerging trends in the therapeutic use of hyperbaric oxygen. RECENT FINDINGS: There has been a maturing of the clinical evidence to support the treatment of sudden hearing loss, a wide range of problematic chronic wound states and the prevention and treatment of end-organ damage associated with diabetes mellitus. On the other hand, the controversy continues concerning the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) to treat sequelae of mild traumatic brain injury. HBOT remains poorly understood by many medical practitioners despite more than 50 years of clinical practice. Pharmacological actions arise from increased pressures of oxygen in the blood and tissues. Most therapeutic mechanisms identified are not the simple result of the reoxygenation of hypoxic tissue, but specific effects on immunological and metabolic pathways by this highly reactive element. HBOT remains controversial despite biological plausibility and a solid clinical evidence base in several disease states. SUMMARY: Multiple proposals for new indications for HBOT continue to emerge. Although many of these will likely prove of limited clinical importance, some show significant promise. Responsible practitioners remain acutely aware of the need for high-quality clinical evidence before introducing emerging indications into routine practice.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative infection is a serious problem in New Zealand and internationally with considerable human and financial costs. Also, in New Zealand, certain factors that contribute to postoperative infection are more common in Māori and Pacific populations. To date, most efforts to reduce postoperative infection have focussed on surgical aspects of care and on antibiotic prophylaxis, but recent research shows that anaesthesia providers may also have an impact on infection transmission. These providers sometimes exhibit imperfect hand hygiene and frequently transfer the blood or saliva of their patients to their work environment. In addition, intravenous medications may become contaminated whilst being drawn up and administered to patients. Working with relevant practitioners and other experts, we have developed an evidence-informed bundle to improve key aseptic practices by anaesthetists with the aim of reducing postoperative infection. The key elements of the bundle are the filtering of compatible drugs, context-relevant hand hygiene practices and enhanced maintenance of clean work surfaces. METHODS: We will seek support for implementation of the bundle from senior anaesthesia and hospital leadership and departmental "champions". Anaesthetic teams and recovery room staff will be educated about the bundle and its potential benefits through presentations, written material and illustrative videos. We will implement the bundle in operating rooms where hip or knee arthroplasty or cardiac surgery procedures are undertaken in a five-site, stepped wedge, cluster randomised, quality improvement design. We will compare outcomes between approximately 5000 cases before and 5000 cases after implementation of our bundle. Outcome data will be collected from existing national and hospital databases. Our primary outcome will be days alive and out of hospital to 90 days, which is expected to reflect all serious postoperative infections. Our secondary outcome will be the ra

While the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (the Checklist) can improve patient outcomes, variable administration can erode benefits. We sought to understand and improve how operating room (OR) staff use the Checklist. Our specific aims were to: determine if OR staff can discriminate between good and poor quality of Checklist administration using a validated audit tool (WHOBARS); to determine reliability and accuracy of WHOBARS self-ratings; determine the influence of demographic variables on ratings and explore OR staff attitudes to Checklist administration. DESIGN: Mixed methods study using WHOBARS ratings of surgical cases by OR staff and two independent observers, thematic analysis of staff interviews. PARTICIPANTS: OR staff in three New Zealand hospitals. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reliability of WHOBARS for self-audit; staff attitudes to Checklist administration. RESULTS: Analysis of scores (243 participants, 2 observers, 59 cases) supported tool reliability, with 87% of WHOBARS score variance attributable to differences in Checklist administration between cases. Self-ratings were significantly higher than observer ratings, with some differences between professional groups but error variance from all raters was less than 10%. Key interview themes (33 interviewees) were: Team culture and embedding the Checklist, Information transfer and obstacles, Raising concerns and 'A tick-box exercise'. Interviewees felt the Checklist could promote teamwork and a safety culture, particularly enabling speaking up. Senior staff were of key importance in setting the appropriate tone. CONCLUSIONS: The WHOBARS tool could be useful for self-audit and quality improvement as OR staff can reliably discriminate between good and poor Checklist administration. OR staff self-ratings were lenient compared with external observers suggesting the value of external audit for benchmarking. Small differences between ratings from professional groups underpin the value of including all members of th

From the time an association was perceived between cardiac surgery and post-operative cognitive dysfunction (POCD), there has been interest in arterial microemboli as one explanation. A succession of studies in the mid-1990s reported a correlation between microemboli exposure and POCD and there followed a focus on microemboli reduction (along with other strategies) in pursuit of peri-operative neuroprotection. There is some evidence that the initiatives developed during this period were successful in reducing neurologic morbidity in cardiac surgery. More recently, however, there is increasing awareness of similar rates of POCD following on and off pump cardiac operations, and following many other types of surgery in elderly patients. This has led some to suggest that cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and microemboli exposure by implication are non-contributory. Although the risk factors for POCD may be more patient-centered and multifactorial than previously appreciated, it would be unwise to assume that CPB and exposure to microemboli are unimportant. Improvements in CPB safety (including emboli reduction) achieved over the last 20 years may be partly responsible for difficulty demonstrating higher rates of POCD after cardiac surgery involving CPB in contemporary comparisons with other operations. Moreover, microemboli (including bubbles) have been proven harmful in experimental and clinical situations uncontaminated by other confounding factors. It remains important to continue to minimize patient exposure to microemboli as far as is practicable.

The reported benefits of using the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) are likely to depend on compliance with its correct use. Compliance with SSC administration in centres that have introduced the checklist under a research protocol may differ from centres where the SSC is introduced independently. To compare compliance with SSC administration at an original WHO pilot study centre (Hospital 1) with that at a similar neighbouring hospital (Hospital 2) that independently integrated the SSC with pre-existing practice. This was a prospective, observational study. One hundred operations were observed at each hospital. We recorded: compliance with administration of SSC domains (Sign In, Time Out and Sign Out) and individual domain items; timing of domain administration; and operating room team engagement during administration. Domain compliance at Hospital 1 and Hospital 2, respectively, was: 96% and 31% (p<0.0005) for Sign In; 99% and 48% (p<0.0005) for Time Out and 22% and 9% (p=0.008) for Sign Out. Engagement of two or more teams during Sign In and Time Out occurred more frequently at Hospital 2 than at Hospital 1. Compliance with administration of SSC domains was lower at Hospital 2 which introduced the SSC outside the context of a strict study protocol. This finding mandates caution in extrapolation of benefits identified in SSC studies to non-study hospitals. Staff engagement was better at Hospital 2 where checklist administration leadership is strategically shared among anaesthetic, surgical and nursing team members as compared with exclusive nursing leadership at Hospital 1. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: Ref: ACTRN12612000135819, http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?ID=362007.

Recent studies have demonstrated a reduction in perioperative complications if a surgical safety checklist is utilised. In our institution an adaptation of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist is administered in 3 "domains": on arrival of the patient in the operating room (Sign In); before surgical incision (Time Out) and before the patients leaves the operating room (Sign Out). Since incomplete administration or staff disengagement could diminish any safety benefit we evaluated administration of this checklist. 100 adult surgical cases were observed. Compliance with administration of the Sign In, Time Out, and Sign Out domains and their component checklist items was recorded. The timing of the checklist administration, and engagement of operating room teams were also assessed. The rate (per 100 cases) of the checklist domain administration was: 99 for Sign In; 94 for Time Out; and 2 for Sign Out. The mean (range) checklist item compliance was 56% (27-100%) for Sign In, 69% (33-100%) for Time Out, and 40% for Sign Out. Checklist items related to patient identity and surgical procedure were administered in 100% of Sign In administrations. Timing of the checklist administration was appropriate in over 80% of cases. Engagement by theatre teams was frequently incomplete. The Sign Out domain was almost always omitted, which may increase the risk of important omissions in postoperative care. Most other aspects of checklist administration could also be improved. This will require strong leadership from senior clinicians in all relevant teams.

OBJECTIVES: To extend reliability of WHO Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale (WHOBARS) to measure the quality of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist administration using generalisability theory. In this context, extending reliability refers to establishing generalisability of the tool scores across populations of teams and raters by accounting for the relevant sources of measurement errors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional random effect measurement design assessing surgical teams by the five items on the three Checklist phases, and at three sites by two trained raters simultaneously. SETTING: The data were collected in three tertiary hospitals in Auckland, New Zealand in 2016 and included 60 teams observed in 60 different cases with an equal number of teams (n=20) per site. All elective and acute cases (adults and children) involving surgery under general anaesthesia during normal working hours were eligible. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 243 surgical staff members, 138 (50.12%) women. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Absolute generalisability coefficient that accounts for variance due to items, phases, sites and raters for the WHOBARS measure of the quality of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist administration. RESULTS: The WHOBARS in its present form has demonstrated good generalisability of scores across teams and raters (G absolute=0.83). The largest source of measurement error was the interaction between the surgical team and the rater, accounting for 16.7% (95% CI 16.4 to 16.9) of the total variance in the data. Removing any items from the WHOBARS led to a decrease in the overall reliability of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing checklist administration quality is important for promoting improvement in its use, and WHOBARS offers a reliable approach for doing this.

While the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (the Checklist) can improve patient outcomes, variable administration can erode benefits. We sought to understand and improve how operating room (OR) staff use the Checklist. Our specific aims were to: determine if OR staff can discriminate between good and poor quality of Checklist administration using a validated audit tool (WHOBARS); to determine reliability and accuracy of WHOBARS self-ratings; determine the influence of demographic variables on ratings and explore OR staff attitudes to Checklist administration. DESIGN: Mixed methods study using WHOBARS ratings of surgical cases by OR staff and two independent observers, thematic analysis of staff interviews. PARTICIPANTS: OR staff in three New Zealand hospitals. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reliability of WHOBARS for self-audit; staff attitudes to Checklist administration. RESULTS: Analysis of scores (243 participants, 2 observers, 59 cases) supported tool reliability, with 87% of WHOBARS score variance attributable to differences in Checklist administration between cases. Self-ratings were significantly higher than observer ratings, with some differences between professional groups but error variance from all raters was less than 10%. Key interview themes (33 interviewees) were: Team culture and embedding the Checklist, Information transfer and obstacles, Raising concerns and 'A tick-box exercise'. Interviewees felt the Checklist could promote teamwork and a safety culture, particularly enabling speaking up. Senior staff were of key importance in setting the appropriate tone. CONCLUSIONS: The WHOBARS tool could be useful for self-audit and quality improvement as OR staff can reliably discriminate between good and poor Checklist administration. OR staff self-ratings were lenient compared with external observers suggesting the value of external audit for benchmarking. Small differences between ratings from professional groups underpin the value of including all members of the team in

OBJECTIVES: To extend reliability of WHO Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale (WHOBARS) to measure the quality of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist administration using generalisability theory. In this context, extending reliability refers to establishing generalisability of the tool scores across populations of teams and raters by accounting for the relevant sources of measurement errors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional random effect measurement design assessing surgical teams by the five items on the three Checklist phases, and at three sites by two trained raters simultaneously. SETTING: The data were collected in three tertiary hospitals in Auckland, New Zealand in 2016 and included 60 teams observed in 60 different cases with an equal number of teams (n=20) per site. All elective and acute cases (adults and children) involving surgery under general anaesthesia during normal working hours were eligible. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 243 surgical staff members, 138 (50.12%) women. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Absolute generalisability coefficient that accounts for variance due to items, phases, sites and raters for the WHOBARS measure of the quality of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist administration. RESULTS: The WHOBARS in its present form has demonstrated good generalisability of scores across teams and raters (G absolute=0.83). The largest source of measurement error was the interaction between the surgical team and the rater, accounting for 16.7% (95% CI 16.4 to 16.9) of the total variance in the data. Removing any items from the WHOBARS led to a decrease in the overall reliability of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing checklist administration quality is important for promoting improvement in its use, and WHOBARS offers a reliable approach for doing this.