The ‘Bath Boarding Card’: a novel tool for improving pre-operative care for emergency laparotomy patients

Increasing the use of perioperative risk scoring in emergency laparotomy: nationwide quality improvement programme

Background

Emergency laparotomy is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The early identification of high-risk patients allows for timely perioperative care and appropriate resource allocation. The aim of this study was to develop a nationwide surgical trainee-led quality improvement (QI) programme to increase the use of perioperative risk scoring in emergency laparotomy.

Methods

The programme was structured using the active implementation framework in 15 state-funded Irish hospitals to guide the staged implementation of perioperative risk scoring. The primary outcome was a recorded preoperative risk score for patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy at each site.

Results

The rate of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy receiving a perioperative risk score increased from 0–11 per cent during the exploratory phase to 35–100 per cent during the full implementation phase. Crucial factors for implementing changes included an experienced central team providing implementation support, collaborator engagement, and effective communication and social relationships.

Conclusions

A trainee-led QI programme increased the use of perioperative risk assessment in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, with the potential to improve patient outcomes and care delivery.

Early Postoperative Death in Patients Undergoing Emergency High-Risk Surgery: Towards a Better Understanding of Patients for Whom Surgery May Not Be Beneficial

The timing, causes, and quality of care for patients who die after emergency laparotomy have not been extensively reported. A large database of 13,953 patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, between July 2014 and March 2017, from 28 hospitals in England was studied. Anonymized data was extracted on day of death, patient demographics, operative details, compliance with standards of care, and 30-day and in-patient mortality. Thirty-day mortality was 8.9%, and overall inpatient mortality was 9.8%. Almost 40% of postoperative deaths occurred within three days of surgery, and 70% of these early deaths occurred on the day of surgery or the first postoperative day. Such early deaths could be considered nonbeneficial surgery. Patients who died within three days of surgery had a significantly higher preoperative lactate, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) grade, and Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM). Compliance with perioperative standards of care based on the Emergency Laparotomy Collaborative care bundle was high overall and better for those patients who died within three days of surgery. Multidisciplinary team involvement from intensive care, care of the elderly physicians, and palliative care may help both the communication and the burden of responsibility in deciding on the risk–benefit of operative versus nonoperative approaches to care.

Neither magic bullet nor a mere tool: negotiating multiple logics of the checklist in healthcare quality improvement

Over two decades, the checklist has risen to prominence in healthcare improvement. This paper contributes to the debate between its proponents and critics, making the case for an Science and Technology Studies-informed understanding of the checklist that demonstrates the limitations of both the "checklist-as-panacea" and "checklist-as-socially-determined" positions. Attending to the checklist as a socio-material object endowed with affordances that call upon clinicians to act (Allen 2012, Hutchby 2001), the study revisits the efforts of a recent improvement initiative, the Enhanced Peri-Operative Care for High-risk patients trial. Rather than a singularised simple tool, this study discusses four different and relationally enacted logics of the checklist as a stop and check tool, a clinical prompt, an audit tool and a clinical record. Each logic is associated with specific temporality, beneficiaries, relationship with material forms, and interpellates (Law 2002) clinicians to initiate specific actions which can conflict. The paper seeks to make the case for intervention to improve such tools and consciously account for the consequences of their design and materiality and calls for supporting such settings and arrangements in which incoherences collected in tools can be locally negotiated.