Team dynamics in emergency surgery teams: results from a first international survey

Background: Emergency surgery represents a unique context. Trauma teams are often multidisciplinary and need to operate under extreme stress and time constraints, sometimes with no awareness of the trauma\u2019s causes or the patient\u2019s personal and clinical information. In this perspective, the dynamics of how trauma teams function is fundamental to ensuring the best performance and outcomes. Methods: An online survey was conducted among the World Society of Emergency Surgery members in early 2021. 402 fully filled questionnaires on the topics of knowledge translation dynamics and tools, non-technical skills, and difficulties in teamwork were collected. Data were analyzed using the software R, and reported following the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Results: Findings highlight how several surgeons are still unsure about the meaning and potential of knowledge translation and its mechanisms. Tools like training, clinical guidelines, and non-technical skills are recognized and used in clinical practice. Others, like patients\u2019 and stakeholders\u2019 engagement, are hardly implemented, despite their increasing importance in the modern healthcare scenario. Several difficulties in working as a team are described, including the lack of time, communication, training, trust, and ego. Discussion: Scientific societies should take the lead in offering training and support about the abovementioned topics. Dedicated educational initiatives, practical cases and experiences, workshops and symposia may allow mitigating the difficulties highlighted by the survey\u2019s participants, boosting the performance of emergency teams. Additional investigation of the survey results and its characteristics may lead to more further specific suggestions and potential solutions

The Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery: defining a model for antimicrobial stewardship-results from an international cross-sectional survey

Contains fulltext : 177987.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs) have been promoted to optimize antimicrobial usage and patient outcomes, and to reduce the emergence of antimicrobial-resistant organisms. However, the best strategies for an ASP are not definitively established and are likely to vary based on local culture, policy, and routine clinical practice, and probably limited resources in middle-income countries. The aim of this study is to evaluate structures and resources of antimicrobial stewardship teams (ASTs) in surgical departments from different regions of the world. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted in 2016 on 173 physicians who participated in the AGORA (Antimicrobials: A Global Alliance for Optimizing their Rational Use in Intra-Abdominal Infections) project and on 658 international experts in the fields of ASPs, infection control, and infections in surgery. RESULTS: The response rate was 19.4%. One hundred fifty-six (98.7%) participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary AST. The median number of physicians working inside the team was five [interquartile range 4-6]. An infectious disease specialist, a microbiologist and an infection control specialist were, respectively, present in 80.1, 76.3, and 67.9% of the ASTs. A surgeon was a component in 59.0% of cases and was significantly more likely to be present in university hospitals (89.5%, p < 0.05) compared to community teaching (83.3%) and community hospitals (66.7%). Protocols for pre-operative prophylaxis and for antimicrobial treatment of surgical infections were respectively implemented in 96.2 and 82.3% of the hospitals. The majority of the surgical departments implemented both persuasive and restrictive interventions (72.8%). The most common types of interventions in surgical departments were dissemination of educational materials (62.5%), expert approval (61.0%), audit and feedback (55.1%), educational outreach (53.7%), and compulsory order forms (51.5%). CONCLUSION: The survey showed a heterogeneous organization of ASPs worldwide, demonstrating the necessity of a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach in the battle against antimicrobial resistance in surgical infections, and the importance of educational efforts towards this goal

Physiological parameters for Prognosis in Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) Study: A WSES observational study

Background: Timing and adequacy of peritoneal source control are the most important pillars in the management of patients with acute peritonitis. Therefore, early prognostic evaluation of acute peritonitis is paramount to assess the severity and establish a prompt and appropriate treatment. The objectives of this study were to identify clinical and laboratory predictors for in-hospital mortality in patients with acute peritonitis and to develop a warning score system, based on easily recognizable and assessable variables, globally accepted. Methods: This worldwide multicentre observational study included 153 surgical departments across 56 countries over a 4-month study period between February 1, 2018, and May 31, 2018. Results: A total of 3137 patients were included, with 1815 (57.9%) men and 1322 (42.1%) women, with a median age of 47 years (interquartile range [IQR] 28-66). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 8.9%, with a median length of stay of 6 days (IQR 4-10). Using multivariable logistic regression, independent variables associated with in-hospital mortality were identified: age &amp;gt; 80 years, malignancy, severe cardiovascular disease, severe chronic kidney disease, respiratory rate ≥ 22 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure &amp;lt; 100 mmHg, AVPU responsiveness scale (voice and unresponsive), blood oxygen saturation level (SpO2) &amp;lt; 90% in air, platelet count &amp;lt; 50,000 cells/mm3, and lactate &amp;gt; 4 mmol/l. These variables were used to create the PIPAS Severity Score, a bedside early warning score for patients with acute peritonitis. The overall mortality was 2.9% for patients who had scores of 0-1, 22.7% for those who had scores of 2-3, 46.8% for those who had scores of 4-5, and 86.7% for those who have scores of 7-8. Conclusions: The simple PIPAS Severity Score can be used on a global level and can help clinicians to identify patients at high risk for treatment failure and mortality. © 2019 The Author(s)

coMpliAnce with evideNce-based cliniCal guidelines in the managemenT of acute biliaRy pancreAtitis): The MANCTRA-1 international audit

Background/objectives: Reports about the implementation of recommendations from acute pancreatitis guidelines are scant. This study aimed to evaluate, on a patient-data basis, the contemporary practice patterns of management of biliary acute pancreatitis and to compare these practices with the recommendations by the most updated guidelines. Methods: All consecutive patients admitted to any of the 150 participating general surgery (GS), hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (HPB), internal medicine (IM) and gastroenterology (GA) departments with a diagnosis of biliary acute pancreatitis between 01/01/2019 and 31/12/2020 were included in the study. Categorical data were reported as percentages representing the proportion of all study patients or different and well-defined cohorts for each variable. Continuous data were expressed as mean and standard deviation. Differences between the compliance obtained in the four different subgroups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U, Student&apos;s t, ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous data, and the Chi-square test or the Fisher&apos;s exact test for categorical data. Results: Complete data were available for 5275 patients. The most commonly discordant gaps between daily clinical practice and recommendations included the optimal timing for the index CT scan (6.1%, χ2 6.71, P = 0.081), use of prophylactic antibiotics (44.2%, χ2 221.05, P &amp;lt; 0.00001), early enteral feeding (33.2%, χ2 11.51, P = 0.009), and the implementation of early cholecystectomy strategies (29%, χ2 354.64, P &amp;lt; 0.00001), with wide variability based on the admitting speciality. Conclusions: The results of this study showed an overall poor compliance with evidence-based guidelines in the management of ABP, with wide variability based on the admitting speciality. Study protocol registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov (ID Number NCT04747990). © 2022 IAP and EP