Perceptions and practices surrounding the perioperative management of frail emergency surgery patients: a WSES-endorsed cross-sectional qualitative survey.

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE World Journal of Emergency Surgery Pub Date : 2023-01-18 DOI:10.1186/s13017-022-00471-7
Mallaika Viswanath, Darja Clinch, Marco Ceresoli, Jugdeep Dhesi, Mario D'Oria, Belinda De Simone, Mauro Podda, Salomone Di Saverio, Federico Coccolini, Massimo Sartelli, Fausto Catena, Ernest Moore, Deepa Rangar, Walter L Biffl, Dimitrios Damaskos
{"title":"Perceptions and practices surrounding the perioperative management of frail emergency surgery patients: a WSES-endorsed cross-sectional qualitative survey.","authors":"Mallaika Viswanath, Darja Clinch, Marco Ceresoli, Jugdeep Dhesi, Mario D'Oria, Belinda De Simone, Mauro Podda, Salomone Di Saverio, Federico Coccolini, Massimo Sartelli, Fausto Catena, Ernest Moore, Deepa Rangar, Walter L Biffl, Dimitrios Damaskos","doi":"10.1186/s13017-022-00471-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Frailty is associated with poor post-operative outcomes in emergency surgical patients. Shared multidisciplinary models have been developed to provide a holistic, reactive model of care to improve outcomes for older people living with frailty. We aimed to describe current perioperative practices, and surgeons' awareness and perception of perioperative frailty management, and barriers to its implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative cross-sectional survey was sent via the World Society of Emergency Surgery e-letter to their members. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and reported by themes: risk scoring systems, frailty awareness and assessment and barriers to implementation.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>Of 168/1000 respondents, 38% were aware of the terms \"Perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery\" (POPS) and Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). 66.6% of respondents assessed perioperative risk, with 45.2% using the American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA-PS). 77.8% of respondents mostly agreed or agreed with the statement that they routinely conducted medical comorbidity management, and pain and falls risk assessment during emergency surgical admissions. Although 98.2% of respondents agreed that frailty was important, only 2.4% performed CGA and 1.2% used a specific frailty screening tool. Clinical frailty score was the most commonly used tool by those who did. Screening was usually conducted by surgical trainees. Key barriers included a lack of knowledge about frailty assessment, a lack of clarity on who should be responsible for frailty screening, and a lack of trained staff.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study highlights the ubiquitous lack of awareness regarding frailty assessment and the POPS model of care. More training and clear guidelines on frailty scoring, alongside support by multidisciplinary teams, may reduce the burden on surgical trainees, potentially improving rates of appropriate frailty assessment and management of the frailty syndrome in emergency surgical patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":48867,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Emergency Surgery","volume":"18 1","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9850554/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-022-00471-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Frailty is associated with poor post-operative outcomes in emergency surgical patients. Shared multidisciplinary models have been developed to provide a holistic, reactive model of care to improve outcomes for older people living with frailty. We aimed to describe current perioperative practices, and surgeons' awareness and perception of perioperative frailty management, and barriers to its implementation.

Methods: A qualitative cross-sectional survey was sent via the World Society of Emergency Surgery e-letter to their members. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and reported by themes: risk scoring systems, frailty awareness and assessment and barriers to implementation.

Result: Of 168/1000 respondents, 38% were aware of the terms "Perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery" (POPS) and Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). 66.6% of respondents assessed perioperative risk, with 45.2% using the American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA-PS). 77.8% of respondents mostly agreed or agreed with the statement that they routinely conducted medical comorbidity management, and pain and falls risk assessment during emergency surgical admissions. Although 98.2% of respondents agreed that frailty was important, only 2.4% performed CGA and 1.2% used a specific frailty screening tool. Clinical frailty score was the most commonly used tool by those who did. Screening was usually conducted by surgical trainees. Key barriers included a lack of knowledge about frailty assessment, a lack of clarity on who should be responsible for frailty screening, and a lack of trained staff.

Conclusions: Our study highlights the ubiquitous lack of awareness regarding frailty assessment and the POPS model of care. More training and clear guidelines on frailty scoring, alongside support by multidisciplinary teams, may reduce the burden on surgical trainees, potentially improving rates of appropriate frailty assessment and management of the frailty syndrome in emergency surgical patients.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对体弱急诊手术患者围手术期管理的看法和做法:WSES 认可的横断面定性调查。
背景:体弱与急诊手术患者术后效果不佳有关。目前已开发出多学科共享模式,以提供一种整体性、反应性护理模式,从而改善体弱老年人的预后。我们旨在描述目前围手术期的做法、外科医生对围手术期虚弱管理的认识和看法,以及实施围手术期虚弱管理的障碍:我们通过世界急诊外科协会的电子通讯向其会员发送了一份横断面定性调查。采用描述性统计方法对回复进行了分析,并按风险评分系统、虚弱意识和评估以及实施障碍等主题进行了报告:结果:在 168/1000 名受访者中,38% 的人知道 "老年人手术围术期用药"(POPS)和 "老年病综合评估"(CGA)这两个术语。66.6% 的受访者对围手术期风险进行了评估,其中 45.2% 的受访者使用了美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分类系统 (ASA-PS)。77.8%的受访者基本同意或同意这样的说法,即他们在急诊手术入院期间会例行进行内科合并症管理以及疼痛和跌倒风险评估。虽然 98.2% 的受访者同意虚弱很重要,但只有 2.4% 的受访者进行了 CGA,1.2% 的受访者使用了特定的虚弱筛查工具。临床虚弱评分是最常用的筛查工具。筛查通常由外科受训人员进行。主要障碍包括缺乏对虚弱评估的了解、不清楚应由谁负责虚弱筛查以及缺乏训练有素的工作人员:我们的研究强调了人们普遍缺乏对虚弱评估和 POPS 护理模式的认识。更多关于虚弱评分的培训和明确指南以及多学科团队的支持可减轻外科受训人员的负担,从而有可能提高对急诊外科患者进行适当虚弱评估和管理虚弱综合征的比率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Emergency Surgery
World Journal of Emergency Surgery EMERGENCY MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The World Journal of Emergency Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal covering all facets of clinical and basic research in traumatic and non-traumatic emergency surgery and related fields. Topics include emergency surgery, acute care surgery, trauma surgery, intensive care, trauma management, and resuscitation, among others.
期刊最新文献
Prophylactic PICO◊ dressing shortens wound dressing requirements post emergency laparotomy (EL-PICO◊ trial) A new technology for medical and surgical data organisation: the WSES-WJES Decentralised Knowledge Graph Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) enhances hemodynamic stability decreasing analgesic requirements in surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRFs) Ultra minimally invasive surgical stabilization of Rib fractures (uMI-SSRF): reduction and fixation techniques to minimize the surgical wound Ultrasonic dissection versus electrocautery dissection in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a randomized controlled trial (SONOCHOL-trial)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1