An Analysis of the Decision-Making Process After “Decision not to Operate” in Acutely Unwell, High-Risk General Surgery Patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 632-635
Author(s):  
Rui Pinto-Lopes ◽  
Azeem Thahir ◽  
V. Chandima Halahakoon
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Functional Status ◽  
General Surgery ◽  
Conservative Management ◽  
Emergency Laparotomy ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Possum Score ◽  
Operative Severity Score ◽  
Number Of Patients

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyze the decision-making process in emergency general surgery in an attempt to ascertain whether surgeons make the correct decision when decisions not to operate in high-risk acutely unwell surgical patients are taken. Background: A decision not to operate is sometimes associated with a certain degree of uncertainty as to the accuracy of the decision. Difficulty lies with the fact that the decisions are made on assumptions, and the tools available are not fool proof. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated “decisions not to operate” over a period of 32 months from April 2013 to August 2015 in a district general hospital in United Kingdom and compared with consecutive similar number of patients who had an operation as recorded in the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) database (from January 2014 to August 2015). We looked at the demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Portsmouth–Physiological and Operative Severity Score for enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (P-POSSUM) score, functional status, and 30-day mortality. Results: Two groups (operated [n = 43] and conservative [n = 42]) had similar characteristics. Patients for conservative management had a higher P-POSSUM score ( P < .001) and a poorer functional status ( P < .001) at the time of decision-making compared to those who had surgery. Mortality at 30 days was significantly higher for patients decided for conservative management when compared with those who had surgery (76.2% and 18.6%, respectively). Conclusions: Elderly patients with poorer functional status and predicted risks more often drive multidisciplinary discussions on whether to operate. Within the limitations of not knowing the outcome otherwise, it appears surgeons take a reasonable approach when deciding not to operate.

scholarly journals Pre-NELA vs NELA – has anything changed, or is it just an audit exercise?

2016 ◽  
Vol 98 (8) ◽  
pp. 554-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Mak ◽  
AR Hakeem ◽  
V Chitre
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Uneventful Recovery ◽  
Emergency Laparotomy ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Possum Score ◽  
Operative Severity Score ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Set Up

BACKGROUND Following evidence suggestive of high mortality following emergency laparotomies, the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) was set up, highlighting key standards in emergency service provision. Our aim was to compare our NHS trust’s adherence to these recommendations immediately prior to, and following, the launch of NELA, and to compare patient outcome. METHODS This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent an emergency laparotomy over the course of 6 months – 3 months either side of the initiation of NELA. RESULTS There were 44 patients before the initiation of NELA (pre-NELA, PN group) and 55 in the first 3 months of NELA (N group). We saw a significant increase in the proportion of patients whose decision to operate was made by the consultant: 75.0% in the PN group vs 100% in N group (subsequent data presented in this order) (P < 0.001). The presence of a consultant surgeon (75.0% vs 83.6%, P = 0.321) and anaesthetist (100.0% vs 90.9%, P = 0.064) in theatres were comparable in both groups. Risk stratification based on Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity (P-POSSUM) score showed no difference in high-risk patients in both groups (47.7% vs 36.4%, P = 0.306). With the NELA initiative, however, significantly more patients were admitted directly from theatres to the critical care unit, when compared with the pre-NELA period (9.1% vs 27.3%, P = 0.038). This also reflected a significant reduction in unexpected escalation to a higher level of care during this period (10.0% vs 0%, P = 0.036). Significantly more patients had uneventful recovery in the NELA period (52.3 vs 76.4%, P = 0.018), although there was no difference in 30-day mortality between the groups (2.3% vs 7.3%, P = 0.378). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated a greater degree of consultant involvement in the decision to operate during NELA. More high-risk patients have been identified preoperatively with diligent risk assessment and, hence, have been proactively admitted to critical care units following laparotomy, which may account for the significant reduction in unexpected escalation to level 2 or level 3 care and thus in overall better patient outcomes.

Anaesthetic considerations for emergency laparotomy

Nowa Medycyna ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacek Wadełek
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Emergency Laparotomy ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
The Right ◽  
Level Of Experience ◽  
Time Frames ◽  
Reduced Time

The majority of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy have potentially life?threatening conditions that require prompt intervention. The reduced time?frames available due to surgical urgency necessitate prompt and senior decision?making to minimise delays. The time taken to correct any anomalies needs to be balanced against the need for prompt surgery, particularly in time?sensitive situations involving sepsis or hypovolaemia. Therefore, corrective measures may be performed in parallel with surgery. Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy are at a high risk of adverse outcomes. Key elements of care for these patients include repeated risk assessment, early antibiotic therapy, as well as fluid resuscitation and appropriate timely interventions provided by clinicians with the right level of experience.

Mortality risk scoring in emergency general surgery: Are we using the best tool?

2020 ◽  
pp. 175045892092013
Author(s):  
Azeem Thahir ◽  
Rui Pinto-Lopes ◽  
Stavroula Madenlidou ◽  
Laura Daby ◽  
Chandima Halahakoon
Keyword(s):  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Goodness Of Fit ◽  
Characteristic Curve ◽  
Emergency Laparotomy ◽  
Receiver Operator Characteristic ◽  
Characteristic Analysis ◽  
Goodness Of Fit Test ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Possum Score ◽  
Operative Severity Score

Background It is imperative that an accurate assessment of risk of death is undertaken preoperatively on all patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy. Portsmouth-Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (P-POSSUM) is one of the most widely used scores. National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) presents a novel, validated score, but no direct comparison with P-POSSUM exists. We aimed to determine which would be the best predictor of mortality. Methods We analysed all the entries on the online NELA database over a four-and-a-half-year period. The Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness of fit test was performed to assess model calibration. For the outcome of death and for each scoring system, a non-parametric receiver operator characteristic analysis was done. The sensitivity, specificity, area under receiver operator characteristic curve and their standard errors were calculated. Results Data pertaining to 650 patients were included. There were 59 deaths, giving an overall observed mortality rate of 9.1%. Predicted mortality rate for the P-POSSUM score and NELA score were 15.2% and 7.8%, respectively. The discriminative power for mortality was highest for the NELA score (C-index = 0.818, CI: 0.769–0.867, p < 0.001), when compared to P-POSSUM (C-index = 0.769, CI: 0.712–0.827, p < 0.001). Conclusions The NELA score showed good discrimination in predicting mortality in the entire cohort. The P-POSSUM over-predicted observed mortality and the NELA score under-predicted observed mortality.

scholarly journals COVID-19: A Vaccine Priority Index Mapping Tool for Rapidly Assessing Priority Populations in North Carolina

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Kearney ◽  
Katherine Jones ◽  
Yoo Min Park ◽  
Robert Howard ◽  
Ray H. Hylock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
North Carolina ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Geographical Information ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Public Health Response ◽  
Risk Population ◽  
Web Mapping ◽  
Mapping Tool ◽  
Priority Population

Background: The initial limited supply of COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S. presented significant allocation, distribution, and delivery challenges. Information that can assist health officials, hospital administrators and other decision makers with readily identifying who and where to target vaccine resources and efforts can improve public health response. Objective: The objective of this project was to develop a publicly available geographical information system (GIS) web mapping tool that would assist North Carolina health officials readily identify high-risk, high priority population groups and facilities in the immunization decision making process. Methods: Publicly available data were used to identify 14 key health and socio-demographic variables and 5 differing themes (social and economic status; minority status and language; housing situation; at risk population; and health status). Vaccine priority population index (VPI) scores were created by calculating a percentile rank for each variable over each N.C. Census tract. All Census tracts (N = 2,195) values were ranked from lowest to highest (0.0 to 1.0) with a non-zero population and mapped using ArcGIS. Results: The VPI tool was made publicly available (https://enchealth.org/) during the pandemic to readily assist with identifying high risk population priority areas in N.C. for the planning, distribution, and delivery of COVID-19 vaccine.Discussion: While health officials may have benefitted by using the VPI tool during the pandemic, a more formal evaluation process is needed to fully assess its usefulness, functionality, and limitations. Conclusion: When considering COVID-19 immunization efforts, the VPI tool can serve as an added component in the decision-making process.

SP9.1.2 Sarcopenia and myosteatosis predict thirty-day emergency laparotomy mortality [The FrOGS study]

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Body ◽  
Marjolein Ligthart ◽  
James Ward ◽  
Philip H Pucher ◽  
Nathan Curtis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Body Composition ◽  
Emergency Surgery ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Muscle Quality ◽  
Emergency Laparotomy ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Charlson Score ◽  
Poor Outcomes

Abstract Aims Sarcopenia (low muscle mass - SM) and myosteatosis (low muscle quality - SM-RA) are associated with poor outcomes after elective cancer surgery. Body composition parameters have not been explored in emergency surgery and may offer additive value to risk prediction scores. This multicentre study assessed the association of body composition and survival after emergency laparotomy. Methods A retrospective longitudinal cohort of 674 patients, across 10 hospitals in southern England were recruited (NCT03534765). All patients underwent emergency laparotomy, fulfilling NELA criteria, between August 2016 and November 2017. Pre-operative CTs were blindly analysed using L3 slices, assessing SM and SM-RA. Regression analysis was used to assess associations of body composition and 30-day mortality. Results Six hundred and ten patients were included [283(46%) men, median(IQR) age 71 years (57-79)]. P-POSSUM and NELA predicted mortality was 7% and 4.5% respectively, with a length of stay of 15 days (9-24), 30-day mortality of 7.8% and 1-year mortality of 18.9%. Significant univariate associations between 30-day mortality and age (OR1.04 (1.02-1.07);p=0.001), Charlson score (OR 6.84 (1.64-28.55);p=0.008), P-POSSUM (OR 1.03 (1.02-1.05);p&lt;0.001, NELA mortality (OR 1.06 (1.04-1.08);p&lt;0.001), SM (OR 0.98 (0.97-0.99);p=0.003 and SM-RA (OR 0.93 (0.9-0.96);p&lt;0.001. Significant multivariate associations between 30-day mortality and NELA (OR 1.05 (1.03-1.07); p &lt; 0.001, P-POSSUM (OR 1.03 (1.01-1.04); p &lt; 0.001, SM-RA (OR 0.94 (0.9-0.97); p &lt; 0.001. Conclusions Sarcopenia and myosteatosis are associated with increased mortality in patients undergoing emergency surgery. Body composition should be considered as an objective adjunct to traditional risk assessments, further informing the shared-decision making process around emergency surgery.

scholarly journals Patient Decision Making Prior to Radical Prostatectomy

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Çağatay Doğan ◽  
Hamza M. Gültekin ◽  
Sarper M. Erdoğan ◽  
Hamdi Özkara ◽  
Zübeyr Talat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Telephone Interview ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Patient Decision Making ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Treatment Alternatives ◽  
Critical Aspects

The current study assessed the decision-making process before surgery in prostate cancer patients. A structured telephone interview was conducted by an independent third party in 162 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for prostate cancer. Responders revealed that details regarding diagnosis and treatment alternatives were withheld from a significant number of patients. Radiation and active surveillance were presented as alternative options to surgery in 57 (39%) and 20 (14%) of responders, respectively. Twenty-six (18%) patients reported not being informed regarding potential surgical side effects. Patients were not active participants in critical aspects of decision making in 61 (42%) of the cases. Being inadequately informed and more frequent visits to the urologist appeared to make decisions more difficult. Treatment regret was reported by 23 (16%) of the patients who underwent surgery and was more common when the patient was not involved in the decision or was inadequately informed. As such, shared decision making should replace paternalism when managing patients with localized prostate cancer in urologic practice.

scholarly journals Decisions to operate: the ASA grade 5 dilemma

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (5) ◽  
pp. 365-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Horwood ◽  
S Ratnam ◽  
A Maw
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Scoring Systems ◽  
Apache Ii ◽  
Ageing Population ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Operative Severity Score ◽  
Grade 5 ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

INTRODUCTION Deciding to operate on high risk patients suffering catastrophic surgical emergencies can be problematic. Patients are frequently classed as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade 5 and, as a result, aggressive but potentially lifesaving intervention is withheld. The aim of our study was to review the short-term outcomes in patients who were classed as ASA grade 5 but subsequently underwent surgery despite this and to compare the ASA scoring model to other predictors of surgical outcome. METHODS All patients undergoing emergency surgery with an ASA grade of 5 were identified. Patient demographics, indications for surgery, intraoperative findings and outcomes were recorded. In addition to the ASA scores, retrospective Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (P POSSUM) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores were calculated and compared to the observed outcomes. RESULTS Nine patients (39%) survived to discharge. ASA grade was a poor predictor of outcome. P POSSUM and APACHE II scores correlated significantly with each other and with observed outcomes when predicting surgical mortality. The median stay for survivors in the intensive care unit was nine days. CONCLUSIONS In times of an ageing population, the number of patients suffering catastrophic surgical events will increase. Intervention, with little hope of a cure, a return to independent living or an acceptable quality of life, leads to unnecessary end-of-life suffering for patients and their relatives, and consumes sparse resources. The accuracy and reliability of ASA grade 5 as an outcome predictor has been questioned. P POSSUM and APACHE II scoring systems are significantly better predictors of outcome and should be used more frequently to aid surgical decision-making in high risk patients.

scholarly journals Contextual Factors Surrounding Extradyadic High-Risk Sexual Decision-Making in Men: A Case-Oriented Perspective

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Hertlein ◽  
Claudia Villasante
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sexual Behavior ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Sensation Seeking ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
High Risk Sexual Behavior ◽  
Sexual Decision Making ◽  
Risk Sexual Behavior

Many models have been developed to explain the decision-making process of high-risk sexual behavior (HRSB). Juhasz and Sonnenshein-Schneider (1980) proposed a model for sexual decision-making with three distinct factors (socialization influences, factors germane to the situation, and cognitive factors). While this model makes sense from a theoretical standpoint, it has not been empirically validated and they have focused exclusively on adolescent sexual decision-making processes. The purpose of this study was to identify the key points in decision-making toward engagement in extradyadic high-risk sexual behavior. Using qualitative interviews in a case-oriented study, key components surrounding the context, decision-making, and management processes of engagement in high-risk sexual behavior were analyzed. We found that chemical impairment, sensation-seeking and impulsivity, quality of the relationship, and self-esteem were all key contributors to the context of engaging in HRSB. On the other hand, the decision-making process of HRSB contained compartmentalization, rationalization, and experiencing a point of no return. Finally, the management process of engaging in HRSB included dissociation, self-esteem, and control.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the validity of POSSUM and P-POSSUM score in predicting the risk of morbidity and mortality respectively in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 3224
Author(s):  
Vivian Anandith Paul ◽  
Agnigundala Anusha ◽  
Alluru Sarath Chandra
Keyword(s):  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Linear Method ◽  
Morbidity And Mortality ◽  
Emergency Laparotomy ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Possum Score ◽  
Operative Severity Score ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Predicted Values

Background: Aim of this study is to examine the efficacy of Physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) and Portsmouth predictor modification (P-POSSUM) equations in predicting morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, to study the morbidity and mortality patterns in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy at Malla Reddy Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad. Methods: The study was conducted for a period of 2 years from February 2018 to February 2020. 100 Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy were studied in the Department of General surgery MRIMS, Hyderabad. POSSUM and P-POSSUM scores are used to predict mortality and morbidity. The ratio of observed to expected deaths (O:E ratio) was calculated for each analysis. Results: The study included total 100 patients, 83 men and 17 women. Observed mortality rate was compared to mortality rate with POSSUM, the O:E ratio was 0.62, and there was no significant difference between the observed and predicted values (χ²=10.79, 9 degree of freedom (df) p=0.148). Observed morbidity rates were compared to morbidity rates predicted by POSSUM, there was no significant difference between the observed and predicted values (χ²=9.89, 9 df, p=0.195) and the overall O:E ratio was 0.91. P-POSSUM predicted mortality equally well when the linear method of analysis was used, with an O:E ratio of 0.65 and no significant difference between the observed and predicted values (χ²= 5.33, 9 df, p= 0.617).Conclusion: POSSUM and P-POSSUM scoring is an accurate predictor of mortality and morbidity following emergency laparotomy and is a valid means of assessing adequacy of care provided to the patient. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document