As the most common cause of acute liver failure (ALF) in the USA and UK, acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity remains a significant public health concern and common indication for emergent liver transplantation. This problem is largely attributable to acetaminophen combination products frequently prescribed by physicians and other healthcare professionals, with unintentional and chronic overdose accounting for over 50 % of cases of acetaminophen-related ALF. Treatment with N-acetylcysteine can effectively reduce progression to ALF if given early after an acute overdose; however, liver transplantation is the only routinely used life-saving therapy once ALF has developed. With the rapid course of acetaminophen-related ALF and limited supply of donor livers, early and accurate diagnosis of patients that will require transplantation for survival is crucial. Efforts in developing novel treatments for acetaminophen-induced ALF are directed toward bridging patients to recovery. These include auxiliary, artificial, and bioartificial support systems. This review outlines the most recent developments in diagnosis and management of acetaminophen-induced ALF.

Objective

The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically transformed the healthcare community and medical education across the United States. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the surgical resident training experience, assess possible sources of stress or anxiety among surgery residents, and examine how patterns of anxiety vary by resident rank.

Design

We developed and disseminated a survey, which included the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale (GAD-7), to all general and integrated plastic surgery residents in their clinical years of training at the University of California, San Francisco. Statistical analysis of the survey responses was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon rank sum test. Post-hoc analysis was performed using the Bonferroni-corrected Dunn test. Survey data were combined with aggregated duty hour information and operative case numbers from select hospitals for March and April of 2019 (historical baseline) and 2020.

Results

The overall survey response rate was 73.7% (n = 73). With an estimated operative volume reduction of 63.3% for general surgery cases, over 90% of residents expressed concern about the decline in operative exposure. While the senior residents tended to work more shifts, they were not more likely to have higher risk perception scores for contracting COVID-19 nor higher anxiety levels about the possibility of contracting COVID-19. They were, however, significantly more likely to have high GAD-7 scores (≥ 10) when compared to interns (z = -2.82, p-adj = 0.014). Overall, residents were more concerned about the general health of loved ones than about their own risk of contracting COVID-19 (U = 3897.5, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

While the work-related experiences of residents varied across a number of factors during the pandemic, residents tended to report similar sources of anxiety. Moving forward, surgical residency training programs will need to develop ways to optimize available surgical experiences and address the unique resident anxieties that an infectious pandemic presents.

Background

Evidence-based perioperative analgesia is an important tactic for reducing patient exposure to opioids in the perioperative period and potentially preventing new persistent opioid use.

Study design

We assessed the impact of a multifaceted optimal analgesia program implemented in the setting of a mature surgical pathway program at an academic medical center. Using existing multidisciplinary workgroups established for continuous process improvement in three surgical pathway areas ((colorectal, gynecology, and urologic oncology (cystectomy)), we developed an educational toolkit focused on implementation strategies for multimodal analgesia and non-pharmacologic approaches for managing pain with the goal of reducing opioid exposure in hospitalized patients. We analyzed prospectively collected data from pathway patients before dissemination of the toolkit (July 2016-June 2017; n = 869) and after (July 2017-June 2018; n = 838). We evaluated the association between program implementation and use of oral morphine equivalents (OME), average pain scores, time to first ambulation after surgery, urinary catheter duration, time to solid food after surgery, length of stay, discharge opioid prescriptions, and readmission.

Results

Multivariate regression demonstrated that the program was associated with significant decreases in intraoperative OME (14.5 ± 2.4 mEQ (milliequivalents) reduction; p < 0.0001), day before discharge OME (18 ± 6.5 mEQ reduction; p < 0.005), day of discharge OME (9.6 ± 3.28 mEQ reduction; p < 0.003), and discharge prescription OME (156 ± 22 mEq reduction; p < 0.001). Reduction in OME was associated with earlier resumption of solid food (0.58 ± 0.15 days reduction; p < 0.0002).

Conclusion

Our multifaceted optimal analgesia program to manage perioperative pain in the hospital was effective and further improved analgesia in the setting of a mature enhanced recovery program.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing non-opioid pain medications, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAIDs) medications, has been shown to reduce pain and decrease opioid use, but it is unclear how to effectively encourage multimodal pain medication prescribing for hospitalised patients. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of prechecking non-opioid pain medication orders on clinician prescribing of NSAIDs among hospitalised adults. METHODS: This was a cluster randomised controlled trial of adult (≥18 years) hospitalised patients admitted to three hospital sites under one quaternary hospital system in the USA from 2 March 2022 to 3 March 2023. A multimodal pain order panel was embedded in the admission order set, with NSAIDs prechecked in the intervention group. The intervention group could uncheck the NSAID order. The control group had access to the same NSAID order. The primary outcome was an increase in NSAID ordering. Secondary outcomes include NSAID administration, inpatient pain scores and opioid use and prescribing and relevant clinical harms including acute kidney injury, new gastrointestinal bleed and in-hospital death. RESULTS: Overall, 1049 clinicians were randomised. The study included 6239 patients for a total of 9595 encounters. Both NSAID ordering (36 vs 43%, p<0.001) and administering (30 vs 34%, p=0.001) by the end of the first full hospital day were higher in the intervention (prechecked) group. There was no statistically significant difference in opioid outcomes during the hospitalisation and at discharge. There was a statistically but perhaps not clinically significant difference in pain scores during both the first and last full hospital day. CONCLUSIONS: This cluster randomised controlled trial showed that prechecking an order for NSAIDs to promote multimodal pain management in the admission order set increased NSAID ordering and administration, although there were no changes to pain scores or opioid use. While prechecking orders is an important way to increase adoption, safety checks should be in place.

Background

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread, swift actions and preparation are critical for ensuring the best outcomes for patients and providers. We aim to describe our hospital and Department of Surgery's experience in preparing for the COVID-19 pandemic and caring for surgical patients during this unprecedented time.

Study design

This is a descriptive study outlining the strategy of a single academic health system for addressing the following 4 critical issues facing surgical departments during the COVID-19 pandemic: developing a cohesive leadership team and system for frequent communication throughout the department; ensuring adequate hospital capacity to care for an anticipated influx of COVID-19 patients; safeguarding supplies of blood products and personal protective equipment to protect patients and providers; and preparing for an unstable workforce due to illness and competing personal priorities, such as childcare.

Results

Through collaborative efforts within the Department of Surgery and hospital, we provided concise and regular communication, reduced operating room volume by 80%, secured a 4-week supply of personal protective equipment, and created reduced staffing protocols with back-up staffing plans.

Conclusions

By developing an enabling infrastructure, a department can nimbly respond to crises like COVID-19 by promoting trust among colleagues and emphasizing an unwavering commitment to excellent patient care. Sharing principles and practical applications of these changes is important to optimize responses across the country and the world.

Background

Postoperative opioid use can lead to dependence, contributing to the opioid epidemic in the United States. New persistent opioid use after minor surgeries occurs in 5.9% of patients. With increased documentation of persistent opioid use postoperatively, surgeons must pursue interventions to reduce opioid use perioperatively.

Methods

We performed a prospective cohort study to assess the feasibility of a preoperative intervention via patient education or counseling and changes in provider prescribing patterns to reduce postoperative opioid use. We included adult patients undergoing thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy from January 22, 2019 to February 28, 2019 at a tertiary referral, academic endocrine surgery practice. Surveys were administered to assess pain and patient satisfaction postoperatively. Prescription, demographic, and comorbidity data were collected from the electronic health record.

Results

Sixty six patients (74.2% women, mean age 58.6 [SD 14.9] y) underwent thyroidectomy (n = 35), parathyroidectomy (n = 24), and other cervical endocrine operations (n = 7). All patients received a preoperative educational intervention in the form of a paper handout. 90.9% of patients were discharged with prescriptions for nonopioid pain medications, and 7.6% were given an opioid prescription on discharge. Among those who received an opioid prescription, the median quantity of opioids prescribed was 135 (IQR 120-150) oral morphine equivalents. On survey, four patients (6.1%) reported any postoperative opioid use, and 94.6% of patients expressed satisfaction with their preoperative education and postoperative pain management.

Conclusions

Clear and standardized education regarding postoperative pain management is feasible and associated with high patient satisfaction. Initiation of such education may support efforts to minimize unnecessary opioid prescriptions in the population undergoing endocrine surgery.

Background

It is increasingly recognized that non-opioid analgesia is an important analgesia in the perioperative period. Specifically, NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) have been touted as an adjunct, or even replacement, for opioids. However, uptake of NSAIDs has been slow due to concern for side effects, including bleeding. We sought to understand the risk of bleeding caused by NSAIDs in the perioperative period.

Study design

A physician-librarian team performed a search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE), using search terms covering the targeted intervention (use of NSAIDs) and outcomes of interest (surgical complications, bleeding), limited to English language articles of any date. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the data.

Results

A total of 2,521 articles were screened, and 229 were selected on the basis of title and abstract for detailed assessment. Including reference searching, 74 manuscripts met inclusion criteria spanning years 1987-2019. These studies included 151,031 patients. Studies included 12 types of NSAIDs, the most common being ketorolac, diclofenac, and ibuprofen, over a wide-range of procedures, from otorhinolaryngology (ENT), breast, abdomen, plastics, and more. More than half were randomized control trials. The meta-analyses for hematoma, return to the operating room for bleeding, and blood transfusions showed no difference in risk in any of 3 categories studied between the NSAID vs non-NSAID groups (p = 0.49, p = 0.79, and p = 0.49, respectively). Quality scoring found a wide range of quality, with scores ranging from lowest quality of 12 to highest quality of 25, out of a total of 27 (average = 16).

Conclusions

NSAIDs are unlikely to be the cause of postoperative bleeding complications. This literature covers a large number of patients and remains consistent across types of NSAIDs and operations.

BACKGROUND: The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can reduce pain and has become a core strategy to decrease opioid use, but there is a lack of data to describe encouraging use when admitting patients using electronic health record systems. OBJECTIVE: Assess an electronic health record system to increase ordering of NSAIDs for hospitalized adults. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial of clinicians admitting adult patients to a health system over a 9-month period. Clinicians were randomized to use a standard admission order set. INTERVENTION: Clinicians in the intervention arm were required to actively order or decline NSAIDs; the control arm was shown the same order but without a required response. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was NSAIDs ordered and administered by the first full hospital day. Secondary outcomes included pain scores and opioid prescribing. RESULTS: A total of 20,085 hospitalizations were included. Among these hospitalizations, patients had a mean age of 58 years, and a Charlson comorbidity score of 2.97, while 50% and 56% were female and White, respectively. Overall, 52% were admitted by a clinician randomized to the intervention arm. NSAIDs were ordered in 2267 (22%) interventions and 2093 (22%) control admissions (p = .10). Similarly, there were no statistical differences in NSAID administration, pain scores, or opioid prescribing. Average pain scores (0-5 scale) were 3.36 in the control group and 3.39 in the intervention group (p = .46). There were no differences in clinical harms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Requiring an active decision to order an NSAID at admission had no demonstrable impact on NSAID ordering. Multicomponent interventions, perhaps with stronger decision support, may be necessary to encourage NSAID ordering.

When molecular testing classifies breast tumors as low risk but clinical risk is high, the optimal management strategy is unknown. One group of patients who may be more likely to have such discordant risk are those with invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. We sought to examine whether patients with invasive lobular carcinoma are more likely to have clinical high/genomic low-risk tumors compared to those with invasive ductal carcinoma, and to evaluate the impact on receipt of chemotherapy and overall survival. We conducted a cohort study using the National Cancer Database from 2010-2016. Patients with hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative, stage I-III breast cancer who underwent 70-gene signature testing were included. We evaluated the proportion of patients with discordant clinical and genomic risk by histology using Kaplan-Meier plots, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models with and without propensity score matching. A total of 7399 patients (1497 with invasive lobular carcinoma [20.2%]) were identified. Patients with invasive lobular carcinoma were significantly more likely to fall into a discordant risk category compared to those with invasive ductal carcinoma (46.8% versus 37.1%, p < 0.001), especially in the clinical high/genomic low risk subgroup (35.6% versus 19.2%, p < 0.001). In unadjusted analysis of the clinical high/genomic low-risk cohort who received chemotherapy, invasive ductal carcinoma patients had significantly improved overall survival compared to those with invasive lobular carcinoma (p = 0.02). These findings suggest that current tools for stratifying clinical and genomic risk could be improved for those with invasive lobular carcinoma to better tailor treatment selection.

OBJECTIVES: Early death after emergency department (ED) discharge may signal opportunities to improve care. Prior studies are limited by incomplete mortality ascertainment and lack of clinically important information in administrative data. The goal in this hypothesis-generating study was to identify patient and process of care themes that may provide possible explanations for early postdischarge mortality. METHODS: This was a qualitative analysis of medical records of adult patients who visited the ED of any of six hospitals in an integrated health system (Kaiser Permanente Southern California [KPSC]) and died within 7 days of discharge in 2007 and 2008. Nonmembers, visits to non-health plan hospitals, patients receiving or referred to hospice care, and patients with do not attempt resuscitation or do not intubate orders (DNAR/DNI) were excluded. Under the guidance of two qualitative research scientists, a team of three emergency physicians used grounded theory techniques to identify patient clinical presentations and processes of care that serve as potential explanations for poor outcome after discharge. RESULTS: The source population consisted of a total of 290,092 members with 446,120 discharges from six KPSC EDs in 2007 and 2008. A total of 203 deaths occurred within 7 days of ED discharge (0.05%). Sixty-one randomly chosen cases were reviewed. Patient-level themes that emerged included an unexplained persistent acute change in mental status, recent fall, abnormal vital signs, ill-appearing presentation, malfunctioning indwelling device, and presenting symptoms remaining at discharge. Process-of-care factors included a discrepancy in history of present illness, incomplete physical examination, and change of discharge plan by a third party, such as a consulting or admitting physician. CONCLUSIONS: In this hypothesis-generating study, qualitative research techniques were used to identify clinical and process-of-care factors in patients who died within days after discharge from an ED. These potential predictors will be formally tested in a future quantitative study.