Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality ). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to major service disruptions, including the cessation of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LC), causing delays in managing symptomatic gallstones. We hypothesised that this would lead to an increased need for percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) for acute cholecystitis. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study in a single NHS trust. We included all patients who underwent either LC or PC during the periods of March 1st – August 31st over the years 2019 and 2020. Patient data was obtained from prospectively maintained patient electronic notes. Data are presented as median and interquartile ranges for continuous data and the percentages for categorical data and compared with Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher’s exact tests respectively. Results We observed a substantial reduction in the number of LC performed in 2020 (n = 99) compared to 2019 (n = 198), whilst the number of PC performed in 2020 (n = 35) was more than double that in 2019 (n = 17) (Fig.1). This increase in numbers persisted even after our LC service was restarted. Comparing the patients who underwent PC in both years, there were no significant differences in age (2019: 68 (45-76) vs 2020: 72 (57-81), p = 0.41),  comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index≥4: 10 (59%) vs 16 (46%), p = 0.56), or in-hospital mortality (2019: 2 (12%) vs 2020: 3 (9%), p = 0.99). As a proportion of all biliary interventions for cholelithiasis, PC increased from 8% (17/214) in 2019 to 26% (35/134) in 2020 (p < 0.001). Conclusions These results show how the cessation of LC service was directly related to increased numbers of invasive ‘damage control’ procedures for acute cholecystitis, emphasising the importance of maintaining COVID-secure surgical pathways. The numbers of PC remained high even after the restart of LC service, consistent with a ‘COVID shadow’ resulting from interruptions to elective services that impacts patient care for a prolonged period.

Background/Aims Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative COVID-19 and are associated with high mortality. The Royal College of Surgeons of England published guidance on recovery of surgical services during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. One part of this toolkit looked at unique considerations during the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular the risk of contracting COVID-19 while in the hospital. This quality improvement project sought to assess consent forms from the authors' surgical department to see if patients were being consented for the risks associated with COVID-19 during their stay in the hospital. Methods Over an 8-week period in October and November 2020, consent forms for patients under the general surgery department were audited four times against the Royal College of Surgeons of England's standards. Patients were included in the study if they were deemed to have capacity to consent to a procedure. Posters in the hospital, generic emails and teaching sessions were used as the interventions after each cycle of the audit. Results Baseline measurement showed that fewer than 37% of patients were consented for the risk of contracting COVID-19; this rose to almost 61%, 71% and 85% in the second, third and fourth parts of the project respectively. Year 1 and 2 core surgical trainees and clinical fellows below registrar level showed the greatest improvement, from consenting only 8% of patients up to 100% of patients, while specialty registrars showed improvement in consenting from 52% to 73%. The change was sustained 2 years after the initial interventions, with almost 60% of patients consented for the risk associated with in-hospital COVID-19 infection in March 2023. Conclusions Errors or omission of important elements in documentation of patient consent can delay operations, expose hospital trusts to medicolegal risk and ultimately may represent a failure to fully respect patient autonomy. This project sought to evaluate consenting practice during the presence of COVID-19 in society. While the teaching session showed some improvement in the consenting for the risk of COVID-19, emails and visual posters increased the consent rates further.

Introduction Good Surgical Practice from RCS England encourages the use of e-health records and detailed typed operative notes. The Covid-19 pandemic has led to multi-site operating. ENT operations in our trust were split over three sites including the private sector leading to potential disruption in continuity of patient care. Physical operation notes are difficult to access in emergencies, telephonic clinics or for audit purposes. We aim to have operative notes available on patients’ e-records which adhere to RCSEng guidelines. Method In this QIP, we reviewed all ENT operations over a retrospective one-month period recording percentage of notes uploaded to patient e-record and the number of surgeons in theatre. We created two novel RCSEng compliant e-operative notes with a user guide, generic and tonsillectomy-specific, and prospectively collected data to complete the cycle. Results 261 patients were included in both study periods. Only 36/134(27%) had e-operative pre-intervention improving to 71/127(56%) post-intervention. In the latter period, 76% of operations included a registrar and were more likely to have e-operative notes(72%) compared to when a consultant was operating alone(6%). There was low uptake of our tonsillectomy e-proforma(33%). Conclusions Our QIP has already proved effective with our templates increasing operative documentation on e-records. Increased use of e-template was more likely with the presence of a registrar in theatre. Room for improvement remains and we will re-audit after the introduction of further user-friendly operative templates and IT training. This QIP has also revealed additional operative training opportunities of which registrars can take advantage.