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.

BackgroundTo review published literature on the use of quick response (QR) codes within healthcare education. In addition, the authors aimed to gain information on user perceptions and the challenges faced when implementing QR codes in an educational context.MethodsMedline, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), HMIC (Healthcare Management Information Consortium) and HBE (Health Business Elite) were searched using specified search terms that included ‘quick response code’ and ‘education’. Title and abstract review of 217 publications was performed. Papers which discussed the application of QR codes relevant to healthcare education were included. A total of 24 articles were reviewed and thematic analysis conducted to generate themes.ResultsUse of QR codes in healthcare education were broadly aligned to four common themes. These included: to increase participant engagement, for simulation training, for just-in-time (JIT) learning and to facilitate with administrative tasks in training. Perceptions towards the use of QR codes was generally positive. Challenges identified, included: problems with technical infrastructure, unavailability of smartphones and resistance to use in certain environments.ConclusionsThe use of QR codes for healthcare education is increasing, and whilst they offer some advantages there are also some important considerations including: provision of the necessary technological infrastructure, patient and staff safety and governance and adherence to guidelines on safe and appropriate use of this technology in sensitive settings.

Background Absorbable or non-absorbable sutures can be used for superficial skin closure following excisional skin surgery. There is no consensus among clinicians nor high-quality evidence supporting the choice of suture. The aim of the present study was to determine current suture use and complications at 30 days after excisional skin surgery. Methods An international, prospective service evaluation of adults undergoing excision of skin lesions (benign and malignant) in primary and secondary care was conducted from 1 September 2020 to 15 April 2021. Routine patient data collected by UK and Australasian collaborator networks were uploaded to REDCap©. Choice of suture and risk of complications were modelled using multivariable logistic regression. Results Some 3494 patients (4066 excisions) were included; 3246 (92.9 per cent) were from the UK and Ireland. Most patients were men (1945, 55.7 per cent), Caucasian (2849, 81.5 per cent) and aged 75–84 years (965, 27.6 per cent). The most common clinical diagnosis was basal cell carcinoma (1712, 42.1 per cent). Dermatologists performed most procedures, with 1803 excisions (44.3 per cent) on 1657 patients (47.4 per cent). Most defects were closed primarily (2856, 81.9 per cent), and there was equipoise in regard to use of absorbable (2127, 57.7 per cent) or non-absorbable (1558, 42.2 per cent) sutures for superficial closure. The most common complications were surgical-site infection (103, 2.9 per cent) and delayed wound healing (77, 2.2 per cent). In multivariable analysis, use of absorbable suture type was associated with increased patient age, geographical location (UK and Ireland), and surgeon specialty (oral and maxillofacial surgery and plastic surgery), but not with complications. Conclusion There was equipoise in suture use, and no association between suture type and complications. Definitive evidence from randomized trials is needed.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and side effects of non-dissolvable packing for the management of epistaxis. Design: Prospective, observational cohort study. Setting: A large university teaching hospital with an emergency department. Participants: Consecutive adults requiring non-dissolvable packing for the management of acute epistaxis between March 2020 and March 2021. Main outcome measures: Likert-scale questions based on the SNOT-22 questionnaire to assess side effects associated with non-dissolvable packing; and pain scores on insertion, whilst in-situ and on removal. Results: A total of 80 adults requiring non-dissolvable packing were included. 47% of patients presented following a first episode of epistaxis and 52% required inpatient management. 70% of patients had a Rapid Rhino pack inserted. Rapid Rhino had an increased incidence of patient-perceived embarrassment (30%, n=17) compared to patients packed with Merocel (8%, n=2). Patients packed with Rapid Rhino also had an increased severity of embarrassment (0.46 ±0.11) compared to patients packed with Merocel (0.13 ±0.09). Merocel packs had a higher mean pain score on removal (6.09 ±0.73) compared to Rapid Rhino (4.05 ±0.43). No significant association was noted between rebleed rates and pack type or rebleed rates and inpatient versus outpatient management. Conclusion: Non-dissolvable nasal packs, Rapid Rhino and Merocel, have similar efficacy in controlling epistaxis. Rapid Rhino packs are more embarrassing for patients in comparison to Merocel packs but are less painful to remove. Patients were successfully managed in the outpatient setting without an increased complication rate.