Summary The COVID‐19 pandemic continues to cause critical illness and deaths internationally. Up to 31 May 2020, mortality in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) with COVID‐19 was 41.6%. Since then, changes in therapeutics and management may have improved outcomes. Also, data from countries affected later in the pandemic are now available. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane databases up to 30 September 2020 for studies reporting ICU mortality among adult patients with COVID‐19 and present an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis. The primary outcome measure was death in intensive care as a proportion of completed ICU admissions, either through discharge from intensive care or death. We identified 52 observational studies including 43,128 patients, and first reports from the Middle East, South Asia and Australasia, as well as four national or regional registries. Reported mortality was lower in registries compared with other reports. In two regions, mortality differed significantly from all others, being higher in the Middle East and lower in a single registry study from Australasia. Although ICU mortality (95%CI) was lower than reported in June (35.5% (31.3–39.9%) vs. 41.6% (34.0–49.7%)), the absence of patient‐level data prevents a definitive evaluation. A lack of standardisation of reporting prevents comparison of cohorts in terms of underlying risk, severity of illness or outcomes. We found that the decrease in ICU mortality from COVID‐19 has reduced or plateaued since May 2020 and note the possibility of some geographical variation. More standardisation in reporting would improve the ability to compare outcomes from different reports.

Cardiac arrest in the peri-operative period is rare but associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Current reporting systems do not capture many such events, so there is an incomplete understanding of incidence and outcomes. As peri-operative cardiac arrest is rare, many hospitals may only see a small number of cases over long periods, and anaesthetists may not be involved in such cases for years. Therefore, a large-scale prospective cohort is needed to gain a deep understanding of events leading up to cardiac arrest, management of the arrest itself and patient outcomes. Consequently, the Royal College of Anaesthetists chose peri-operative cardiac arrest as the 7th National Audit Project topic. The study was open to all UK hospitals offering anaesthetic services and had a three-part design. First, baseline surveys of all anaesthetic departments and anaesthetists in the UK, examining respondents' prior peri-operative cardiac arrest experience, resuscitation training and local departmental preparedness. Second, an activity survey to record anonymised details of all anaesthetic activity in each site over 4 days, enabling national estimates of annual anaesthetic activity, complexity and complication rates. Third, a case registry of all instances of peri-operative cardiac arrest in the UK, reported confidentially and anonymously, over 1 year starting 16 June 2021, followed by expert review using a structured process to minimise bias. The definition of peri-operative cardiac arrest was the delivery of five or more chest compressions and/or defibrillation in a patient having a procedure under the care of an anaesthetist. The peri-operative period began with the World Health Organization `sign-in´checklist or first hands-on contact with the patient and ended either 24 h after the patient handover (e.g. to the recovery room or intensive care unit) or at discharge if this occured earlier than 24 h. These components described the epidemiology of peri-operative cardiac arrest in the UK and provide a basis for developing guidelines and interventional studies.

Summary Detailed contemporary knowledge of the characteristics of the surgical population, national anaesthetic workload, anaesthetic techniques and behaviours are essential to monitor productivity, inform policy and direct research themes. Every 3–4 years, the Royal College of Anaesthetists, as part of its National Audit Projects (NAP), performs a snapshot activity survey in all UK hospitals delivering anaesthesia, collecting patient‐level encounter data from all cases under the care of an anaesthetist. During November 2021, as part of NAP7, anaesthetists recorded details of all cases undertaken over 4 days at their site through an online survey capturing anonymous patient characteristics and anaesthetic details. Of 416 hospital sites invited to participate, 352 (85%) completed the activity survey. From these, 24,177 reports were returned, of which 24,172 (99%) were included in the final dataset. The work patterns by day of the week, time of day and surgical specialty were similar to previous NAP activity surveys. However, in non‐obstetric patients, between NAP5 (2013) and NAP7 (2021) activity surveys, the estimated median age of patients increased by 2.3 years from median (IQR) of 50.5 (28.4–69.1) to 52.8 (32.1–69.2) years. The median (IQR) BMI increased from 24.9 (21.5–29.5) to 26.7 (22.3–31.7) kg.m–2. The proportion of patients who scored as ASA physical status 1 decreased from 37% in NAP5 to 24% in NAP7. The use of total intravenous anaesthesia increased from 8% of general anaesthesia cases to 26% between NAP5 and NAP7. Some changes may reflect the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the anaesthetic population, though patients with confirmed COVID‐19 accounted for only 149 (1%) cases. These data show a rising burden of age, obesity and comorbidity in patients requiring anaesthesia care, likely to impact UK peri‐operative services significantly.

The incidence of cardiac arrest in the intensive care unit (ICU-CA) has not been widely reported. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the incidence of cardiac arrest in adult, general intensive care units. The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017079717). The search identified 7550 records, which included 20 relevant studies for qualitative analysis and 16 of these were included for quantitative analyses. The reported incidence of ICU-CA was 22.7 per 1000 admissions (95% CI: 17.4-29.6) with survival to hospital discharge of 17% (95% CI: 9.5-28.5%). We estimate that at least 5446 patients in the UK have a cardiac arrest after ICU admission. There are limited data and significant variation in the incidence of ICU-CA and efforts to synthesise these are limited by inconsistent reporting. Further prospective studies with standardised process and incidence measures are required to define this important patient group.

We reviewed all 1230 claims against anaesthesia notified to NHS Resolution (formerly the NHS Litigation Authority, 1995Authority, -2017 in England between 2008 and 2018. Claims were categorised by incident type, severity (whether physical or psychological), and cost, and comparisons were made against a similar published analysis of data from 1995 to 2007. While the annual number of claims against anaesthesia increased by 62% from the earlier period, anaesthesia now accounts for smaller proportions of all claims submitted to NHS Resolution (1.5% vs. 2.5%) and of the total cost of all claims (0.7% vs. 2.4%). The absolute costs related to anaesthesia claims rose over 300%, totalling £145 million between 2008 and 2018, but the mean cost per closed claim (retail price index adjusted) fell by 6% to £74,883. The most common clinical categories were regional anaesthesia (24%), inadequate anaesthesia (20%) and drug administration (20%). Claims related to airway management, central venous catheterisation and cardiac arrest remained infrequent but severe and costly. The proportion of claims relating to regional anaesthesia and obstetric anaesthesia fell significantly, but claims relating to peripheral nerve blockade doubled. Our analysis includes categories relating to organisational and human factors which are present in a substantial proportion of claims; categories with the highest mean cost per claim included delayed care, planning, monitoring and consent. Overall, the specialty of anaesthesia is at low risk of litigation. Our analysis provides important insights into current and changing patterns in claim distributions that may help improve the quality of patient care and reduce future litigation. We recommend the establishment of a structure for national review and learning from all cases of litigation.