This is a repository copy of Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH) : a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH) : a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. The Lancet. ISSN 0140-6736 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32521-2 eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ ReuseThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can't change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Implications of all the available evidenceDespite the success of some smaller projects, there was no survival benefit from a national quality improvement programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. To succeed, large national quality improvement programmes need to allow for differences between hospitals and ensure teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care.

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the first web-based learning course on COVID-19 on January 26, 2020, four days before the director general of the WHO declared a public health emergency of international concern. The WHO is expanding access to web-based learning for COVID-19 through its open-learning platform for health emergencies, OpenWHO. Throughout the pandemic, OpenWHO has continued to publish learning offerings based on the WHO’s emerging evidence-based knowledge for managing the COVID-19 pandemic. This study presents the various findings derived from the analysis of the performance of the OpenWHO platform during the pandemic, along with the core benefits of massive web-based learning formats.

Objective Intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) support may improve the hemodynamic profiles of patients in cardiogenic shock and bridge patients to heart transplant. In 2018, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) introduced new heart allocation criteria that increased the waitlist status of patients with IABPs to Status 2. This study assesses the impact of this change on IABP use and outcomes of patients with IABPs. Methods We queried the UNOS database for first adult heart transplant candidates with IABPs listed or transplanted before and after the UNOS policy changes (October 18, 2016–October 17, 2018, or October 18, 2018–September 4, 2020). We compared post‐transplant survival and waitlist outcomes using Kaplan‐Meier and Fine‐Gray analyses. Results Two thousand three hundred fifty‐eight patients met inclusion criteria. Utilization of IABPs for hemodynamic support increased by 338% in the two years after the policy change. Patients with IABPs listed after the policy change were more likely to receive a transplant and were transplanted more quickly (p < .001). Posttransplant survival was comparable before and after the policy change (p = .056), but non‐transplanted patients were more likely to be delisted post‐policy change (p < .001). Conclusion The UNOS allocation criteria have benefited patients bridged with an IABP, given the higher transplant rate and shorter time to transplant.

PURPOSE: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is Medicare’s first alternative payment model program for patients with cancer. As of October 2017, participating practices were required to report biomarker testing of patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). Our objective was to evaluate the effect of this OCM reporting requirement on quality of care. METHODS: We selected patients with aNSCLC receiving care in practices in a nationwide de-identified electronic health record-derived database. We used an adjusted difference-in-differences (DID) logistic regression model to compare changes in biomarker testing rates (EGFR, ROS1, and ALK) and receipt of biomarker-guided therapy between patients in OCM versus non-OCM practices, before and after OCM implementation. RESULTS: The analysis included 14,048 patients from 45 OCM practices (n = 8,151) and 105 non-OCM practices (n = 5,897). The overall unadjusted rates for biomarker testing and receipt of biomarker-guided therapy increased over the study period (2011-2018) in both OCM (55.5% v 71.6%; 89.8% v 94.6%, respectively) and non-OCM (55.2% v 69.7%; 90.1% v 95.2%, respectively) practices. In the adjusted DID model, the rates of biomarker testing (odds ratio [OR], 1.09 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.34]; P = .45) and receipt of biomarker-guided therapy (OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.52 to 1.45]; P = .58) were similar between OCM and non-OCM practices. CONCLUSION: OCM biomarker documentation and reporting requirements did not appear to increase the proportions of patients with aNSCLC who underwent testing or who received biomarker-guided therapy in OCM versus non-OCM practices.

OBJECTIVES Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) at the time of implantation may reduce thromboembolic events (TEs) during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support. The HeartMate 3 (HM3) reduces TEs overall, but the efficacy of LAAO in HM3 is unknown. METHODS Adults receiving first HM3 implantation from November 2014 through December 2019 at a single, large medical centre were retrospectively reviewed. TEs included device thrombosis and ischaemic stroke. Patients were classified by whether they received LAAO or not. Incidence of TEs was compared between groups using cumulative incidence curves with competing risks (death and heart transplant) and risk factors for TEs were assessed with Fine and Gray competing risk regression. RESULTS A total of 182 patients received HM3, of whom 99 (54%) received LAAO versus 83 (46%) who did not. There were 14 TEs, including 13 strokes (7%) and 1 pump thrombosis (0.5%). No significant difference in the incidence of TEs in each group was found (Gray’s test: P = 0.35). LAAO was not associated with TEs in multivariable Fine–Gray analysis (P = 0.10) and no significant risk factors for TEs were found. There were zero disabling strokes in those who received LAAO compared to 6 (7%) in those who did not receive LAAO (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS A low number of TEs was observed in HM3 recipients. LAAO did not further reduce the overall rate of TEs in this patient population, though its use may be beneficial in preventing disabling ischaemic strokes after HM3 implantation.