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.

Since the introduction of spiral CT scanners, smaller lesions are being seen at the time of preoperative staging. Our study concludes that only a small proportion of indeterminate lung lesions did develop into definite metastases and those that did had node positive disease. Indeterminate lung lesions are not a reason to delay surgery for colorectal cancer.

The implications of constructing a temporary ileostomy as part of the primary surgery for some rectal cancers must not be underestimated and many patients are particularly keen to have their stoma closed as early as possible. Currently, there are no set protocols in place which determine when this should take place, meaning that stoma reversal can be extremely variable between hospitals in the UK. We have created a policy to give patients a provisional date for ileostomy closure at discharge from primary surgery, which takes into account any necessary adjuvant treatment. We compared time to closure of ileostomy between two adjacent centres that share common stoma-care and oncology teams to see what benefit this policy provides. Patients were recruited over a 2-year period from 2005 to 2007 from two adjacent centres. Centre 1 had a policy to provide patients with a provisional date for closure of their ileostomy. The notes were studied retrospectively to determine time to closure of the ileostomy and reasons for any delays in closure. A total of 107 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 83 patients (72%) had their stomas closed. Thirty patients had their stomas closed within 12 weeks (37%) - more than 67% (23/34) in centre 1 against 15% (7/48) in centre 2. At 1 year, all patients in centre 1 had their ileostomy closed, while 10% (5/48) were still waiting in centre 2. The mean time to closure was 13.47 and 25.25 weeks for centres 1 and 2 respectively -P-value < 0.0001. Offering patients a date for ileostomy closure at discharge from their primary resection results in the majority of stomas being closed within 12 weeks. For those patients who are to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy, we aim to perform this surgery in between the second and third cycles of treatment.

Surgical decision-making has evolved over time, and what was once an intuitive matter for surgeons has now become a multi-faceted decision with increased expectations from medical staff and patients, making the decision-making process itself often as challenging as the technical procedure. When planning the most appropriate treatment for a patient, it is important to distinguish what we aim to achieve with regards to treating the pathology from what can be realistically expected from the patient physiologically. In other words, has the patient the potential to withstand the insult of the treatment itself and what are the risks involved? By quantifying this risk and making it a key part of surgical decision-making, we can arrive at the safest modality of treatment for an individual patient. This allows realistic expectations for the patient, helping them to make an informed decision. This article aims to highlight some of the important aspects of surgical risk and the impact they have on patients.

No abstract