Background: Finding opportunities for improving efficiency is important, given the pressure on national health budgets. Identifying and reducing low-value interventions that deliver little benefit is key. A systematic literature evaluation was done to identify low-value interventions in general surgery, with further assessment of their cost.Methods: A multiplatform method of identifying low value interventions was undertaken, including a broad literature search, a targeted database search, and opportunistic sampling. The results were then stratified by impact, assessing both frequency and cost.Results: Seventy-one low-value general surgical procedures were identified, of which five were of high frequency and high cost (highest impact), 22 were of high cost and low frequency, 23 were of low cost and high frequency, and 21 were of low cost and low frequency (lowest impact). Highest impact interventions included inguinal hernia repair in minimally symptomatic patients, inappropriate gastroscopy, interval cholecystectomy, CT to diagnose appendicitis and routine endoscopy in those who had CT-confirmed diverticulitis. Their estimated cost was €153 383 953.Conclusion: Low-value services place a burden on health budgets. Stopping only five high-volume, high-cost general surgical procedures could save the National Health Service €153 million per annum.

A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol in order to identify the mode of anticoagulation that has the best safety profile for both the mother and the foetus in pregnant patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves. A total of 281 papers were identified using the reported search, of which eight represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, date, journal, study type, population, main outcome measures and results are tabulated. The reported measures were foetal mortality, maternal mortality, congenital abnormalities and embryopathy, and maternal thromboembolic and haemorrhagic complications. The medical orthodoxy has warned of the combination of oral anticoagulation and pregnancy due to the well-documented warfarin embryopathy. Yet only one of the reported papers identified a greater incidence of foetal aberrations among warfarin use, with the highest reported rate being 6.4% and two of the assessed papers reporting no embryopathy at all. Foetal mortality with oral anticoagulation use ranged from 1.52 to 76%. All reported publications demonstrated a superior maternal outcome with warfarin use, with a range of thromboembolic events from 0 to 10% in comparison with 4 to 48% where heparin was used. Thus, it is concluded that warfarin is a more durable anticoagulant with a better maternal outcome despite it carrying a greater foetal risk. Although, in contrast to previous teaching, the risks of embryopathy are not the major drawback of oral anticoagulation. Heparin is consistently less effective, but may be preferred for the superior foetal outcome. Heparin usage during the first trimester reduces the foetal risk but is still associated with an adverse maternal outcome. While the focus for clinicians looking after pregnant women with mechanical heart valves may be to prevent maternal thromboembolic complications, the overriding concern for many women is to avoid any harm to their unborn child, even when this places their health at risk. Thus women with mechanical heart valves must be fully informed of the risks involved with different anticoagulation for an informed decision to be made.

In response to an increasing body of evidence on the importance of employee health and well-being (HWB) within health care, there has been a shift in focus from both policymakers and individual organizations toward improving health care employee HWB. However, there is something of a paucity of evidence regarding the impact and value of specific HWB interventions within a health care setting. The aim of this article was to systematically review the literature on this topic utilizing the EMBASE, Global Health, Health Management Information Consortium, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases. Forty-four articles were identified and, due to a large degree of heterogeneity, were considered under different headings as to the type of intervention employed: namely, those evaluating changing ways of working, physical health promotion, complementary and alternative medicine, and stress management interventions, and those utilizing multimodal interventions. Our results consider both the efficacy and reliability of each intervention in turn and reflect on the importance of careful study design and measure selection when evaluating the impact of HWB interventions.

The incidence of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm and gastrointestinal malignancy is rare. Current treatment strategies in patients with both lesions remain controversial. It is unclear whether to treat the AAA and gastrointestinal malignancy simultaneously or in a staged manner. In patients with concomitant AAA and gastrointestinal malignancy surgical orthodoxy dictates that the most symptomatic lesion or the most life threatening condition should be treated first, however there is a therapeutic dilemma when neither or both of the lesions are symptomatic .In this review we explore (a) Priority of treatment in patients with concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm and gastrointestinal malignancy (b) The role of EVAR in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysm and concomitant gastrointestinal malignancy.