Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) services have been particularly affected by the Covid‐19 pandemic. Delays in referral to secondary care and access to investigations and surgery have been exacerbated. Aims To investigate the use of and outcomes for emergency IBD care during the Covid‐19 pandemic. Methods Nationwide observational study using administrative data for England (2015‐2020) comparing cohorts admitted from 1 January 2015, to 31 January 2020 (pre‐pandemic) and from 1 February 2020, to 31 January 2021 (pandemic). Autoregressive integrated moving average forecast models were run to estimate the counterfactual IBD admissions and procedures for February 2020 to January 2021. Results Large decreases in attendances to hospital for emergency treatment were observed for both acute ulcerative colitis (UC, 16.4%) and acute Crohn’s disease (CD, 8.7%). The prevalence of concomitant Covid‐19 during the same episode was low [391/16 494 (2.4%) and 349/15 613 (2.2%), respectively]. No significant difference in 30‐day mortality was observed. A shorter median length of stay by 1 day for acute IBD admissions was observed (P < 0.0001). A higher rate of emergency readmission within 28 days for acute UC was observed (14.1% vs 13.4%, P = 0.012). All IBD procedures and investigations showed decreases in volume from February 2020 to January 2021 compared with counterfactual estimates. The largest absolute deficit was in endoscopy (17 544 fewer procedures, 35.2% reduction). Conclusion There is likely a significant burden of untreated IBD in the community. Patients with IBD may experience clinical harm or protracted decreases in quality of life if care is not prioritised.

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries.

Introduction Online teaching has rapidly emerged as a viable alternative to traditional face-to-face education. How to teach surgical skills in the online environment, however, has not yet been fully established nor evaluated. Methods An international 1-day online surgical skills course consisting of lectures, pre-recorded virtual workshops, live demonstrations and along with surgical skills teaching in breakout rooms was organised. Based on existing learning theories, new methods were developed to deliver skills teaching online. Simultaneously, traditional in-person surgical skills teaching was also conducted and used as a benchmark. Skills development was assessed by trained demonstrators and self-reported competency scores were compared between the online and face-to-face event. Results 553 delegates from 20 different countries attended the online course. Of these, 64 were trained in breakout rooms with a 1:5 demonstrator-to-delegate ratio whilst the remaining 489 delegates participated in didactic skills development sessions. In a separate face-to-face course, 20 delegates were trained with traditional methods. Demonstrators rated the competency of delegates for suturing, tendon repair and vascular anastomosis. There was no significant difference in the competency ratings of delegates receiving online teaching or face-to-face teaching (p = 0.253, p = 0.084, p = 1.00, respectively). The development of the same skills to “articulation” were not different between formats (p = 0.841, p = 0.792, p = 1.00, respectively). Post course self-rated competency scores improved for all technical skills (p < 0.001). Small group sessions, both online and face-to-face, received higher satisfaction ratings compared to large group sessions in terms of clarity of instructions, answers to questions and demonstrator feedback. Overall feedback on teaching quality, however, was equivalent across both groups. Discussion Online teaching of surgical skills for early training years is an appropriate alternative to face-to-face teaching.