Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high‐ (HICs) and low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7‐day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally.

No abstract

Background The utility of Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing (CPET) to identify higher risk surgical patients remains controversial. There is limited research investigating the value of preoperative CPET to plan perioperative pathways for patients undergoing major pancreatic surgery. Methods Retrospective cohort study, comprising two groups before and after a change in referral policy for High Risk preoperative anaesthetic clinic with CPET. Period 1 discretionary referral and Period 2: universal referral. The primary aim was to investigate the impact of this policy change on critical care use (planned vs unplanned) on the day of surgery and on delayed critical care admission. Secondary end points included a comparison of the total number of critical care bed days, days in hospital, complication rates and mortality data between the two cohorts. Results 177 patients were included; 114 in Period 1 and 63 in Period 2. There was a reduction in unplanned day of surgery postoperative admissions to critical care (28.1% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.008). Seven (6.1%) of patients in Period 1 and 1 (1.6%) patient in Period 2 had delayed admission, though no p value was calculated due to the small numbers involved. Complication rates were similar in each group. The median critical care bed days was 1 (range 0–21) days in Period 1 and 1 (0–13) days in Period 2. Conclusions A universal referral policy for preoperative CPET demonstrated a decrease in unplanned day of surgery critical care admissions and a trend towards reducing delayed (>24 h postop) critical care admission which could be investigated in a larger study. No measurable impact was seen on clinical outcomes.