NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde

BACKGROUND:Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency with evolving demographics and management strategies, particularly in medical/endoscopic therapy and transfusion strategies. OBJECTIVE:To provide key data of the most recent 2022 UK audit and compare it with the preceding audit in 2007. DESIGN:Prospective multicentre audit conducted from 3 May to 2 July 2022, including adults (≥16 years) with AUGIB across 147 UK hospitals (response rate 86% vs 84% in 2007). AUGIB was defined by clinical symptoms (haematemesis, haematochezia, coffee ground vomiting or melaena confirmed by medical personnel). Patients were followed until discharge, death or 28 days, with re-admissions during the study period counted as new episodes. RESULTS:Among 5141 patients (59% male; median age 69), 15% had cirrhosis, 19% reported excess alcohol use, 7% used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and 46% were on antithrombotics. Most (77%) were new admissions, who were younger with fewer comorbidities, while the remainder bled during hospitalisation. Peptic ulcer disease accounted for 32% of cases, varices for 10% and no abnormality was found in 33%. Pre-endoscopic risk stratification was not performed in 42%.Compared with 2007, patients in 2022 had higher comorbidity (67% vs 50%), more cirrhosis (15% vs 9%), greater anticoagulant use (31% vs 13%) and higher transfusion rates (50% vs 43%). In 2022, among early transfusions (pre-endoscopy or within first 24 hrs; 38%), 43% were given at haemoglobin (Hb)>70 g/L, with 24% classified as inappropriate due to haemodynamic stability. A signal of harm was observed: while inappropriate transfusion was not associated with rebleeding at either 70 or 80 g/L, at 80 g/L it was linked to higher adjusted mortality (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.60, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.56).Inpatient endoscopy was more common (83% vs 74%), though endotherapy use remained modest (27% vs 23%). Salvage therapy rates were unchanged (3.3% vs 3.1%) but shifted from surgery to interventional radiology. Outcomes improved, with lower rebleeding (9.7% vs 13.3%), reduced in-hospital mortality (8.8% vs 10.0%) and shorter median stay (5 vs 6 days). In multivariate analysis, mortality was independently predicted by older age (≥80 years: aOR 2.32, 95% CI 1.64 to 3.30), shock (aOR 2.22, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.17) and comorbidity, while lower Hb at presentation increased risk (≤70 g/L: aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.11). Anticoagulant use was associated with increased mortality (aOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.85), whereas NSAID use (aOR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.96) and antiplatelet use (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.87) were associated with lower mortality. CONCLUSIONS:Despite a higher-risk case mix and incomplete adherence to guidelines (notably in transfusion thresholds and risk stratification), outcomes in AUGIB have improved. The observation of increased mortality with liberal transfusion above 80 g/L in stable patients reinforces the importance of restrictive transfusion practice. Quality improvement initiatives focused on risk stratification, endoscopic training and multidisciplinary care could further enhance outcomes in the UK and internationally.

Improvements in critical care treatments have led to an increased number of survivors of critical illness and an enhanced recognition of the problems which these patients encounter. Despite this, the ideal strategies to both prevent and manage the problems which people face are yet to be fully elucidated. This review explores the current methods employed to help mitigate problems encountered by survivors of critical illnesses and current barriers that limit their implementation. We will explore the effect of these issues on under-represented communities and the feasibility of delivering these strategies globally, as well as recent advances in mechanistic research and methodological innovation as promising areas for further work. In doing so, it summarises the potential avenues for future research with a view to advancing clinical care and outcomes in survivors of critical illness.

INTRODUCTION:Emergency general surgery (EGS) is an essential part of general surgery. However, the service configuration for EGS in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland varies significantly. This study aims to clarify current and desired future roles of EGS surgeons in the UK and Ireland, particularly regarding operative procedures. METHODS:An e-survey, designed by the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ASGBI) Moynihan Academy, was distributed to ASGBI members at two national conferences in 2023. Data collection included the operative roles of EGS surgeons and factors influencing the appeal of a dedicated EGS career. The study was conducted and reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). RESULTS:There were 132 of 347 (response rate 38.0%) complete responses analysed. Respondents identified a core set of procedures that could be safely performed by EGS surgeons, regardless of dedicated EGS service configuration. A minority of respondents stated that EGS surgeons - rather than a surgeon with a specialist interest - should operate on specific conditions: emergency colonic resection for cancer (65 of 132 [49.2%]) or for inflammatory bowel disease (49 of 132 [37.1%]), laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus intraoperative cholangiogram with or without common bile duct exploration (45 of 132 [34.1%]), operations for gastric volvulus (45 of 132 [34.1%), operations for Boerhaave's (37 of 132 [28.0%]) and operations for bariatric complications (34 of 132 [25.8%]). Factors that might improve future EGS careers included pragmatic job planning, minimally invasive elective surgical opportunities and dedicated continuing professional development. CONCLUSIONS:This study outlines the operative role of EGS surgeons within the broader general surgical profession and highlights controversies regarding whether EGS surgeons should perform specific complex operations.

PurposeStaff-patient interactions in mental health wards may involve multiple, sometimes contradictory, stressful interpersonal sequences. National guidelines stress the importance for clinicians to have appropriate training to develop: a good understanding of staff-patient interactions; a capacity to step back and reflect. Mentalizing skills training has been proposed to support staff in these two areas. This approach teaches general clinicians core concepts and skills derived from specialist mentalization-based treatment. Earlier mentalizing skills evaluations have lacked ongoing supervision following initial training and used self-report measures only. This study therefore aims to assess the feasibility of implementing mentalizing skills training for staff followed by ongoing supervision, using a researcher-rated measure of staff metacognition (essentially, reflective capacity).Design/methodology/approachIn three psychiatric wards, the authors examined staff participation in a two-day mentalizing skills course followed by five-months of supervision. To measure outcomes, the authors used a repeated-measures design (baseline, post-training, five months post-training). They undertook semi-structured interviews ("The Caregiving Interview") to explore participants' responses to patients, applying the Metacognitive Assessment Scale (MAS) to assess reflective capacity.FindingsOf 54 staff members approached, 43 completed the two-day course. Thirty-one participants attended at least one supervision session; seven participants undertook the protocol-intended five or more sessions. Wilcoxon signed-ranked tests showed moderate improvements in MAS from baseline to post-training (r = 0.31) and five-months (r = 0.36).Originality/valueA novel semi-structured interview was developed. The findings extend the literature on mentalizing skills, revealing potential difficulties in engaging staff in ongoing supervision. Despite this attrition, participants' gains in metacognition appear to be maintained.