Katie Samuel

Cardiac arrest in the peri-operative period is rare but associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Current reporting systems do not capture many such events, so there is an incomplete understanding of incidence and outcomes. As peri-operative cardiac arrest is rare, many hospitals may only see a small number of cases over long periods, and anaesthetists may not be involved in such cases for years. Therefore, a large-scale prospective cohort is needed to gain a deep understanding of events leading up to cardiac arrest, management of the arrest itself and patient outcomes. Consequently, the Royal College of Anaesthetists chose peri-operative cardiac arrest as the 7th National Audit Project topic. The study was open to all UK hospitals offering anaesthetic services and had a three-part design. First, baseline surveys of all anaesthetic departments and anaesthetists in the UK, examining respondents' prior peri-operative cardiac arrest experience, resuscitation training and local departmental preparedness. Second, an activity survey to record anonymised details of all anaesthetic activity in each site over 4 days, enabling national estimates of annual anaesthetic activity, complexity and complication rates. Third, a case registry of all instances of peri-operative cardiac arrest in the UK, reported confidentially and anonymously, over 1 year starting 16 June 2021, followed by expert review using a structured process to minimise bias. The definition of peri-operative cardiac arrest was the delivery of five or more chest compressions and/or defibrillation in a patient having a procedure under the care of an anaesthetist. The peri-operative period began with the World Health Organization 'sign-in' checklist or first hands-on contact with the patient and ended either 24 h after the patient handover (e.g. to the recovery room or intensive care unit) or at discharge if this occured earlier than 24 h. These components described the epidemiology of peri-operative cardiac arrest in the UK and provide a basis for developing guidelines and interventional studies.

Objectives The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctors is a significant concern. Due to the emergence of multiple pandemic waves, longitudinal data on the impact of COVID-19 are vital to ensure an adequate psychological care response. The primary aim was to assess the prevalence and degree of psychological distress and trauma in frontline doctors during the acceleration, peak and deceleration of the COVID-19 first wave. Personal and professional factors associated with psychological distress are also reported. Design A prospective online three-part longitudinal survey. Setting Acute hospitals in the UK and Ireland. Participants Frontline doctors working in emergency medicine, anaesthetics and intensive care medicine during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. Primary outcome measures Psychological distress and trauma measured using the General Health Questionnaire-12 and the Impact of Events-Revised. Results The initial acceleration survey distributed across networks generated a sample of 5440 doctors. Peak and deceleration response rates from the original sample were 71.6% (n=3896) and 56.6% (n=3079), respectively. Prevalence of psychological distress was 44.7% (n=1334) during the acceleration, 36.9% (n=1098) at peak and 31.5% (n=918) at the deceleration phase. The prevalence of trauma was 23.7% (n=647) at peak and 17.7% (n=484) at deceleration. The prevalence of probable post-traumatic stress disorder was 12.6% (n=343) at peak and 10.1% (n=276) at deceleration. Worry of family infection due to clinical work was the factor most strongly associated with both distress (R 2 =0.06) and trauma (R 2 =0.10). Conclusion Findings reflect a pattern of elevated distress at acceleration and peak, with some natural recovery. It is essential that policymakers seek to prevent future adverse effects through (a) provision of vital equipment to mitigate physical and psychological harm, (b) increased awareness and recognition of signs of psychological distress and (c) the development of clear pathways to effective psychological care. Trial registration number ISRCTN10666798 .

OBJECTIVE: To quantify psychological distress experienced by emergency, anaesthetic and intensive care doctors during the acceleration phase of COVID-19 in the UK and Ireland. METHODS: Initial cross-sectional electronic survey distributed during acceleration phase of the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 in the UK and Ireland (UK: 18 March 2020-26 March 2020 and Ireland: 25 March 2020-2 April 2020). Surveys were distributed via established specialty research networks, within a three-part longitudinal study. Participants were doctors working in emergency, anaesthetic and intensive medicine during the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 in acute hospitals across the UK and Ireland. Primary outcome measures were the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Additional questions examined personal and professional characteristics, experiences of COVID-19 to date, risk to self and others and self-reported perceptions of health and well-being. RESULTS: 5440 responses were obtained, 54.3% (n=2955) from emergency medicine and 36.9% (n=2005) from anaesthetics. All levels of doctor seniority were represented. For the primary outcome of GHQ-12 score, 44.2% (n=2405) of respondents scored >3, meeting the criteria for psychological distress. 57.3% (n=3045) had never previously provided clinical care during an infectious disease outbreak but over half of respondents felt somewhat prepared (48.6%, n=2653) or very prepared (7.6%, n=416) to provide clinical care to patients with COVID-19. However, 81.1% (n=4414) either agreed (31.1%, n=2709) or strongly agreed (31.1%, n=1705) that their personal health was at risk due to their clinical role. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that during the acceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of frontline doctors working in acute care reported psychological distress as measured by the GHQ-12. Findings from this study should inform strategies to optimise preparedness and explore modifiable factors associated with increased psychological distress in the short and long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10666798.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is putting an unprecedented strain on healthcare systems globally. The psychological impact on frontline doctors of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic is currently unknown. This longitudinal professional survey aims to understand the evolving and cumulative effects of working during the COVID-19 outbreak on the psychological well-being of doctors working in emergency departments (ED), intensive care units (ICU) and anaesthetics during the pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a longitudinal questionnaire-based study with three predefined time points spanning the acceleration, peak and deceleration phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.The primary outcomes are psychological distress and post-trauma stress as measured by the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) and Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R). Data related to personal and professional characteristics will also be collected. Questionnaires will be administered prospectively to all doctors working in ED, ICU and anaesthetics in the UK and Ireland via existing research networks during the sampling period. Data from the questionnaires will be analysed to assess the prevalence and degree of psychological distress and trauma, and the nature of the relationship between personal and professional characteristics and the primary outcomes. Data will be described, analysed and disseminated at each time point; however, the primary endpoint will be psychological distress and trauma at the final time point. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Bath, UK (ref: 4421), and Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin, Ethics Committee. Regulatory approval from the Health Regulation Authority (UK), Health and Care Research Wales (IRAS: 281944).This study is limited by the fact that it focuses on doctors only and is survey based without further qualitative interviews of participants. It is expected this study will provide clear evidence of the psychological impact of COVID-19 on doctors and will allow present and future planning to mitigate against any psychological impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10666798.

INTRODUCTION: Major surgery accounts for a substantial proportion of health service activity, due not only to the primary procedure, but the longer-term health implications of poor short-term outcome. Data from small studies or from outside the UK indicate that rates of complications and failure to rescue vary between hospitals, as does compliance with best practice processes. Within the UK, there is currently no system for monitoring postoperative complications (other than short-term mortality) in major non-cardiac surgery. Further, there is variation between national audit programmes, in the emphasis placed on quality assurance versus quality improvement, and therefore the principles of measurement and reporting which are used to design such programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PQIP patient study is a multi-centre prospective cohort study which recruits patients undergoing major surgery. Patient provide informed consent and contribute baseline and outcome data from their perspective using a suite of patient-reported outcome tools. Research and clinical staff complete data on patient risk factors and outcomes in-hospital, including two measures of complications. Longer-term outcome data are collected through patient feedback and linkage to national administrative datasets (mortality and readmissions). As well as providing a uniquely granular dataset for research, PQIP provides feedback to participating sites on their compliance with evidence-based processes and their patients' outcomes, with the aim of supporting local quality improvement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Health Research Authority in the UK. Dissemination of interim findings (non-inferential) will form a part of the improvement methodology and will be provided to participating centres at regular intervals, including near-real time feedback of key process measures. Inferential analyses will be published in the peer-reviewed literature, supported by a comprehensive multi-modal communications strategy including to patients, policy makers and academic audiences as well as clinicians.