\n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n \n\n \n

\n generated by\n \n $\"bibbase.org\"\n$ \n \n

\n \n\n

\n\n

\n \n Group by\n \n \n
- \n Year\n
- \n Author\n
- \n Type\n
- \n Keyword\n
- \n Downloads\n
\n
\n \n \n \n \n
- \n \n Expand/Collapse All\n \n
- \n \n Download BibTeX\n \n
- \n \n RSS Feed\n \n
\n

\n\n\n

\n\n Excellent! Next you can\n create a new website with this list, or\n embed it in an existing web page by copying & pasting\n any of the following snippets.\n\n

\n JavaScript\n (easiest)\n

\n            <script src=\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F1188758%2Fcollections%2FWJHTC5UZ%2Fitems%3Fkey%3D7QzWTTX0ysbCCy2IG4B2maFv%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1&jsonp=1\"></script>\n

\n\n PHP\n

\n            <?php\n            $contents = file_get_contents(\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F1188758%2Fcollections%2FWJHTC5UZ%2Fitems%3Fkey%3D7QzWTTX0ysbCCy2IG4B2maFv%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1\");\n            print_r($contents);\n            ?>\n

\n\n iFrame\n (not recommended)\n

\n            <iframe src=\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F1188758%2Fcollections%2FWJHTC5UZ%2Fitems%3Fkey%3D7QzWTTX0ysbCCy2IG4B2maFv%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1\"></iframe>\n

\n\n

\n For more details see the documention.\n

\n\n

\n\n This is a preview! To use this list on your own web site\n or create a new web site from it,\n create a free account. The file will be added\n and you will be able to edit it in the File Manager.\n We will show you instructions once you've created your account.\n

\n\n

To the site owner:

\n\n

Action required! Mendeley is changing its\n API. In order to keep using Mendeley with BibBase past April\n 14th, you need to:\n

renew the authorization for BibBase on Mendeley, and
update the BibBase URL\n in your page the same way you did when you initially set up\n this page.\n

\n\n

\n \n \n Fix it now\n

\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n \n

\n \n 2024\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Trainees in the independent healthcare sector: benefits for all.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Lawson, J. H.; Grimes, R. E.; and Wong, D. J. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, n/a(n/a). March 2024.\n _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.16279\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Trainees$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{lawson_trainees_2024,\n\ttitle = {Trainees in the independent healthcare sector: benefits for all},\n\tvolume = {n/a},\n\tcopyright = {© 2024 Association of Anaesthetists.},\n\tissn = {1365-2044},\n\tshorttitle = {Trainees in the independent healthcare sector},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/anae.16279},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.16279},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {n/a},\n\turldate = {2024-03-12},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Lawson, J. H. and Grimes, R. E. and Wong, D. J. N.},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2024},\n\tnote = {\\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.16279},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Experiences and perceptions of working with Anaesthesia Associates: a survey of UK anaesthetists in training.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Evans, B.; Turkoglu, L. M.; Brooks, J.; Subramaniam, J.; Edwardson, S.; Freeman, N.; McCrossan, R.; and Wong, D. J. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n British Journal of Anaesthesia. February 2024.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Experiences$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{evans_experiences_2024,\n\ttitle = {Experiences and perceptions of working with {Anaesthesia} {Associates}: a survey of {UK} anaesthetists in training},\n\tissn = {0007-0912},\n\tshorttitle = {Experiences and perceptions of working with {Anaesthesia} {Associates}},\n\turl = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091224000515},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.bja.2024.01.031},\n\turldate = {2024-03-12},\n\tjournal = {British Journal of Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Evans, Ben and Turkoglu, Leyla M. and Brooks, James and Subramaniam, Jeevakan and Edwardson, Stuart and Freeman, Naomi and McCrossan, Roopa and Wong, Danny J. N.},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2024},\n\tkeywords = {Anaesthesia Associates, anaesthesia, curriculum, medical education, questionnaire, survey},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The incidence of potentially serious complications during non-obstetric anaesthetic practice in the United Kingdom: an analysis from the 7th National Audit Project (NAP7) activity survey.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kane, A. D.; Cook, T. M.; Armstrong, R. A.; Kursumovic, E.; Davies, M. T.; Agarwal, S.; Nolan, J. P.; Smith, J. H.; Moppett, I. K.; Oglesby, F. C.; Cortes, L.; Taylor, C.; Cordingley, J.; Dorey, J.; Finney, S. J.; Kunst, G.; Lucas, D. N.; Nickols, G.; Mouton, R.; Patel, B.; Pappachan, V. J.; Plaat, F.; Scholefield, B. R.; Varney, L.; Soar, J.; and Collaborators\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, 79(1): 43–53. 2024.\n _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.16155\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{kane_incidence_2024,\n\ttitle = {The incidence of potentially serious complications during non-obstetric anaesthetic practice in the {United} {Kingdom}: an analysis from the 7th {National} {Audit} {Project} ({NAP7}) activity survey},\n\tvolume = {79},\n\tcopyright = {© 2023 The Authors. Anaesthesia published by John Wiley \\& Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists.},\n\tissn = {1365-2044},\n\tshorttitle = {The incidence of potentially serious complications during non-obstetric anaesthetic practice in the {United} {Kingdom}},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/anae.16155},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.16155},\n\tabstract = {Complications and critical incidents arising during anaesthesia due to patient, surgical or anaesthetic factors, may cause harm themselves or progress to more severe events, including cardiac arrest or death. As part of the 7th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists, we studied a prospective national cohort of unselected patients. Anaesthetists recorded anonymous details of all cases undertaken over 4 days at their site through an online survey. Of 416 hospital sites invited to participate, 352 (85\\%) completed the survey. Among 24,172 cases, 1922 discrete potentially serious complications were reported during 1337 (6\\%) cases. Obstetric cases had a high reported major haemorrhage rate and were excluded from further analysis. Of 20,996 non-obstetric cases, 1705 complications were reported during 1150 (5\\%) cases. Circulatory events accounted for most complications (616, 36\\%), followed by airway (418, 25\\%), metabolic (264, 15\\%), breathing (259, 15\\%), and neurological (41, 2\\%) events. A single complication was reported in 851 (4\\%) cases, two complications in 166 (1\\%) cases and three or more complications in 133 (1\\%) cases. In non-obstetric elective surgery, all complications were ‘uncommon’ (10–100 per 10,000 cases). Emergency (urgent and immediate priority) surgery accounted for 3454 (16\\%) of non-obstetric cases but 714 (42\\%) of complications with severe hypotension, major haemorrhage, severe arrhythmias, septic shock, significant acidosis and electrolyte disturbances all being ‘common’ (100–1000 per 10,000 cases). Based on univariate analysis, complications were associated with: younger age; higher ASA physical status; male sex; increased frailty; urgency and extent of surgery; day of the week; and time of day. These data represent the rates of potentially serious complications during routine anaesthesia care and may be valuable for risk assessment and patient consent.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2024-02-23},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Kane, A. D. and Cook, T. M. and Armstrong, R. A. and Kursumovic, E. and Davies, M. T. and Agarwal, S. and Nolan, J. P. and Smith, J. H. and Moppett, I. K. and Oglesby, F. C. and Cortes, L. and Taylor, C. and Cordingley, J. and Dorey, J. and Finney, S. J. and Kunst, G. and Lucas, D. N. and Nickols, G. and Mouton, R. and Patel, B. and Pappachan, V. J. and Plaat, F. and Scholefield, B. R. and Varney, L. and Soar, J. and {Collaborators}},\n\tyear = {2024},\n\tnote = {\\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.16155},\n\tkeywords = {NAP7, anaesthesia, cardiac arrest, complications, critical incident},\n\tpages = {43--53},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n

\n \n 2023\n \n \n (6)\n \n \n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n P30 Development and validation of a prognostic model for postpartum haemorrhage.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n O'Shea, B.; McCaffrey, B.; Nguyen-Lu, N.; Lloyd, J.; and Wong, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia, 54: 103692. May 2023.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"P30$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{oshea_p30_2023,\n\tseries = {Abstracts of the {Obstetric} {Anaesthesia} {Annual} {Scientific} {Meeting} 20223},\n\ttitle = {P30 {Development} and validation of a prognostic model for postpartum haemorrhage},\n\tvolume = {54},\n\tissn = {0959-289X},\n\turl = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959289X23000900},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.ijoa.2023.103692},\n\turldate = {2024-02-23},\n\tjournal = {International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia},\n\tauthor = {O'Shea, B. and McCaffrey, B. and Nguyen-Lu, N. and Lloyd, J. and Wong, D.},\n\tmonth = may,\n\tyear = {2023},\n\tpages = {103692},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Organisation of UK hospitals and anaesthetic departments in the treatment of peri-operative cardiac arrest: an analysis from the 7th National Audit Project (NAP7) local co-ordinator baseline survey.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kursumovic, E.; Soar, J.; Nolan, J. P.; Plaat, F.; Kane, A. D.; Armstrong, R. A.; Davies, M. T.; Oglesby, F. C.; Cortes, L.; Taylor, C.; Moppett, I. K.; Agarwal, S.; Cordingley, J.; Dorey, J.; Finney, S. J.; Kunst, G.; Lucas, D. N.; Nickols, G.; Mouton, R.; Patel, B.; Pappachan, V. J.; Scholefield, B. R.; Smith, J. H.; Varney, L.; Cook, T. M.; and Collaborators\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, 78(12): 1442–1452. 2023.\n _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.16153\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Organisation$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{kursumovic_organisation_2023,\n\ttitle = {Organisation of {UK} hospitals and anaesthetic departments in the treatment of peri-operative cardiac arrest: an analysis from the 7th {National} {Audit} {Project} ({NAP7}) local co-ordinator baseline survey},\n\tvolume = {78},\n\tcopyright = {© 2023 The Authors. Anaesthesia published by John Wiley \\& Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists.},\n\tissn = {1365-2044},\n\tshorttitle = {Organisation of {UK} hospitals and anaesthetic departments in the treatment of peri-operative cardiac arrest},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/anae.16153},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.16153},\n\tabstract = {We report the results of the Royal College of Anaesthetists' 7th National Audit Project organisational baseline survey sent to every NHS anaesthetic department in the UK to assess preparedness for treating peri-operative cardiac arrest. We received 199 responses from 277 UK anaesthetic departments, representing a 72\\% response rate. Adult and paediatric anaesthetic care was provided by 188 (95\\%) and 165 (84\\%) hospitals, respectively. There was no paediatric intensive care unit on-site in 144 (87\\%) hospitals caring for children, meaning transfer of critically ill children is required. Remote site anaesthesia is provided in 182 (92\\%) departments. There was a departmental resuscitation lead in 113 (58\\%) departments, wellbeing lead in 106 (54\\%) and departmental staff wellbeing policy in 81 (42\\%). A defibrillator was present in every operating theatre suite and in all paediatric anaesthesia locations in 193 (99\\%) and 149 (97\\%) departments, respectively. Advanced airway equipment was not available in: every theatre suite in 13 (7\\%) departments; all remote locations in 103 (57\\%) departments; and all paediatric anaesthesia locations in 23 (15\\%) departments. Anaesthetic rooms were the default location for induction of anaesthesia in adults and children in 148 (79\\%) and 121 (79\\%) departments, respectively. Annual updates in chest compressions and in defibrillation were available in 149 (76\\%) and 130 (67\\%) departments, respectively. Following a peri-operative cardiac arrest, debriefing and peer support programmes were available in 154 (79\\%) and 57 (29\\%) departments, respectively. While it is likely many UK hospitals are very well prepared to treat anaesthetic emergencies including cardiac arrest, the survey suggests this is not universal.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {12},\n\turldate = {2024-02-23},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Kursumovic, E. and Soar, J. and Nolan, J. P. and Plaat, F. and Kane, A. D. and Armstrong, R. A. and Davies, M. T. and Oglesby, F. C. and Cortes, L. and Taylor, C. and Moppett, I. K. and Agarwal, S. and Cordingley, J. and Dorey, J. and Finney, S. J. and Kunst, G. and Lucas, D. N. and Nickols, G. and Mouton, R. and Patel, B. and Pappachan, V. J. and Scholefield, B. R. and Smith, J. H. and Varney, L. and Cook, T. M. and {Collaborators}},\n\tyear = {2023},\n\tnote = {\\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.16153},\n\tkeywords = {NAP7, anaesthesia, anaesthetic departments, baseline survey, peri-operative cardiac arrest},\n\tpages = {1442--1452},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Patient characteristics, anaesthetic workload and techniques in the UK: an analysis from the 7th National Audit Project (NAP7) activity survey.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kane, A. D.; Soar, J.; Armstrong, R. A.; Kursumovic, E.; Davies, M. T.; Oglesby, F. C.; Cortes, L.; Taylor, C.; Moppett, I. K.; Agarwal, S.; Cordingley, J.; Dorey, J.; Finney, S. J.; Kunst, G.; Lucas, D. N.; Nickols, G.; Mouton, R.; Nolan, J. P.; Patel, B.; Pappachan, V. J.; Plaat, F.; Scholefield, B. R.; Smith, J. H.; Varney, L.; Cook, T. M.; and Collaborators\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, 78(6): 701–711. 2023.\n _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15989\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Patient$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{kane_patient_2023,\n\ttitle = {Patient characteristics, anaesthetic workload and techniques in the {UK}: an analysis from the 7th {National} {Audit} {Project} ({NAP7}) activity survey},\n\tvolume = {78},\n\tcopyright = {© 2023 The Authors. Anaesthesia published by John Wiley \\& Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists.},\n\tissn = {1365-2044},\n\tshorttitle = {Patient characteristics, anaesthetic workload and techniques in the {UK}},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/anae.15989},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15989},\n\tabstract = {Detailed contemporary knowledge of the characteristics of the surgical population, national anaesthetic workload, anaesthetic techniques and behaviours are essential to monitor productivity, inform policy and direct research themes. Every 3–4 years, the Royal College of Anaesthetists, as part of its National Audit Projects (NAP), performs a snapshot activity survey in all UK hospitals delivering anaesthesia, collecting patient-level encounter data from all cases under the care of an anaesthetist. During November 2021, as part of NAP7, anaesthetists recorded details of all cases undertaken over 4 days at their site through an online survey capturing anonymous patient characteristics and anaesthetic details. Of 416 hospital sites invited to participate, 352 (85\\%) completed the activity survey. From these, 24,177 reports were returned, of which 24,172 (99\\%) were included in the final dataset. The work patterns by day of the week, time of day and surgical specialty were similar to previous NAP activity surveys. However, in non-obstetric patients, between NAP5 (2013) and NAP7 (2021) activity surveys, the estimated median age of patients increased by 2.3 years from median (IQR) of 50.5 (28.4–69.1) to 52.8 (32.1–69.2) years. The median (IQR) BMI increased from 24.9 (21.5–29.5) to 26.7 (22.3–31.7) kg.m–2. The proportion of patients who scored as ASA physical status 1 decreased from 37\\% in NAP5 to 24\\% in NAP7. The use of total intravenous anaesthesia increased from 8\\% of general anaesthesia cases to 26\\% between NAP5 and NAP7. Some changes may reflect the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the anaesthetic population, though patients with confirmed COVID-19 accounted for only 149 (1\\%) cases. These data show a rising burden of age, obesity and comorbidity in patients requiring anaesthesia care, likely to impact UK peri-operative services significantly.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\turldate = {2024-02-23},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Kane, A. D. and Soar, J. and Armstrong, R. A. and Kursumovic, E. and Davies, M. T. and Oglesby, F. C. and Cortes, L. and Taylor, C. and Moppett, I. K. and Agarwal, S. and Cordingley, J. and Dorey, J. and Finney, S. J. and Kunst, G. and Lucas, D. N. and Nickols, G. and Mouton, R. and Nolan, J. P. and Patel, B. and Pappachan, V. J. and Plaat, F. and Scholefield, B. R. and Smith, J. H. and Varney, L. and Cook, T. M. and {Collaborators}},\n\tyear = {2023},\n\tnote = {\\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15989},\n\tkeywords = {ASA, BMI, COVID-19, NAP7, TIVA, activity survey, anaesthesia, comorbidity, obesity, processed EEG, regional anaesthesia, surgical activity},\n\tpages = {701--711},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Anaesthetic recruitment interview performance and ethnicity.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Watson, S. A.; and Wong, D. J. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia,anae.16076. June 2023.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Anaesthetic$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{watson_anaesthetic_2023,\n\ttitle = {Anaesthetic recruitment interview performance and ethnicity},\n\tissn = {0003-2409, 1365-2044},\n\turl = {https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.16076},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.16076},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2023-07-15},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Watson, S. A. and Wong, D. J. N.},\n\tmonth = jun,\n\tyear = {2023},\n\tpages = {anae.16076},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n The experiences and perceptions of working with Anaesthesia Associates: a survey of UK anaesthetists in training.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Evans, B.; Turkoglu, L. M.; Brooks, J.; Subramaniam, J.; Edwardson, S.; McCrossan, R.; Freeman, N.; and Wong, D. J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n medRxiv,2023–05. 2023.\n Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{evans_experiences_2023,\n\ttitle = {The experiences and perceptions of working with {Anaesthesia} {Associates}: a survey of {UK} anaesthetists in training.},\n\tshorttitle = {The experiences and perceptions of working with {Anaesthesia} {Associates}},\n\tjournal = {medRxiv},\n\tauthor = {Evans, Ben and Turkoglu, Leyla M. and Brooks, James and Subramaniam, Jeevakan and Edwardson, Stuart and McCrossan, Roopa and Freeman, Naomi and Wong, Danny JN},\n\tyear = {2023},\n\tnote = {Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press},\n\tpages = {2023--05},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Aerosol precautions and airway complications: a national prospective multicentre cohort study.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Potter, T.; Cronin, J. N.; Kua, J.; Nurmi, E.; Wong, D. J. N.; Ahmad, I.; Cook, T. M.; El‐Boghdadly, K.; the AeroComp Trainee Research Networks; Collaborators; Abberton, T.; Abdelaziz, A.; Addy, M.; Aduse‐Poku, M.; Afifi, M.; Afzal, A.; Ahmad, A.; Ahmad, H.; Ainsworth, J.; Alexander, R.; Ali, Y.; Allen, C.; Aly, H.; Amer, S.; Anderson, C.; Andorka, M.; Applegate, R.; Armstrong, M.; Ashiru, G.; Ashton, L.; Aspinall, M.; Aulakh, A.; Avery, B.; Aziz, R.; Azize, M.; Babits, A.; Bailes, J.; Baker, C.; Baker‐Beal, L.; Bang, J.; Barker, O.; Barnes, J.; Barrett, V.; Bartlett, A.; Baxter, B.; Bayliss, E.; Beattie, R.; Bedwell, T.; Begbey, A.; Bennett, A.; Berg, J.; Beverley, S.; Bewley, J.; Bhatia, K.; Bhatti, R.; Bhudia, N.; Bishop, N.; Bloomfield, S.; Blundell, N.; Boampomaa, M.; Boles, S.; Bolton, G.; Boney, O.; Bose, S.; Bottomley, T.; Bower, J.; Bowes, K.; Bradford, J.; Brady, W.; Brathwaite‐Shirley, C.; Brookes, J.; Brown, A.; Brown, J.; Bukowska, I.; Burden, A.; Burke, O.; Burr, J.; Burrows, M.; Burton, M.; Butcher, A.; Cain, H.; Calabria, C.; Caldow, D.; Carley‐Smith, A.; Carnaby‐Bull, G.; Carter, H.; Carter, J.; Carver, A.; Carver, J.; Casey, J.; Cassin‐Scott, R.; Castle, D.; Celnik, D.; Chaddock, C.; Chalmers, L.; Chan, L.; Chan, T.; Chatburn, A.; Chauhan, N.; Chisti, K.; Chockalingam, P.; Chowdhury, R.; Church, J.; Clark, A.; Coady, G.; Cochran, D.; Cohen, J.; Collet, P.; Collett, P.; Colter, P.; Conti, J.; Cook, T.; Cooper, M.; Cope, E.; Cope, T.; Coppack, K.; Coulton, M.; Crabtree, S.; Craven, R.; Crockett, B.; Cromarty, E.; Cronin, J.; Cunnane, S.; Cushley, C.; Dalmonte, E.; Datta, P.; Daum, P.; Davenport, T.; Davies, C.; Davies, J.; Davies, T.; Davies, T.; Davies, V.; De Silva, A.; Derry, C.; Desbruslais, S.; Dhuna, S.; Docking, R.; Dolan, S.; Don, O.; Donohue, A.; Dow, O.; Dowse, C.; Dykes, B.; Eardley, J.; Eardley, M.; Edgeley, R.; Efthymiou, P.; Ekambaram, R.; El otmani , W.; El‐Boghdadly, K.; Elfaioumy, A.; Elkhawad, A.; Ellimah, T.; Elwkhiee, M.; Emms, T.; Eshelby, S.; Estrada, M.; Evans, E.; Exley, J.; Falkner, P.; Feddon, J.; Fedorova, D.; Fenner, T.; Fisher, J.; Fisher, J.; Flower, L.; Folley, R.; Foreman, S.; Foster, C.; Fox, J.; Foxwell, K.; Froud, O.; Fullbrook, A.; Gagrani, V.; Gallaher, J.; Gallop, F.; Gambino, G.; Ganesan, C.; Gauntlett, L.; George, D.; George, D.; Georgiou, C.; Ghosh, P.; Gilfedder, A.; Gill, N.; Gillan, C.; Glarbo, S.; Glover, I.; Goodman, J.; Goodman, J.; Gosal, A.; Graham, A.; Grant, A.; Gray, J.; Greener, D.; Greenlee, H.; Greenshields, N.; Griffiths, M.; Grimes, R.; Gui, J.; Gullis, A.; Gupta, A.; Gupta, S.; Hadfield, J.; Halford, P.; Hall, T.; Hammon, L.; Hardern, K.; Harding, K.; Hare, A.; Harman, W.; Haroon‐Mowahed, Y.; Harper, J.; Harris, J.; Harrison, C.; Harrogate, S.; Harrold, R.; Harrold, R.; Harvey, N.; Harvey, R.; Hassan, A.; Hassani, M.; Hassan‐Reshat, S.; Haththotuwegama, A.; Hattaway, M.; Hawes, R.; Hawkins, T.; He, J.; Heaton, T.; Henderson, K.; Heselden, E.; Heward, S.; Hinds, F.; Hirst, J.; Hobbiger, E.; Hodgetts, J.; Hodrali, N.; Hogan, N.; Hollis‐Smith, S.; Hollway, S.; Honstvet, C.; Hossack, D.; Howes, B.; Howes, H.; Howey, S.; Htyn, M.; Hu, K.; Huckle, D.; Hughes, C.; Hughes, D.; Hughes, R.; Hughes, R.; Hughes, T.; Humphry, E.; Hurug, C.; Hussain, T.; Huszka, H.; Huws, E.; Iliff, H.; Irfan, M.; Jackson, E.; Jackson, K.; Jackson, M.; Jacobs, E.; Jain, P.; Jamadarkhana, S.; Jambunathan, V.; Jani, P.; Jesani, L.; Jester, N.; Jones, A.; Jones, B.; Jones, R.; Jones, R.; Jones, S.; Jones, W.; Joshi, N.; Joyce, M.; Kafle‐Nath, S.; Kakad, S.; Kamaraj, K.; Kangesan, I.; Karlicka, D.; Kaur, L.; Kaye, D.; Kelly, K.; Kenesey, K.; Kent, S.; Kerr, M.; Keshvara, K.; Khalil, J.; Khan‐Perez, J.; Kidd, E.; Kirby, J.; Kirschen, T.; Ko, S.; Kubisz‐Pudelko, A.; Kulikouskaya, S.; Kumaran, G.; Lakhani, A.; Lalabekyan, B.; Lee, A.; Lee, T.; Lewis, M.; Lewsey, R.; Li, A.; Liddicoat, P.; Lie, J.; Lignos, L.; Lim, D.; Lindberg, E.; Lindskog, J.; Littler, C.; Liu, B.; Loka, T.; Lotlikar, A.; Lyons, M.; MacCarrick, T.; Macnaughton, K.; MacTaggart, J.; Mactier, I.; Madden, M.; Maese, S.; Magnano Di San Lio, S; Mahalingam, G.; Majeed, S.; Mak, K.; Makepeace, J.; Malik, Z.; Manalayil, J.; Mangham, T.; Markes, R.; Marriott, H.; Massa, T.; Mawondo, K.; May, S.; McAndrew, K.; McGreneghan, E.; McGuckin, D.; McGuire, B.; McIndoe, A.; McKavanagh, E.; McKechnie, A.; Mcphail, S.; Mcpherson, K.; Mctighe, A.; Mee, C.; Meeks, D.; Mehrotra, S.; Mehta, U.; Mehta, R.; Menon, A.; Meredith, R.; Merris, S.; Mew, E.; Middleditch, A.; Milward, J.; Min, J.; Misquita, L.; Mitchard, M.; Mitra, S.; Moffitt, P.; Mohite, S.; Molloy, P.; Molyneux, M.; Molyneux, S.; Moncrieff, G.; Moore, S.; Moore, T.; Morgan, R.; Morgan, S.; Morgan, T.; Morley, O.; Morris, B.; Morrison, S.; Mount, M.; Moxon, H.; Muddanna, A.; Murphy, E.; Murphy, E.; Murphy, R.; Muschik, S.; Mushonga, K.; Nagarajan, V.; Nassar, H.; Natarajan, S.; Nepal, K.; Newton, T.; Nimaiyar, H.; Nixon, A.; Noble Johnston, J; Nolan, L.; O'Doherty, J.; Oakey, M.; O'Doherty, J.; O'Donnell, A.; O'Donnell, L.; O'Higgins, F.; Oldham, T.; O'Mahony, H.; Onyemuchara, I.; Orme, R.; Ormerod, V.; Osagie, O.; Osborne, L.; Osborne, S.; Osicki, T.; Otto, Q.; Overend, J.; Padman, D.; Park, N.; Parrott, N.; Patchell, I.; Patel, J.; Patel, M.; Patel, N.; Patel, R.; Patterson, G.; Patwardhan, P.; Paul, G.; Peakall, L.; Peiris, C.; Pemberton, V.; Perella, P.; Perry, D.; Phull, M.; Pickles, E.; Pickworth, S.; Picton, G.; Pitts, W.; Poncia, J.; Pookayil, S.; Potter, T.; Poulter, S.; Powell, E.; Powell, J.; Powell, L.; Powell, L.; Pramanik, I.; Prasad, P.; Preston, N.; Prince, B.; Puranik, S.; Qaiser, A.; Quintela, E.; Qureshi, E.; Radwan, M.; Rae, O.; Raeside, N.; Rai, B.; Raja, J.; Rajab, S.; Rajapaksa, D.; Rajendram, J.; Rajput, Z.; Ramesh, A.; Range, C.; Rashwan, A.; Read, M.; Reddy, A.; Reddy, H.; Reed, S.; Rees, G.; Rehill, H.; Reid, K.; Reynolds, H.; Riddell, N.; Riley, F.; Rimmer, A.; Rivers, J.; Roach, M.; Roberts, A.; Robson, M.; Rodgers, G.; Rogers, P.; Rowley, H.; Ruscitto, A.; Sadeghi, A.; Sahni, A.; Sakathevan, J.; Salim, F.; Salman, R.; Salwey, O.; Samways, A.; Samwel, P.; Sandrasegaram, N.; Sanganee, U.; Sasi, B.; Satti, S.; Saud Khan, M; Saunders, M.; Saward, S.; Schneider, N.; Schutzer‐Weissmann, J.; Schwiebert, C.; Scott, E.; Sell, C.; Servante, A.; Sethi, R.; Shah, S.; Sharif, B.; Sharma, A.; Shaw, D.; Shawaf, S.; Sheikh, M.; Shen, Y.; Shepherd, A.; Sheriff, N.; Shinner, B.; Shipway, T.; Short, A.; Simpson, A.; Simpson, B.; Singh, A.; Singh, A.; Singh, M.; Singh, M.; Sinnott, M.; Skidmore, K.; Slattery, J.; Slavova, I.; Smee, E.; Smith, A.; Smith, D.; Smith, T.; Snell, T.; Sonde, O.; Souleimanova, I.; Southern, J.; Spencer, L.; Spiking, J.; Spilsbury, Z.; Spiro, R.; Squire, Y.; Sriharan, S.; Stabler, R.; Stacey, L.; Stagg, K.; Stark, A.; Stenning‐Smith, P.; Stevenson, S.; Storey, M.; Sturrock, D.; Sudan, S.; Summons, G.; Swann, P.; Sykes, P.; Symonds, B.; Szakmany, T.; Tadikamalla, S.; Takacs, R.; Tate, S.; Taylor, I.; Teasdale, F.; Temperton, A.; Tham, S.; Thammaiah, Y.; Thomas, A.; Thomas, O.; Thomas, S.; Thompson, E.; Thurairatnam, R.; Tian, S.; Timoney, R.; Titterington, M.; Todhunter, S.; Tomkins, S.; Tomlins, S.; Townsend, R.; Trisolini Longobardi, G; Trivedi, V.; Tung, W.; Vaghani, J.; Vaghani, S.; Van Oss, R; Van‐Hien, A.; Vaghani, V.; Vere, R.; Vetuz, G.; Vincent, J.; Vinnakota, K.; Violaris, A.; Vitarana, R.; Walker, B.; Walker, S.; Walton, A.; Wanigabadu, L.; Ward, W.; Watson, J.; Watts, E.; Whitehead, N.; Wickramasuriya, T.; Williams, A.; Williams, N.; Williams, S.; Williams, B.; Wilson, A.; Wilson, H.; Wilson, I.; Wilson, P.; Wilson, R.; Wilson‐Evans, A.; Winstanley, M.; Winton, A.; Wong, G.; Wong, R.; Wood, A.; Wood, R.; Woodford, C.; Woodward, A.; Woolf, R.; Worthington, H.; Wreglesworth, L.; Wylie, M.; Yates, R.; Yearwood, A.; Yeow, D.; Yoon, S.; Younie, S.; Yuen, W.; Zalkapli, N.; Zhang, S.; and Zilkha, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, 78(1): 23–35. January 2023.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Aerosol$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{potter_aerosol_2023,\n\ttitle = {Aerosol precautions and airway complications: a national prospective multicentre cohort study},\n\tvolume = {78},\n\tissn = {0003-2409, 1365-2044},\n\tshorttitle = {Aerosol precautions and airway complications},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.15851},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15851},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2023-03-08},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Potter, T. and Cronin, J. N. and Kua, J. and Nurmi, E. and Wong, D. J. N. and Ahmad, I. and Cook, T. M. and El‐Boghdadly, K. and {the AeroComp Trainee Research Networks} and {Collaborators} and Abberton, T. and Abdelaziz, A. and Addy, M. and Aduse‐Poku, M. and Afifi, M. and Afzal, A. and Ahmad, A. and Ahmad, H. and Ainsworth, J. and Alexander, R. and Ali, Y. and Allen, C. and Aly, H. and Amer, S. and Anderson, C. and Andorka, M. and Applegate, R. and Armstrong, M. and Ashiru, G. and Ashton, L. and Aspinall, M. and Aulakh, A. and Avery, B. and Aziz, R. and Azize, M. and Babits, A. and Bailes, J. and Baker, C. and Baker‐Beal, L. and Bang, J.H. and Barker, O. and Barnes, J. and Barrett, V. and Bartlett, A. and Baxter, B. and Bayliss, E. and Beattie, R. and Bedwell, T. and Begbey, A. and Bennett, A. and Berg, J. and Beverley, S. and Bewley, J. and Bhatia, K. and Bhatti, R. and Bhudia, N. and Bishop, N. and Bloomfield, S. and Blundell, N. and Boampomaa, M. and Boles, S. and Bolton, G. and Boney, O. and Bose, S. and Bottomley, T. and Bower, J. and Bowes, K. and Bradford, J. and Brady, W. and Brathwaite‐Shirley, C. and Brookes, J. and Brown, A. and Brown, J. and Bukowska, I. and Burden, A. and Burke, O. and Burr, J. and Burrows, M. and Burton, M. and Butcher, A. and Cain, H. and Calabria, C. and Caldow, D. and Carley‐Smith, A. and Carnaby‐Bull, G. and Carter, H. and Carter, J.P. and Carver, A. and Carver, J. and Casey, J. and Cassin‐Scott, R. and Castle, D. and Celnik, D. and Chaddock, C. and Chalmers, L. and Chan, L. and Chan, T. and Chatburn, A. and Chauhan, N. and Chisti, K. and Chockalingam, P. and Chowdhury, R. and Church, J. and Clark, A. and Coady, G. and Cochran, D. and Cohen, J. and Collet, P. and Collett, P. and Colter, P. and Conti, J. and Cook, T. and Cooper, M. and Cope, E. and Cope, T. and Coppack, K. and Coulton, M. and Crabtree, S. and Craven, R. and Crockett, B. and Cromarty, E. and Cronin, J. and Cunnane, S. and Cushley, C. and Dalmonte, E. and Datta, P. and Daum, P. and Davenport, T. and Davies, C. and Davies, J. and Davies, T. and Davies, T. and Davies, V. and De Silva, A. and Derry, C. and Desbruslais, S. and Dhuna, S. and Docking, R. and Dolan, S. and Don, O. and Donohue, A. and Dow, O. and Dowse, C. and Dykes, B. and Eardley, J. and Eardley, M. and Edgeley, R. and Efthymiou, P. and Ekambaram, R. and El otmani, W. and El‐Boghdadly, K. and Elfaioumy, A. and Elkhawad, A. and Ellimah, T. and Elwkhiee, M. and Emms, T. and Eshelby, S. and Estrada, M. and Evans, E. and Exley, J. and Falkner, P. and Feddon, J. and Fedorova, D. and Fenner, T. and Fisher, J. and Fisher, J. and Flower, L. and Folley, R. and Foreman, S. and Foster, C. and Fox, J. and Foxwell, K. and Froud, O. and Fullbrook, A. and Gagrani, V. and Gallaher, J. and Gallop, F. and Gambino, G. and Ganesan, C. and Gauntlett, L. and George, D. and George, D. and Georgiou, C. and Ghosh, P. and Gilfedder, A. and Gill, N. and Gillan, C. and Glarbo, S. and Glover, I. and Goodman, J. and Goodman, J. and Gosal, A. and Graham, A. and Grant, A. and Gray, J. and Greener, D. and Greenlee, H. and Greenshields, N. and Griffiths, M. and Grimes, R. and Gui, J. and Gullis, A. and Gupta, A. and Gupta, S. and Hadfield, J. and Halford, P. and Hall, T. and Hammon, L. and Hardern, K. and Harding, K. and Hare, A. and Harman, W. and Haroon‐Mowahed, Y. and Harper, J. and Harris, J. and Harrison, C.M. and Harrogate, S. and Harrold, R. and Harrold, R. and Harvey, N. and Harvey, R. and Hassan, A. and Hassani, M. and Hassan‐Reshat, S. and Haththotuwegama, A. and Hattaway, M. and Hawes, R. and Hawkins, T. and He, J. and Heaton, T. and Henderson, K. and Heselden, E. and Heward, S. and Hinds, F. and Hirst, J. and Hobbiger, E. and Hodgetts, J. and Hodrali, N. and Hogan, N. and Hollis‐Smith, S. and Hollway, S. and Honstvet, C. and Hossack, D. and Howes, B. and Howes, H. and Howey, S. and Htyn, M. and Hu, K. and Huckle, D. and Hughes, C. and Hughes, D. and Hughes, R. and Hughes, R. and Hughes, T. and Humphry, E. and Hurug, C. and Hussain, T. and Huszka, H. and Huws, E. and Iliff, H.A. and Irfan, M. and Jackson, E. and Jackson, K. and Jackson, M. and Jacobs, E. and Jain, P. and Jamadarkhana, S. and Jambunathan, V. and Jani, P. and Jesani, L. and Jester, N. and Jones, A. and Jones, B. and Jones, R. and Jones, R. and Jones, S. and Jones, W. and Joshi, N. and Joyce, M. and Kafle‐Nath, S. and Kakad, S. and Kamaraj, K. and Kangesan, I. and Karlicka, D. and Kaur, L. and Kaye, D. and Kelly, K. and Kenesey, K. and Kent, S. and Kerr, M. and Keshvara, K. and Khalil, J. and Khan‐Perez, J. and Kidd, E. and Kirby, J. and Kirschen, T. and Ko, S. and Kubisz‐Pudelko, A. and Kulikouskaya, S. and Kumaran, G. and Lakhani, A. and Lalabekyan, B. and Lee, A.R. and Lee, T. and Lewis, M. and Lewsey, R. and Li, A. and Liddicoat, P. and Lie, J. and Lignos, L. and Lim, D. and Lindberg, E. and Lindskog, J. and Littler, C. and Liu, B. and Loka, T. and Lotlikar, A. and Lyons, M. and MacCarrick, T. and Macnaughton, K. and MacTaggart, J. and Mactier, I. and Madden, M. and Maese, S. and Magnano Di San Lio, S and Mahalingam, G. and Majeed, S. and Mak, K. and Makepeace, J. and Malik, Z. and Manalayil, J. and Mangham, T. and Markes, R. and Marriott, H. and Massa, T. and Mawondo, K. and May, S. and McAndrew, K. and McGreneghan, E. and McGuckin, D. and McGuire, B. and McIndoe, A. and McKavanagh, E. and McKechnie, A. and Mcphail, S. and Mcpherson, K. and Mctighe, A. and Mee, C. and Meeks, D. and Mehrotra, S. and Mehta, U. and Mehta, R. and Menon, A. and Meredith, R. and Merris, S. and Mew, E. and Middleditch, A. and Milward, J. and Min, J.Y. and Misquita, L. and Mitchard, M. and Mitra, S. and Moffitt, P. and Mohite, S. and Molloy, P. and Molyneux, M. and Molyneux, S. and Moncrieff, G. and Moore, S. and Moore, T. and Morgan, R. and Morgan, S. and Morgan, T. and Morley, O. and Morris, B. and Morrison, S. and Mount, M. and Moxon, H. and Muddanna, A. and Murphy, E. and Murphy, E. and Murphy, R. and Muschik, S. and Mushonga, K.L. and Nagarajan, V. and Nassar, H. and Natarajan, S. and Nepal, K. and Newton, T. and Nimaiyar, H. and Nixon, A. and Noble Johnston, J and Nolan, L. and O'Doherty, J. and Oakey, M. and O'Doherty, J. and O'Donnell, A. and O'Donnell, L. and O'Higgins, F. and Oldham, T. and O'Mahony, H. and Onyemuchara, I. and Orme, R. and Ormerod, V. and Osagie, O. and Osborne, L. and Osborne, S. and Osicki, T. and Otto, Q. and Overend, J. and Padman, D. and Park, N. and Parrott, N. and Patchell, I. and Patel, J. and Patel, M. and Patel, N. and Patel, R. and Patterson, G. and Patwardhan, P. and Paul, G. and Peakall, L. and Peiris, C. and Pemberton, V. and Perella, P. and Perry, D. and Phull, M. and Pickles, E. and Pickworth, S. and Picton, G. and Pitts, W. and Poncia, J. and Pookayil, S. and Potter, T. and Poulter, S. and Powell, E. and Powell, J. and Powell, L. and Powell, L. and Pramanik, I. and Prasad, P. and Preston, N. and Prince, B. and Puranik, S. and Qaiser, A. and Quintela, E. and Qureshi, E. and Radwan, M. and Rae, O. and Raeside, N. and Rai, B. and Raja, J. and Rajab, S. and Rajapaksa, D. and Rajendram, J. and Rajput, Z. and Ramesh, A. and Range, C. and Rashwan, A. and Read, M. and Reddy, A. and Reddy, H. and Reed, S. and Rees, G. and Rehill, H. and Reid, K. and Reynolds, H. and Riddell, N. and Riley, F. and Rimmer, A. and Rivers, J. and Roach, M. and Roberts, A. and Robson, M. and Rodgers, G. and Rogers, P. and Rowley, H. and Ruscitto, A. and Sadeghi, A. and Sahni, A. and Sakathevan, J. and Salim, F. and Salman, R. and Salwey, O. and Samways, A. and Samwel, P. and Sandrasegaram, N. and Sanganee, U. and Sasi, B. and Satti, S. and Saud Khan, M and Saunders, M. and Saward, S. and Schneider, N. and Schutzer‐Weissmann, J. and Schwiebert, C. and Scott, E. and Sell, C. and Servante, A. and Sethi, R. and Shah, S. and Sharif, B. and Sharma, A. and Shaw, D. and Shawaf, S. and Sheikh, M.Y. and Shen, Y. and Shepherd, A. and Sheriff, N. and Shinner, B.J. and Shipway, T. and Short, A. and Simpson, A. and Simpson, B. and Singh, A. and Singh, A. and Singh, M. and Singh, M. and Sinnott, M. and Skidmore, K. and Slattery, J. and Slavova, I. and Smee, E. and Smith, A. and Smith, D. and Smith, T. and Snell, T. and Sonde, O. and Souleimanova, I. and Southern, J. and Spencer, L. and Spiking, J. and Spilsbury, Z. and Spiro, R. and Squire, Y. and Sriharan, S. and Stabler, R. and Stacey, L. and Stagg, K. and Stark, A. and Stenning‐Smith, P. and Stevenson, S. and Storey, M. and Sturrock, D. and Sudan, S. and Summons, G. and Swann, P. and Sykes, P. and Symonds, B. and Szakmany, T. and Tadikamalla, S. and Takacs, R. and Tate, S. and Taylor, I. and Teasdale, F. and Temperton, A. and Tham, S. and Thammaiah, Y. and Thomas, A. and Thomas, O. and Thomas, S. and Thompson, E. and Thurairatnam, R. and Tian, S. and Timoney, R. and Titterington, M. and Todhunter, S. and Tomkins, S. and Tomlins, S. and Townsend, R. and Trisolini Longobardi, G and Trivedi, V. and Tung, W.S. and Vaghani, J. and Vaghani, S. and Van Oss, R and Van‐Hien, A. and Vaghani, V. and Vere, R. and Vetuz, G. and Vincent, J. and Vinnakota, K. and Violaris, A. and Vitarana, R. and Walker, B. and Walker, S. and Walton, A. and Wanigabadu, L. and Ward, W. and Watson, J.R. and Watts, E. and Whitehead, N. and Wickramasuriya, T. and Williams, A. and Williams, N. and Williams, S. and Williams, B. and Wilson, A. and Wilson, H. and Wilson, I. and Wilson, P. and Wilson, R. and Wilson‐Evans, A. and Winstanley, M. and Winton, A. and Wong, G. and Wong, R. and Wood, A. and Wood, R. and Woodford, C. and Woodward, A. and Woolf, R. and Worthington, H. and Wreglesworth, L. and Wylie, M. and Yates, R. and Yearwood, A. and Yeow, D. and Yoon, S. and Younie, S. and Yuen, W. and Zalkapli, N. and Zhang, S. and Zilkha, J.},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2023},\n\tpages = {23--35},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n

\n \n 2022\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Recognising oesophageal intubation.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ahmad, I.; and Wong, D. J. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, 77(12): 1321–1325. December 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Recognising$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{ahmad_recognising_2022,\n\ttitle = {Recognising oesophageal intubation},\n\tvolume = {77},\n\tissn = {0003-2409, 1365-2044},\n\turl = {https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.15894},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15894},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {12},\n\turldate = {2023-07-15},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Ahmad, I. and Wong, D. J. N.},\n\tmonth = dec,\n\tyear = {2022},\n\tpages = {1321--1325},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Anaesthetic training during the COVID-19 pandemic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Perella, P.; Conway, R.; and Wong, D. J. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, 77(1): 105–106. 2022.\n _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15587\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Anaesthetic$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{perella_anaesthetic_2022,\n\ttitle = {Anaesthetic training during the {COVID}-19 pandemic},\n\tvolume = {77},\n\tissn = {1365-2044},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/anae.15587},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15587},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2022-09-01},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Perella, P. and Conway, R. and Wong, D. J. N.},\n\tyear = {2022},\n\tnote = {\\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15587},\n\tpages = {105--106},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Recruitment to higher specialty training in anaesthesia in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national survey.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Subramaniam, J.; Durrant, F.; Edwardson, S.; El-Ghazali, S.; Holt, C.; McCrossan, R.; Pramanik, I.; and Wong, D. J. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, 77(5): 538–546. 2022.\n _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15660\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Recruitment$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{subramaniam_recruitment_2022,\n\ttitle = {Recruitment to higher specialty training in anaesthesia in the {UK} during the {COVID}-19 pandemic: a national survey},\n\tvolume = {77},\n\tissn = {1365-2044},\n\tshorttitle = {Recruitment to higher specialty training in anaesthesia in the {UK} during the {COVID}-19 pandemic},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/anae.15660},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15660},\n\tabstract = {There were more applications for higher specialty training posts in anaesthesia in the UK starting in August 2021 than in previous years, with approximately two-thirds being unsuccessful. We surveyed applicants to investigate their experience of the recruitment process (response rate 536/1056; 51\\%). Approximately 61\\% of respondents were not offered ST3 posts (n = 326). We enquired about their career plans for the next 12–24 months. Most respondents (79\\%) intended to take up a post equivalent to a third year of core training or a clinical fellow post from August 2021. Other options considered included: pursuing work abroad (17\\%); embarking on career breaks (16\\%); taking up higher training posts in intensive care medicine (15\\%); and permanently leaving medicine (9\\%). Nine per cent of respondents also expressed plans to pursue training in another medical specialty. Some expressed an intention to pursue further education or research (10\\%). A large proportion (42\\%) expressed a lack of confidence in being able to achieve the training requirements to later apply for a higher training post. The majority reported not feeling confident in achieving specialist registration in anaesthesia in the future without a training number (75\\%), and noted disruption to their wider life plans from the impending time out of training (78\\%). Sentiment analysis of free-text responses indicated generally negative sentiment about the recruitment process. Themes elicited included: feeling the recruitment process was unfair; burnout and negative impact on well-being; difficulties in making life plans; and feeling undervalued and abandoned. These results suggest that junior anaesthetic doctors in the UK negatively perceived postgraduate training structures and changes to the postgraduate curriculum and experienced difficulties in securing higher training.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {5},\n\turldate = {2022-09-01},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Subramaniam, J. and Durrant, F. and Edwardson, S. and El-Ghazali, S. and Holt, C. and McCrossan, R. and Pramanik, I. and Wong, D. J. N.},\n\tyear = {2022},\n\tnote = {\\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15660},\n\tkeywords = {recruitment, speciality training, well-being},\n\tpages = {538--546},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n

\n \n 2021\n \n \n (19)\n \n \n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Emergency Airway Management in COVID-19: Reply.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n El-Boghdadly, K.; Wong, D. J. N.; Johnstone, C.; Ahmad, I.; and on behalf of the intubateCOVID Collaborators\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anesthesiology, (10.1097/ALN.0000000000004061). November 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Emergency$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{el-boghdadly_emergency_2021,\n\ttitle = {Emergency {Airway} {Management} in {COVID}-19: {Reply}},\n\tissn = {0003-3022},\n\tshorttitle = {Emergency {Airway} {Management} in {COVID}-19},\n\turl = {https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000004061},\n\tdoi = {10.1097/ALN.0000000000004061},\n\tnumber = {10.1097/ALN.0000000000004061},\n\turldate = {2021-11-12},\n\tjournal = {Anesthesiology},\n\tauthor = {El-Boghdadly, Kariem and Wong, Danny J. N. and Johnstone, Craig and Ahmad, Imran and {on behalf of the intubateCOVID Collaborators}},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2021},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Effects of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery: an international prospective cohort study.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Collaborative, C.; and Collaborative, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, 76(11): 1454–1464. 2021.\n _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15560\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Effects$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{collaborative_effects_2021,\n\ttitle = {Effects of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery: an international prospective cohort study},\n\tvolume = {76},\n\tissn = {1365-2044},\n\tshorttitle = {Effects of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/anae.15560},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15560},\n\tabstract = {We aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9\\%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0\\%) patients of which 227 (11.7\\%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1\\% vs 2.0\\%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95\\%CI 1.05–1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95\\%CI) at 4–7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04–1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11–1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {11},\n\turldate = {2021-11-12},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Collaborative, COVIDSurg and Collaborative, GlobalSurg},\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tnote = {\\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15560},\n\tkeywords = {COVID-19, SARS-Cov-2, pathways, pre-operative isolation, surgery},\n\tpages = {1454--1464},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n

\n We aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05–1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4–7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04–1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11–1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Staff: our most valuable asset.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wong, D. J. N.; Bailey, C. R.; and El-Boghdadly, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, n/a(n/a). July 2021.\n _eprint: https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15543\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Staff:$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{wong_staff_2021,\n\ttitle = {Staff: our most valuable asset},\n\tvolume = {n/a},\n\tissn = {1365-2044},\n\tshorttitle = {Staff},\n\turl = {https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/anae.15543},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15543},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {n/a},\n\turldate = {2021-07-21},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Wong, D. J. N. and Bailey, C. R. and El-Boghdadly, K.},\n\tmonth = jul,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tnote = {\\_eprint: https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15543},\n\tkeywords = {COVID-19, pandemic, resource utilisation, staffing},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Anaesthetic Higher Specialty Training Recruitment in the United Kingdom During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Survey.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Durrant, F.; Edwardson, S.; El-Ghazali, S.; Holt, C.; McCrossan, R.; Pramanik, I.; Subramaniam, J.; and Wong, D. J. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n medRxiv,2021.07.03.21259616. July 2021.\n Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Anaesthetic$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{durrant_anaesthetic_2021,\n\ttitle = {Anaesthetic {Higher} {Specialty} {Training} {Recruitment} in the {United} {Kingdom} {During} the {COVID}-19 {Pandemic}: {A} {National} {Survey}},\n\tcopyright = {© 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.},\n\tshorttitle = {Anaesthetic {Higher} {Specialty} {Training} {Recruitment} in the {United} {Kingdom} {During} the {COVID}-19 {Pandemic}},\n\turl = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.03.21259616v1},\n\tdoi = {10.1101/2021.07.03.21259616},\n\tabstract = {{\\textless}p{\\textgreater}The most recent ST3 Anaesthetic recruitment for posts commencing in August 2021 saw larger numbers of applicants (n = 1,056) compared to previous years, with approximately 700 applicants failing to secure an ST3 post. We surveyed 536 anaesthetic junior doctors who applied for ST3 posts during this application round with the aim of investigating their experience of the recruitment process this year (response rate 536/1,056 = 51\\%). Approximately 61\\% were not offered ST3 posts (n = 326), a similar proportion to that previously reported. We asked all respondents what their potential career plans were for the next 12 to 24 months. The majority expressed intentions to take up either CT3 top-up posts or non-training fellow posts from August 2021 (79\\%). Other options considered by respondents included: pursuing work abroad (17\\%), embarking on a career break (16\\%), taking up an ST3 post in intensive care medicine instead of anaesthetics (15\\%) and permanently leaving the medical profession (9\\%). A number of respondents expressed a desire to pursue training in a different medical specialty (9\\%). Some respondents expressed an intention to pursue further education or research (10\\%). A large proportion of respondents (42\\%) expressed a lack of confidence in being able to achieve the necessary training requirements to later apply for ST4 in August 2023. The majority of respondents reported not feeling confident in achieving GMC Specialty Registration in Anaesthesia in the future without a training number (75\\%), and that their wider life plans have been disrupted due to the impending time out of training (78\\%). We received a total of 384 free-text responses to a question asking about general concerns regarding the ST3 applications process. Sentiment analysis of these free-text responses indicated that respondents felt generally negatively about the ST3 recruitment process. Some themes that were elicited from the responses included: respondents feeling the recruitment process lacked fairness, respondents suffering burnout and negative impacts on their wellbeing, difficulties in making plans for their personal lives, and feeling undervalued and abandoned despite having made personal sacrifices to support the health service during the COVID-19 pandemic. These results suggest that junior anaesthetic doctors in the UK currently have a negative perception towards postgraduate training structures, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, changes to the postgraduate training curriculum and difficulties in securing higher training posts.{\\textless}/p{\\textgreater}},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-07-15},\n\tjournal = {medRxiv},\n\tauthor = {Durrant, Fionnuala and Edwardson, Stuart and El-Ghazali, Sally and Holt, Christopher and McCrossan, Roopa and Pramanik, Ileena and Subramaniam, Jeevakan and Wong, Danny J. N.},\n\tmonth = jul,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tnote = {Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press},\n\tpages = {2021.07.03.21259616},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \\textlessp\\textgreaterThe most recent ST3 Anaesthetic recruitment for posts commencing in August 2021 saw larger numbers of applicants (n = 1,056) compared to previous years, with approximately 700 applicants failing to secure an ST3 post. We surveyed 536 anaesthetic junior doctors who applied for ST3 posts during this application round with the aim of investigating their experience of the recruitment process this year (response rate 536/1,056 = 51%). Approximately 61% were not offered ST3 posts (n = 326), a similar proportion to that previously reported. We asked all respondents what their potential career plans were for the next 12 to 24 months. The majority expressed intentions to take up either CT3 top-up posts or non-training fellow posts from August 2021 (79%). Other options considered by respondents included: pursuing work abroad (17%), embarking on a career break (16%), taking up an ST3 post in intensive care medicine instead of anaesthetics (15%) and permanently leaving the medical profession (9%). A number of respondents expressed a desire to pursue training in a different medical specialty (9%). Some respondents expressed an intention to pursue further education or research (10%). A large proportion of respondents (42%) expressed a lack of confidence in being able to achieve the necessary training requirements to later apply for ST4 in August 2023. The majority of respondents reported not feeling confident in achieving GMC Specialty Registration in Anaesthesia in the future without a training number (75%), and that their wider life plans have been disrupted due to the impending time out of training (78%). We received a total of 384 free-text responses to a question asking about general concerns regarding the ST3 applications process. Sentiment analysis of these free-text responses indicated that respondents felt generally negatively about the ST3 recruitment process. Some themes that were elicited from the responses included: respondents feeling the recruitment process lacked fairness, respondents suffering burnout and negative impacts on their wellbeing, difficulties in making plans for their personal lives, and feeling undervalued and abandoned despite having made personal sacrifices to support the health service during the COVID-19 pandemic. These results suggest that junior anaesthetic doctors in the UK currently have a negative perception towards postgraduate training structures, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, changes to the postgraduate training curriculum and difficulties in securing higher training posts.\\textless/p\\textgreater\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Treatment threshold for intra-operative hypotension in clinical practice—a prospective cohort study in older patients in the UK.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wickham, A. J.; Highton, D. T.; Clark, S.; Fallaha, D.; Wong, D. J. N.; and Martin, D. S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, n/a(n/a). June 2021.\n _eprint: https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15535\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Treatment$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{wickham_treatment_2021,\n\ttitle = {Treatment threshold for intra-operative hypotension in clinical practice—a prospective cohort study in older patients in the {UK}},\n\tvolume = {n/a},\n\tissn = {1365-2044},\n\turl = {https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/anae.15535},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15535},\n\tabstract = {Intra-operative hypotension frequently complicates anaesthesia in older patients and is implicated in peri-operative organ hypoperfusion and injury. The prevalence and corresponding treatment thresholds of hypotension are incompletely described in the UK. This study aimed to identify prevalence of intra-operative hypotension and its treatment thresholds in UK practice. Patients aged ≥ 65 years were studied prospectively from 196 UK hospitals within a 48-hour timeframe. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension (mean arterial pressure {\\textless}65 mmHg; systolic blood pressure reduction {\\textgreater}20\\%; systolic blood pressure {\\textless}100 mmHg). Secondary outcomes included the treatment blood pressure threshold for vasopressors; incidence of acute kidney injury; myocardial injury; stroke; and in-hospital mortality. Additionally, anaesthetists providing care for included patients were asked to complete a survey assessing their intended treatment thresholds for hypotension. Data were collected from 4750 patients. Hypotension affected 61.0\\% of patients when defined as mean arterial pressure {\\textless}65 mmHg, 91.3\\% of patients had {\\textgreater}20\\% reduction in systolic blood pressure from baseline and 77.5\\% systolic blood pressure {\\textless}100 mmHg. The mean (SD) blood pressure triggering vasopressor therapy was mean arterial pressure 64.2 (11.6) mmHg and the mean (SD) stated intended treatment threshold from the survey was mean arterial pressure 60.6 (9.7) mmHg. A composite adverse outcome of myocardial injury, kidney injury, stroke or death affected 345 patients (7.3\\%). In this representative sample of UK peri-operative practice, the majority of older patients experienced intra-operative hypotension and treatment was delivered below suggested thresholds. This highlights both potential for intra-operative organ injury and substantial opportunity for improving treatment of intra-operative hypotension.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {n/a},\n\turldate = {2021-07-15},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Wickham, A. J. and Highton, D. T. and Clark, S. and Fallaha, D. and Wong, D. J. N. and Martin, D. S.},\n\tmonth = jun,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tnote = {\\_eprint: https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15535},\n\tkeywords = {acute kidney injury, aged, hypotension, peri-operative care, postoperative complications, stroke},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Emergency Airway Management in Patients with COVID-19: A Prospective International Multicenter Cohort Study.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wong, D. J. N.; El-Boghdadly, K.; Owen, R.; Johnstone, C.; Neuman, M. D.; Andruszkiewicz, P.; Baker, P. A.; Biccard, B. M.; Bryson, G. L.; Chan, M. T. V.; Cheng, M. H.; Chin, K. J.; Coburn, M.; Jonsson Fagerlund, M.; Lobo, C. A.; Martinez-Hurtado, E.; Myatra, S. N.; Myles, P. S.; Navarro, G.; O’Sullivan, E.; Pasin, L.; Quintero, K.; Shallik, N.; Shamim, F.; van Klei, W. A.; and Ahmad, I.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anesthesiology, 135(2): 292–303. August 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Emergency$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{wong_emergency_2021,\n\ttitle = {Emergency {Airway} {Management} in {Patients} with {COVID}-19: {A} {Prospective} {International} {Multicenter} {Cohort} {Study}},\n\tvolume = {135},\n\tissn = {0003-3022},\n\tshorttitle = {Emergency {Airway} {Management} in {Patients} with {COVID}-19},\n\turl = {https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000003791},\n\tdoi = {10.1097/ALN.0000000000003791},\n\tabstract = {Tracheal intubation for patients with COVID-19 is required for invasive mechanical ventilation. The authors sought to describe practice for emergency intubation, estimate success rates and complications, and determine variation in practice and outcomes between high-income and low- and middle-income countries. The authors hypothesized that successful emergency airway management in patients with COVID-19 is associated with geographical and procedural factors.The authors performed a prospective observational cohort study between March 23, 2020, and October 24, 2020, which included 4,476 episodes of emergency tracheal intubation performed by 1,722 clinicians from 607 institutions across 32 countries in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. The authors investigated associations between intubation and operator characteristics, and the primary outcome of first-attempt success.Successful first-attempt tracheal intubation was achieved in 4,017/4,476 (89.7\\%) episodes, while 23 of 4,476 (0.5\\%) episodes required four or more attempts. Ten emergency surgical airways were reported—an approximate incidence of 1 in 450 (10 of 4,476). Failed intubation (defined as emergency surgical airway, four or more attempts, or a supraglottic airway as the final device) occurred in approximately 1 of 120 episodes (36 of 4,476). Successful first attempt was more likely during rapid sequence induction versus non–rapid sequence induction (adjusted odds ratio, 1.89 [95\\% CI, 1.49 to 2.39]; P \\&lt; 0.001), when operators used powered air-purifying respirators versus nonpowered respirators (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60 [95\\% CI, 1.16 to 2.20]; P = 0.006), and when performed by operators with more COVID-19 intubations recorded (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 for each additional previous intubation [95\\% CI, 1.01 to 1.06]; P = 0.015). Intubations performed in low- or middle-income countries were less likely to be successful at first attempt than in high-income countries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57 [95\\% CI, 0.41 to 0.79]; P = 0.001).The authors report rates of failed tracheal intubation and emergency surgical airway in patients with COVID-19 requiring emergency airway management, and identified factors associated with increased success. Risks of tracheal intubation failure and success should be considered when managing COVID-19.IntubateCOVID is a large, multinational, multispecialty, voluntary, self-reported database of healthcare workers who have performed intubations on patients with known or suspected COVID-19 established shortly after the widespread onset of the pandemic in March 2020. Data collection focuses on practitioner and hospital level characteristics related to the intubation, and no patient identifiable characteristics are collected. Practitioners record any subsequent symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 or positive tests for it.The authors report a secondary analysis of associations of intubation and operator characteristics related to the primary outcome of first-attempt intubation success in 4,476 intubations among 1,722 clinicians at 607 institutions across 32 countries, also considering differential rates of success between high-income and low- and middle-income countries.Although successful first-attempt intubation was noted in 89.7\\% of intubations, 0.5\\% required four or more attempts, an emergency surgical airway was required in 0.2\\%, and a composite variable of failed intubation occurred in 0.8\\%.Multivariable analysis demonstrated that successful first attempts were more likely with rapid sequence intubations, when operators used powered air-purifying respirators, and with increasing operator experience.Intubations performed in low- and middle-income countries were nearly half as likely to be successful on first attempt than in high-income countries.These results provide potentially useful information for global and local policy-making related to this and future pandemics. However, the observational nature, along with lack of patient level characteristics, leave room for residual confounding of these associations.},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\turldate = {2021-07-15},\n\tjournal = {Anesthesiology},\n\tauthor = {Wong, Danny J. N. and El-Boghdadly, Kariem and Owen, Ruth and Johnstone, Craig and Neuman, Mark D. and Andruszkiewicz, Paweł and Baker, Paul A. and Biccard, Bruce M. and Bryson, Gregory L. and Chan, Matthew T. V. and Cheng, Ming Hua and Chin, Ki Jinn and Coburn, Mark and Jonsson Fagerlund, Malin and Lobo, Clara A. and Martinez-Hurtado, Eugenio and Myatra, Sheila N. and Myles, Paul S. and Navarro, Guillermo and O’Sullivan, Ellen and Pasin, Laura and Quintero, Kathleen and Shallik, Nabil and Shamim, Faisal and van Klei, Wilton A. and Ahmad, Imran},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {292--303},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n

\n Tracheal intubation for patients with COVID-19 is required for invasive mechanical ventilation. The authors sought to describe practice for emergency intubation, estimate success rates and complications, and determine variation in practice and outcomes between high-income and low- and middle-income countries. The authors hypothesized that successful emergency airway management in patients with COVID-19 is associated with geographical and procedural factors.The authors performed a prospective observational cohort study between March 23, 2020, and October 24, 2020, which included 4,476 episodes of emergency tracheal intubation performed by 1,722 clinicians from 607 institutions across 32 countries in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. The authors investigated associations between intubation and operator characteristics, and the primary outcome of first-attempt success.Successful first-attempt tracheal intubation was achieved in 4,017/4,476 (89.7%) episodes, while 23 of 4,476 (0.5%) episodes required four or more attempts. Ten emergency surgical airways were reported—an approximate incidence of 1 in 450 (10 of 4,476). Failed intubation (defined as emergency surgical airway, four or more attempts, or a supraglottic airway as the final device) occurred in approximately 1 of 120 episodes (36 of 4,476). Successful first attempt was more likely during rapid sequence induction versus non–rapid sequence induction (adjusted odds ratio, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.39]; P < 0.001), when operators used powered air-purifying respirators versus nonpowered respirators (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.20]; P = 0.006), and when performed by operators with more COVID-19 intubations recorded (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 for each additional previous intubation [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06]; P = 0.015). Intubations performed in low- or middle-income countries were less likely to be successful at first attempt than in high-income countries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79]; P = 0.001).The authors report rates of failed tracheal intubation and emergency surgical airway in patients with COVID-19 requiring emergency airway management, and identified factors associated with increased success. Risks of tracheal intubation failure and success should be considered when managing COVID-19.IntubateCOVID is a large, multinational, multispecialty, voluntary, self-reported database of healthcare workers who have performed intubations on patients with known or suspected COVID-19 established shortly after the widespread onset of the pandemic in March 2020. Data collection focuses on practitioner and hospital level characteristics related to the intubation, and no patient identifiable characteristics are collected. Practitioners record any subsequent symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 or positive tests for it.The authors report a secondary analysis of associations of intubation and operator characteristics related to the primary outcome of first-attempt intubation success in 4,476 intubations among 1,722 clinicians at 607 institutions across 32 countries, also considering differential rates of success between high-income and low- and middle-income countries.Although successful first-attempt intubation was noted in 89.7% of intubations, 0.5% required four or more attempts, an emergency surgical airway was required in 0.2%, and a composite variable of failed intubation occurred in 0.8%.Multivariable analysis demonstrated that successful first attempts were more likely with rapid sequence intubations, when operators used powered air-purifying respirators, and with increasing operator experience.Intubations performed in low- and middle-income countries were nearly half as likely to be successful on first attempt than in high-income countries.These results provide potentially useful information for global and local policy-making related to this and future pandemics. However, the observational nature, along with lack of patient level characteristics, leave room for residual confounding of these associations.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n COVIDSurg Collaborative; and GlobalSurg Collaborative\n\n\n \n\n\n\n British Journal of Surgery, (znab101). March 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"SARS-CoV-2$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{covidsurg_collaborative_sars-cov-2_2021,\n\ttitle = {{SARS}-{CoV}-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study},\n\tissn = {0007-1323},\n\tshorttitle = {{SARS}-{CoV}-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives},\n\turl = {https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znab101},\n\tdoi = {10.1093/bjs/znab101},\n\tabstract = {Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling.The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18–49, 50–69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty.NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year.As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population.},\n\tnumber = {znab101},\n\turldate = {2021-04-11},\n\tjournal = {British Journal of Surgery},\n\tauthor = {{COVIDSurg Collaborative} and {GlobalSurg Collaborative}},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2021},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Prospective observational study of gender and ethnicity biases in respiratory protective equipment for healthcare workers in the COVID-19 pandemic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Carvalho, C. Y. M.; Schumacher, J.; Greig, P. R.; Wong, D. J. N.; and El-Boghdadly, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BMJ Open, 11(5): e047716. May 2021.\n Publisher: British Medical Journal Publishing Group Section: Global health\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Prospective$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{carvalho_prospective_2021,\n\ttitle = {Prospective observational study of gender and ethnicity biases in respiratory protective equipment for healthcare workers in the {COVID}-19 pandemic},\n\tvolume = {11},\n\tcopyright = {© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.},\n\tissn = {2044-6055, 2044-6055},\n\turl = {https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/5/e047716},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047716},\n\tabstract = {Objective To describe success rates of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) fit testing and factors associated with achieving suitable fit.\nDesign Prospective observational study of RPE fit testing according to health and safety, and occupational health requirements.\nSetting A large tertiary referral UK healthcare facility.\nPopulation 1443 healthcare workers undergoing quantitative fit testing.\nMain outcome measures Quantitative fit test success (pass/fail) and the count of tests each participant required before successful fit.\nResults Healthcare workers were fit tested a median (IQR) 2 (1–3) times before successful fit was obtained. Males were tested a median 1 (1–2) times, while females were tested a median 2 (1–2) times before a successful fit was found. This difference was statistically significant (p{\\textless}0.001). Modelling each fit test as its own independent trial (n=2359) using multivariable logistic regression, male healthcare workers were significantly more likely to find a well-fitting respirator and achieve a successful fit on first attempt in comparison to females, after adjusting for other factors (adjusted OR=2.07, 95\\% CI): 1.66 to 2.60, p{\\textless}0.001). Staff who described their ethnicity as White were also more likely to achieve a successful fit compared with staff who described their ethnicity as Asian (OR=0.47, 95\\% CI: 0.38 to 0.58, p{\\textless}0.001), Black (OR=0.54, 95\\% CI: 0.41 to 0.71, p{\\textless}0.001), mixed (OR=0.50 95\\% CI: 0.31 to 0.80, p=0.004) or other (OR=0.53, 95\\% CI: 0.29 to 0.99, p=0.043).\nConclusions Male and White ethnicity healthcare workers are more likely to achieve RPE fit test success. This has broad operational implications to healthcare services with a large female and Black, Asian and minority ethnic group population. Fit testing is imperative in ensuring RPE effectiveness in protecting healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {5},\n\turldate = {2021-05-23},\n\tjournal = {BMJ Open},\n\tauthor = {Carvalho, Clarissa Y. M. and Schumacher, Jan and Greig, Paul Robert and Wong, Danny J. N. and El-Boghdadly, Kariem},\n\tmonth = may,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpmid = {34016664},\n\tnote = {Publisher: British Medical Journal Publishing Group\nSection: Global health},\n\tkeywords = {COVID-19, adult intensive \\& critical care, health \\& safety, occupational \\& industrial medicine},\n\tpages = {e047716},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A simulation study investigating the spread of water droplets during oxygen therapy: where is it safe to stand?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Subramaniam, J.; Meeks, D.; Forbes, A.; Wong, D. J. N.; Ward, C.; and McKechnie, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie. April 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{subramaniam_simulation_2021,\n\ttitle = {A simulation study investigating the spread of water droplets during oxygen therapy: where is it safe to stand?},\n\tissn = {1496-8975},\n\tshorttitle = {A simulation study investigating the spread of water droplets during oxygen therapy},\n\turl = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-021-02003-4},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s12630-021-02003-4},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-05-06},\n\tjournal = {Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie},\n\tauthor = {Subramaniam, Jeevakan and Meeks, Daveena and Forbes, Anna and Wong, Danny J. N. and Ward, Christopher and McKechnie, Andrew},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2021},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Timing of surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international prospective cohort study.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n COVIDSurg Collaborative; and GlobalSurg Collaborative\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia. March 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{covidsurg_collaborative_timing_2021,\n\ttitle = {Timing of surgery following {SARS}-{CoV}-2 infection: an international prospective cohort study},\n\tissn = {1365-2044},\n\tshorttitle = {Timing of surgery following {SARS}-{CoV}-2 infection},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15458},\n\tabstract = {Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. From 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2\\%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5\\% (95\\%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odd ratio (95\\%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odd ratio (95\\%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0\\% (95\\%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4\\% (95\\%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3\\% (95\\%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {{COVIDSurg Collaborative} and {GlobalSurg Collaborative}},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpmid = {33690889},\n\tkeywords = {COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, delay, surgery, timing},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Mode of Anesthesia and Quality of Recovery After Breast Surgery: A Case Series of 100 Patients.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Nair, G.; Wong, D. J; Chan, E.; Alexander, T.; Jeevananthan, R.; and Pawa, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Cureus. March 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Mode$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{nair_mode_2021,\n\ttitle = {Mode of {Anesthesia} and {Quality} of {Recovery} {After} {Breast} {Surgery}: {A} {Case} {Series} of 100 {Patients}},\n\tissn = {2168-8184},\n\tshorttitle = {Mode of {Anesthesia} and {Quality} of {Recovery} {After} {Breast} {Surgery}},\n\turl = {https://www.cureus.com/articles/53973-mode-of-anesthesia-and-quality-of-recovery-after-breast-surgery-a-case-series-of-100-patients},\n\tdoi = {10.7759/cureus.13822},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-04-11},\n\tjournal = {Cureus},\n\tauthor = {Nair, Ganeshkrishna and Wong, Danny  J and Chan, Edmund and Alexander, Tamara and Jeevananthan, Rajeev and Pawa, Amit},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2021},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Can gendered personal protective equipment design account for high infection rates in female healthcare workers following intubation? A reply.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wong, D. J. N.; El‐Boghdadly, K.; Johnstone, C.; Ahmad, I.; and the intubate COVID collaborators\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, 76(1): 133–133. January 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Can$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{wong_can_2021,\n\ttitle = {Can gendered personal protective equipment design account for high infection rates in female healthcare workers following intubation? {A} reply},\n\tvolume = {76},\n\tissn = {0003-2409, 1365-2044},\n\tshorttitle = {Can gendered personal protective equipment design account for high infection rates in female healthcare workers following intubation?},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.15207},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15207},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-03-15},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Wong, D. J. N. and El‐Boghdadly, K. and Johnstone, C. and Ahmad, I. and {the intubate COVID collaborators}},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {133--133},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n In reply: The criteria used to justify endotracheal intubation of patients with COVID-19 are worrisome.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wong, D. J. N.; Ahmad, I.; Jeyarajah, J.; Vowles, B.; Ragbourne, S.; Nair, G.; and El-Boghdadly, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, 68(2): 260–261. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"In$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{wong_reply_2021,\n\ttitle = {In reply: {The} criteria used to justify endotracheal intubation of patients with {COVID}-19 are worrisome},\n\tvolume = {68},\n\tissn = {0832-610X, 1496-8975},\n\tshorttitle = {In reply},\n\turl = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12630-020-01854-7},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s12630-020-01854-7},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\turldate = {2021-03-15},\n\tjournal = {Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie},\n\tauthor = {Wong, Danny J. N. and Ahmad, Imran and Jeyarajah, Jeyanjali and Vowles, Benjamin and Ragbourne, Sophie and Nair, Ganeshkrishna and El-Boghdadly, Kariem},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {260--261},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A missed opportunity to promote regional anaesthesia.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Alexander, T.; Wong, D. J. N.; Jeevananthan, R.; and Pawa, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia,anae.15382. January 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{alexander_missed_2021,\n\ttitle = {A missed opportunity to promote regional anaesthesia},\n\tissn = {0003-2409, 1365-2044},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.15382},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15382},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-03-15},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Alexander, T. and Wong, D. J. N. and Jeevananthan, R. and Pawa, A.},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {anae.15382},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Trends in personal protective equipment use by clinicians performing airway procedures for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in the USA from the intubateCOVID registry.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Gaulton, T. G.; Neuman, M. D.; Gaulton, T.; Neuman, M.; Lane-Fall, M.; Gaskins, L.; Dattilo, J.; El-Boghdadly, K.; Wong, D. J.; Ahmad, I.; Johnstone, C.; Gutstein, H. B.; Muehlschlegel, J. D.; Hua, M.; Fonseca, L.; Mitrev, L.; Low, Y.; Gupta, D.; Ayad, S.; Volio, A.; Salih, A.; Kim, D.; Nutcharoen, A.; Skolaris, A.; Sherman, M.; Giska, M.; Nowak, K.; Chhina, A.; Guruswamy, J.; Penning, D.; Majewski, M.; Nagrebetsky, A.; Houle, T.; Aziz, M. F.; Freed, J. K.; Lien, C. A.; Mihm, F.; Desai, P. M.; Fahy, B. G.; Davies, L.; Adair, K.; Gunnett, A.; Mhyre, J. M.; Sharawi, N.; Applegate, R.; Brzenski, A.; Lin, M. Y.; Olmos, A.; Chen, C. L.; Gropper, M.; Shochat, G.; Hoefnagel, A.; Ranganath, Y.; Sibenellar, Z.; Colquhoun, D. A.; Cloyd, B. H.; Healy, D. W.; Mathis, M. R.; Schechtman, S. A.; Steadman, J.; Stuart, A.; Bott, S.; Gerety, L.; Fisher, J. M.; Friend, A. F.; Breidenstein, M. W.; Domino, K. B.; Cervantes, V.; Joffe, A. M.; Dutton, R.; Shanahan, J.; Leissner, K. B.; Jaffe, J. D.; Strathman, A.; Khanna, A. K.; Segal, B. S.; Harris, L.; Fowler, J.; Johnson, K.; Hill, S. S.; Murrell, M. T.; Panzica, P.; Mittnacht, A.; Abramowicz, E.; Wecksell, M.; Schonberger, R. B.; Li, J.; Michel, S.; Treggiari, M.; Berstein, S.; and Dashevksy, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n British Journal of Anaesthesia,S0007091221000416. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Trends$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{gaulton_trends_2021,\n\ttitle = {Trends in personal protective equipment use by clinicians performing airway procedures for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in the {USA} from the {intubateCOVID} registry},\n\tissn = {00070912},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0007091221000416},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.bja.2021.01.019},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-03-15},\n\tjournal = {British Journal of Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Gaulton, Timothy G. and Neuman, Mark D. and Gaulton, Timothy and Neuman, Mark and Lane-Fall, Meghan and Gaskins, Lakisha and Dattilo, James and El-Boghdadly, Kariem and Wong, Danny J.N. and Ahmad, Imran and Johnstone, Craig and Gutstein, Howard B. and Muehlschlegel, Jochen D. and Hua, May and Fonseca, Laura and Mitrev, Ludmil and Low, Yinhui and Gupta, Dhanesh and Ayad, Sabry and Volio, Andrew and Salih, Ahmed and Kim, Daniel and Nutcharoen, Aratara and Skolaris, Alexis and Sherman, Marian and Giska, Mark and Nowak, Katherine and Chhina, Anoop and Guruswamy, Jayakar and Penning, Donald and Majewski, Michael and Nagrebetsky, Alexander and Houle, Timothy and Aziz, Michael F. and Freed, Julie K. and Lien, Cynthia A. and Mihm, Fred and Desai, Pankaj M. and Fahy, Brenda G. and Davies, Laurie and Adair, Kelsey and Gunnett, Amy and Mhyre, Jill M. and Sharawi, Nadir and Applegate, Richard and Brzenski, Alyssa and Lin, Michael Y. and Olmos, Andrea and Chen, Catherine L. and Gropper, Michael and Shochat, Guy and Hoefnagel, Amie and Ranganath, Yatish and Sibenellar, Zita and Colquhoun, Douglas A. and Cloyd, Benjamin H. and Healy, David W. and Mathis, Michael R. and Schechtman, Samuel A. and Steadman, Joy and Stuart, Ami and Bott, Steven and Gerety, Lyle and Fisher, J. Matthew and Friend, Alexander F. and Breidenstein, Max W. and Domino, Karen B. and Cervantes, Vanessa and Joffe, Aaron M. and Dutton, Richard and Shanahan, Jessica and Leissner, Kay B. and Jaffe, J. Doug and Strathman, Andrea and Khanna, Ashish K. and Segal, B. Scott and Harris, Lynnette and Fowler, Jacob and Johnson, Kathleen and Hill, Shanna S. and Murrell, Matthew T. and Panzica, Peter and Mittnacht, Alexander and Abramowicz, Elizabeth and Wecksell, Matthew and Schonberger, Robert B. and Li, Jinlei and Michel, Shannon and Treggiari, Miriam and Berstein, Steven and Dashevksy, Meir},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {S0007091221000416},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Book Review: Anatomy for the FRCA.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Smith, C. L.; Wong, D. J.; and Thomas, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n British Journal of Anaesthesia, 126(3): 746–747. March 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Book$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{smith_book_2021,\n\ttitle = {Book {Review}: {Anatomy} for the {FRCA}},\n\tvolume = {126},\n\tissn = {00070912},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0007091220309983},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.bja.2020.12.012},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\turldate = {2021-03-15},\n\tjournal = {British Journal of Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Smith, Charlotte L. and Wong, Danny J.N. and Thomas, Huw},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {746--747},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Reproducibility and transparency in anaesthesiology research. Comment on Br J Anaesth 2020; 125: 835–42.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wong, D. J.; and Palmer, E.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n British Journal of Anaesthesia, 126(3): e104–e105. March 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Reproducibility$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{wong_reproducibility_2021,\n\ttitle = {Reproducibility and transparency in anaesthesiology research. {Comment} on {Br} {J} {Anaesth} 2020; 125: 835–42},\n\tvolume = {126},\n\tissn = {00070912},\n\tshorttitle = {Reproducibility and transparency in anaesthesiology research. {Comment} on {Br} {J} {Anaesth} 2020; 125},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0007091220310229},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.bja.2020.12.024},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\turldate = {2021-03-15},\n\tjournal = {British Journal of Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Wong, Danny J.N. and Palmer, Edward},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {e104--e105},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n healthcareCOVID: a national cross-sectional observational study identifying risk factors for developing suspected or confirmed COVID-19 in UK healthcare workers.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kua, J.; Patel, R.; Nurmi, E.; Tian, S.; Gill, H.; Wong, D. J. N.; Moorley, C.; Nepogodiev, D.; Ahmad, I.; and El-Boghdadly, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n PeerJ, 9: e10891. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{kua_healthcarecovid_2021,\n\ttitle = {{healthcareCOVID}: a national cross-sectional observational study identifying risk factors for developing suspected or confirmed {COVID}-19 in {UK} healthcare workers},\n\tvolume = {9},\n\tissn = {2167-8359},\n\tshorttitle = {{healthcareCOVID}},\n\tdoi = {10.7717/peerj.10891},\n\tabstract = {Objective: To establish the prevalence, risk factors and implications of suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection among healthcare workers in the United Kingdom (UK).\nDesign: Cross-sectional observational study.\nSetting: UK-based primary and secondary care.\nParticipants: Healthcare workers aged ≥18 years working between 1 February and 25 May 2020.\nMain outcome measures: A composite endpoint of laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, or self-isolation or hospitalisation due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19.\nResults: Of 6,152 eligible responses, the composite endpoint was present in 1,806 (29.4\\%) healthcare workers, of whom 49 (0.8\\%) were hospitalised, 459 (7.5\\%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 1,776 (28.9\\%) reported self-isolation. Overall, between 11,870 and 21,158 days of self-isolation were required by the cohort, equalling approximately 71 to 127 working days lost per 1,000 working days. The strongest risk factor associated with the presence of the primary composite endpoint was increasing frequency of contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases without adequate personal protective equipment (PPE): 'Never' (reference), 'Rarely' (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, (95\\% confidence interval: [0.87-1.29])), 'Sometimes' (1.7 [1.37-2.10]), 'Often' (1.84 [1.28-2.63]), 'Always' (2.93, [1.75-5.06]). Additionally, several comorbidities (cancer, respiratory disease, and obesity); working in a 'doctors' role; using public transportation for work; regular contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients; and lack of PPE were also associated with the presence of the primary endpoint. A total of 1,382 (22.5\\%) healthcare workers reported lacking access to PPE items while having clinical contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases.\nConclusions: Suspected or confirmed COVID-19 was more common in healthcare workers than in the general population and is associated with significant workforce implications. Risk factors included inadequate PPE, which was reported by nearly a quarter of healthcare workers. Governments and policymakers must ensure adequate PPE is available as well as developing strategies to mitigate risk for high-risk healthcare workers during future COVID-19 waves.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tjournal = {PeerJ},\n\tauthor = {Kua, Justin and Patel, Reshma and Nurmi, Eveliina and Tian, Sarah and Gill, Harpreet and Wong, Danny J. N. and Moorley, Calvin and Nepogodiev, Dmitri and Ahmad, Imran and El-Boghdadly, Kariem},\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpmid = {33604201},\n\tpmcid = {PMC7868068},\n\tkeywords = {COVID-19, Coronavirus, Healthcare workers, Medical workers, SARS-CoV-2},\n\tpages = {e10891},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n

\n Objective: To establish the prevalence, risk factors and implications of suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection among healthcare workers in the United Kingdom (UK). Design: Cross-sectional observational study. Setting: UK-based primary and secondary care. Participants: Healthcare workers aged ≥18 years working between 1 February and 25 May 2020. Main outcome measures: A composite endpoint of laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, or self-isolation or hospitalisation due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Results: Of 6,152 eligible responses, the composite endpoint was present in 1,806 (29.4%) healthcare workers, of whom 49 (0.8%) were hospitalised, 459 (7.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 1,776 (28.9%) reported self-isolation. Overall, between 11,870 and 21,158 days of self-isolation were required by the cohort, equalling approximately 71 to 127 working days lost per 1,000 working days. The strongest risk factor associated with the presence of the primary composite endpoint was increasing frequency of contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases without adequate personal protective equipment (PPE): 'Never' (reference), 'Rarely' (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, (95% confidence interval: [0.87-1.29])), 'Sometimes' (1.7 [1.37-2.10]), 'Often' (1.84 [1.28-2.63]), 'Always' (2.93, [1.75-5.06]). Additionally, several comorbidities (cancer, respiratory disease, and obesity); working in a 'doctors' role; using public transportation for work; regular contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients; and lack of PPE were also associated with the presence of the primary endpoint. A total of 1,382 (22.5%) healthcare workers reported lacking access to PPE items while having clinical contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases. Conclusions: Suspected or confirmed COVID-19 was more common in healthcare workers than in the general population and is associated with significant workforce implications. Risk factors included inadequate PPE, which was reported by nearly a quarter of healthcare workers. Governments and policymakers must ensure adequate PPE is available as well as developing strategies to mitigate risk for high-risk healthcare workers during future COVID-19 waves.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Risks to healthcare workers following tracheal intubation of patients with known or suspected COVID-19 in Canada: data from the intubateCOVID registry.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Parotto, M.; Cavallin, F.; Bryson, G. L.; Chin, K. J.; the intubateCOVID Canadian collaborators; the intubateCOVID Canadian collaborators; and the intubateCOVID International Coordinating Centre\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, 68(3): 425–427. March 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Risks$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{parotto_risks_2021,\n\ttitle = {Risks to healthcare workers following tracheal intubation of patients with known or suspected {COVID}-19 in {Canada}: data from the {intubateCOVID} registry},\n\tvolume = {68},\n\tissn = {1496-8975},\n\tshorttitle = {Risks to healthcare workers following tracheal intubation of patients with known or suspected {COVID}-19 in {Canada}},\n\turl = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-020-01890-3},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s12630-020-01890-3},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\turldate = {2021-02-26},\n\tjournal = {Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie},\n\tauthor = {Parotto, Matteo and Cavallin, Francesco and Bryson, Gregory L. and Chin, Ki Jinn and {the intubateCOVID Canadian collaborators} and {the intubateCOVID Canadian collaborators and the intubateCOVID International Coordinating Centre}},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {425--427},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n

\n \n 2020\n \n \n (12)\n \n \n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Causal inference in perioperative medicine observational research: part 1, a graphical introduction.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Krishnamoorthy, V.; Wong, D. J.; Wilson, M.; Raghunathan, K.; Ohnuma, T.; McLean, D.; Moonesinghe, S. R.; and Harris, S. K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n British Journal of Anaesthesia, 125(3): 393–397. September 2020.\n tex.ids= krishnamoorthy_causal_2020-1, krishnamoorthy_causal_2020-3\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Causal$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{krishnamoorthy_causal_2020,\n\ttitle = {Causal inference in perioperative medicine observational research: part 1, a graphical introduction},\n\tvolume = {125},\n\tissn = {00070912},\n\tshorttitle = {Causal inference in perioperative medicine observational research},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0007091220302932},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.bja.2020.03.031},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\turldate = {2021-03-15},\n\tjournal = {British Journal of Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Krishnamoorthy, Vijay and Wong, Danny J.N. and Wilson, Matt and Raghunathan, Karthik and Ohnuma, Tetsu and McLean, Duncan and Moonesinghe, S. Ramani and Harris, Steve K.},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tnote = {tex.ids= krishnamoorthy\\_causal\\_2020-1, krishnamoorthy\\_causal\\_2020-3},\n\tpages = {393--397},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Causal inference in perioperative medicine observational research: part 2, advanced methods.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Krishnamoorthy, V.; McLean, D.; Ohnuma, T.; Harris, S. K.; Wong, D. J.; Wilson, M.; Moonesinghe, R.; and Raghunathan, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n British Journal of Anaesthesia, 125(3): 398–405. September 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Causal$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{krishnamoorthy_causal_2020-1,\n\ttitle = {Causal inference in perioperative medicine observational research: part 2, advanced methods},\n\tvolume = {125},\n\tissn = {00070912},\n\tshorttitle = {Causal inference in perioperative medicine observational research},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0007091220303020},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.bja.2020.03.032},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\turldate = {2021-03-15},\n\tjournal = {British Journal of Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Krishnamoorthy, Vijay and McLean, Duncan and Ohnuma, Tetsu and Harris, Steve K. and Wong, Danny J.N. and Wilson, Matt and Moonesinghe, Ramani and Raghunathan, Karthik},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tpages = {398--405},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Postoperative Critical Care Improves Mortality-Causal Inference Analysis Of A 248 Hospital Cohort.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Thevathasan, T.; Wong, D. J.; Harris, S. K.; and Moonesinghe, R. S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In March 2020. American Society of Anesthesiology\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Postoperative$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@inproceedings{thevathasan_postoperative_2020,\n\ttitle = {Postoperative {Critical} {Care} {Improves} {Mortality}-{Causal} {Inference} {Analysis} {Of} {A} 248 {Hospital} {Cohort}},\n\turl = {http://www.asaabstracts.com/strands/asaabstracts/abstract.htm?year=2020&index=6&absnum=7834},\n\tabstract = {Background: Without an absolute indication for organ support, there is equipoise over who may benefit from postoperative critical care. Utilization of critical care is correlated with critical care bed availability which varies stochastically. This sets up a natural experiment where we can compare outcomes for those treated when critical care bed capacity is under strain or not, and use this to infer the causal effect of postoperative critical care on postoperative outcomes.\n\nObjective: To investigate the causal effects of direct postoperative critical care versus surgical ward admission on patient morbidity and mortality by controlling for measured and unmeasured confounding.\n\nMethods: We conducted a prospective, international, multicenter cohort study in 248 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, recruiting patients over seven consecutive days in 2017. We included adult patients undergoing inpatient surgery without an absolute indication for postoperative critical care admission.\n\nWe first performed a risk-adjusted analysis using multivariable logistic regression with 29 demographic, preoperative and intraoperative predictor variables to account for observed confounding. We analyzed the association between postoperative admission to critical care versus surgical ward on patient morbidity using the Postoperative Morbidity Survey (POMS) on day 7, as well as on 30-day and 60-day mortality.\n\nTo make causal inferences, we accounted for observed and unobserved confounding by repeating the aforementioned analysis using an instrumental variable method with instruments on critical care bed strain (i.e., number of free beds and discharge-ready patients at the time of surgery).\n\nResults: 21,935 patients were included in this study, of which 1,960 (8.9\\%) were admitted directly to critical care after surgery. 156 (0.7\\%) and 176 (0.8\\%) patients died within 30 and 60 days.\n\nAccounting for observed confounding, critical care compared to ward admitted patients had an 109\\% increased risk (95\\% Confidence Interval, 1.96-2.23, P{\\textless}0.001) for developing postoperative morbidities on day 7, as well as 91\\% (95\\% CI, 1.49-2.32, P{\\textless}0.001) and 77\\% (95\\% CI, 1.38-2.17, P{\\textless}0.001) higher risks for 30-day and 60-day mortality, respectively.\n\nAccounting for observed and unobserved confounding, critical care admitted patients had a 77\\% (95\\% CI, 1.43-2.19, P{\\textless}0.001) increased causal risk for having POMS-defined morbidity on postoperative day 7. However, 30-day and 60-day hospital mortality risks were 9\\% (95\\% CI, 0.81-1.0, P=0.06) and 10\\% (95\\% CI, 0.8-1.0, P=0.04) lower in critical care patients compared to ward patients (see Figure 1).\n\nOf note, mortality benefits increased incrementally with critical care admission of higher risk surgical patients (see Figure 2): Critical care patients with Surgical Outcome Risk Tool-predicted 30-day mortality {\\textgreater}9\\% had 35\\% lower 30-day mortality risk (95\\% CI, 0.27-1.04).\n\nConclusions: Although critical care admission immediately after surgery places patients at higher risk of short-term morbidity (e.g. due to invasive monitoring, new ICU-acquired infections or delirium), it confers longer-term mortality benefits (at 30 and 60 days).},\n\tpublisher = {American Society of Anesthesiology},\n\tauthor = {Thevathasan, Tharusan and Wong, Danny J. and Harris, Steve K. and Moonesinghe, Ramani S.},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2020},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n

\n Background: Without an absolute indication for organ support, there is equipoise over who may benefit from postoperative critical care. Utilization of critical care is correlated with critical care bed availability which varies stochastically. This sets up a natural experiment where we can compare outcomes for those treated when critical care bed capacity is under strain or not, and use this to infer the causal effect of postoperative critical care on postoperative outcomes. Objective: To investigate the causal effects of direct postoperative critical care versus surgical ward admission on patient morbidity and mortality by controlling for measured and unmeasured confounding. Methods: We conducted a prospective, international, multicenter cohort study in 248 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, recruiting patients over seven consecutive days in 2017. We included adult patients undergoing inpatient surgery without an absolute indication for postoperative critical care admission. We first performed a risk-adjusted analysis using multivariable logistic regression with 29 demographic, preoperative and intraoperative predictor variables to account for observed confounding. We analyzed the association between postoperative admission to critical care versus surgical ward on patient morbidity using the Postoperative Morbidity Survey (POMS) on day 7, as well as on 30-day and 60-day mortality. To make causal inferences, we accounted for observed and unobserved confounding by repeating the aforementioned analysis using an instrumental variable method with instruments on critical care bed strain (i.e., number of free beds and discharge-ready patients at the time of surgery). Results: 21,935 patients were included in this study, of which 1,960 (8.9%) were admitted directly to critical care after surgery. 156 (0.7%) and 176 (0.8%) patients died within 30 and 60 days. Accounting for observed confounding, critical care compared to ward admitted patients had an 109% increased risk (95% Confidence Interval, 1.96-2.23, P\\textless0.001) for developing postoperative morbidities on day 7, as well as 91% (95% CI, 1.49-2.32, P\\textless0.001) and 77% (95% CI, 1.38-2.17, P\\textless0.001) higher risks for 30-day and 60-day mortality, respectively. Accounting for observed and unobserved confounding, critical care admitted patients had a 77% (95% CI, 1.43-2.19, P\\textless0.001) increased causal risk for having POMS-defined morbidity on postoperative day 7. However, 30-day and 60-day hospital mortality risks were 9% (95% CI, 0.81-1.0, P=0.06) and 10% (95% CI, 0.8-1.0, P=0.04) lower in critical care patients compared to ward patients (see Figure 1). Of note, mortality benefits increased incrementally with critical care admission of higher risk surgical patients (see Figure 2): Critical care patients with Surgical Outcome Risk Tool-predicted 30-day mortality \\textgreater9% had 35% lower 30-day mortality risk (95% CI, 0.27-1.04). Conclusions: Although critical care admission immediately after surgery places patients at higher risk of short-term morbidity (e.g. due to invasive monitoring, new ICU-acquired infections or delirium), it confers longer-term mortality benefits (at 30 and 60 days).\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Perceptions of UK clinicians towards postoperative critical care.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Hashim, S.; Wong, D. J. N.; Farmer, L.; Harris, S. K.; and Moonesinghe, S. R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia,anae.15302. December 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Perceptions$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{hashim_perceptions_2020,\n\ttitle = {Perceptions of {UK} clinicians towards postoperative critical care},\n\tissn = {0003-2409, 1365-2044},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.15302},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15302},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2020-12-22},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Hashim, S. and Wong, D. J. N. and Farmer, L. and Harris, S. K. and Moonesinghe, S. R.},\n\tmonth = dec,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tpages = {anae.15302},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Postoperative Critical Care: Resource Availability, Patient Risk and Other Factors Influencing Referral and Admission.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wong, D. J. N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Ph.D. Thesis, UCL (University College London), August 2020.\n Conference Name: UCL (University College London) Meeting Name: UCL (University College London) Pages: 1-295 Publication Title: Doctoral thesis, UCL (University College London).\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Postoperative$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@phdthesis{wong_postoperative_2020,\n\ttype = {Doctoral},\n\ttitle = {Postoperative {Critical} {Care}: {Resource} {Availability}, {Patient} {Risk} and {Other} {Factors} {Influencing} {Referral} and {Admission}},\n\tcopyright = {open},\n\tshorttitle = {Postoperative {Critical} {Care}},\n\turl = {https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10108589/},\n\tabstract = {Although intended for benefit, surgery exposes patients to potential complications. Critical care is thought to protect against the development of these complications, and is recommended for patients at higher risk. However, previous literature suggests that high-risk patients do not consistently receive postoperative critical care. In this PhD thesis, I investigate the supposed misallocation of critical care resources, and seek to answer the following research questions: 1. What is the availability of postoperative critical care? 2. How do clinicians estimate perioperative risk? 3. How accurate are current available risk prediction tools? 4. How do clinicians decide which patients to admit for postoperative critical care? 5. What factors influence their admission? A survey of postoperative critical care availability was conducted in 309 hospitals across the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand (NZ). Then, in a subset of 274 of these hospitals, a cohort study enrolling 26,502 patients undergoing inpatient surgery was undertaken. Postoperative critical care availability was found to differ between countries. UK hospitals reported fewer critical care beds per 100 hospital beds (median = 2.7) compared with Australia (median = 3.7) and NZ (median = 3.5). Enhanced care/high-acuity beds used to manage some high-risk patients were identified in around 31\\% of hospitals. The estimated numbers of critical care beds per 100,000 population were 9.3, 14.1, and 9.1 in the UK, Australia, and NZ, respectively. The estimated per capita high-acuity bed capacities per 100,000 population were 1.2, 3.8, and 6.4 in the UK, Australia, and NZ, respectively. The risk profile of inpatients undergoing inpatient surgery and the incidence of short-term mortality and morbidity outcomes were described. Less than 40\\% of predicted high-risk patients (defined as having a 5\\% or higher predicted 30-day mortality) in the cohort were admitted to critical care directly after surgery, regardless of risk model used. Compared with objective risk tools, subjective clinical assessment performed similarly in terms of discrimination, but consistently overpredicted risk. The Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) for subjective clinical assessment was 0.89, compared to 0.91 for the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT), the best-performing objective risk tool. However, a model combining information from both objective tools and subjective assessment improved the accuracy and clinical applicability of risk predictions (combined model AUROC = 0.93; continuous Net Reclassification Index [NRI] = 0.347, p {\\textless}0.001). Associations were identified between patient risk factors (e.g. increased comorbidities, more complex surgery, higher surgical urgency) and the likelihood of being recommended postoperative critical care admission. Increased critical care bed availability had a small but significant association with critical care recommendation (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.05 per empty critical care bed at the time of surgery), suggesting a subtle effect of exogenous influences on clinical decision-making. These results will have value in informing policy around the delivery of postoperative care for high-risk patients undergoing surgery, both at a macroscopic level in planning services, and at a microscopic level in making clinical decisions for individual patients.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\turldate = {2020-10-25},\n\tschool = {UCL (University College London)},\n\tauthor = {Wong, Danny J. N.},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tnote = {Conference Name: UCL (University College London)\nMeeting Name: UCL (University College London)\nPages: 1-295\nPublication Title: Doctoral thesis, UCL (University College London).},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n

\n Although intended for benefit, surgery exposes patients to potential complications. Critical care is thought to protect against the development of these complications, and is recommended for patients at higher risk. However, previous literature suggests that high-risk patients do not consistently receive postoperative critical care. In this PhD thesis, I investigate the supposed misallocation of critical care resources, and seek to answer the following research questions: 1. What is the availability of postoperative critical care? 2. How do clinicians estimate perioperative risk? 3. How accurate are current available risk prediction tools? 4. How do clinicians decide which patients to admit for postoperative critical care? 5. What factors influence their admission? A survey of postoperative critical care availability was conducted in 309 hospitals across the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand (NZ). Then, in a subset of 274 of these hospitals, a cohort study enrolling 26,502 patients undergoing inpatient surgery was undertaken. Postoperative critical care availability was found to differ between countries. UK hospitals reported fewer critical care beds per 100 hospital beds (median = 2.7) compared with Australia (median = 3.7) and NZ (median = 3.5). Enhanced care/high-acuity beds used to manage some high-risk patients were identified in around 31% of hospitals. The estimated numbers of critical care beds per 100,000 population were 9.3, 14.1, and 9.1 in the UK, Australia, and NZ, respectively. The estimated per capita high-acuity bed capacities per 100,000 population were 1.2, 3.8, and 6.4 in the UK, Australia, and NZ, respectively. The risk profile of inpatients undergoing inpatient surgery and the incidence of short-term mortality and morbidity outcomes were described. Less than 40% of predicted high-risk patients (defined as having a 5% or higher predicted 30-day mortality) in the cohort were admitted to critical care directly after surgery, regardless of risk model used. Compared with objective risk tools, subjective clinical assessment performed similarly in terms of discrimination, but consistently overpredicted risk. The Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) for subjective clinical assessment was 0.89, compared to 0.91 for the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT), the best-performing objective risk tool. However, a model combining information from both objective tools and subjective assessment improved the accuracy and clinical applicability of risk predictions (combined model AUROC = 0.93; continuous Net Reclassification Index [NRI] = 0.347, p \\textless0.001). Associations were identified between patient risk factors (e.g. increased comorbidities, more complex surgery, higher surgical urgency) and the likelihood of being recommended postoperative critical care admission. Increased critical care bed availability had a small but significant association with critical care recommendation (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.05 per empty critical care bed at the time of surgery), suggesting a subtle effect of exogenous influences on clinical decision-making. These results will have value in informing policy around the delivery of postoperative care for high-risk patients undergoing surgery, both at a macroscopic level in planning services, and at a microscopic level in making clinical decisions for individual patients.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Risks to healthcare workers following tracheal intubation of patients with COVID-19: a prospective international multicentre cohort study.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n El‐Boghdadly, K.; Wong, D. J. N.; Owen, R.; Neuman, M. D.; Pocock, S.; Carlisle, J. B.; Johnstone, C.; Andruszkiewicz, P.; Baker, P. A.; Biccard, B. M.; Bryson, G. L.; Chan, M. T. V.; Cheng, M. H.; Chin, K. J.; Coburn, M.; Fagerlund, M. J.; Myatra, S. N.; Myles, P. S.; O’Sullivan, E.; Pasin, L.; Shamim, F.; Klei, W. A. v.; and Ahmad, I.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, 75(n/a): 1437–47. 2020.\n _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15170\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Risks$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{elboghdadly_risks_2020,\n\ttitle = {Risks to healthcare workers following tracheal intubation of patients with {COVID}-19: a prospective international multicentre cohort study},\n\tvolume = {75},\n\tcopyright = {This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.},\n\tissn = {1365-2044},\n\tshorttitle = {Risks to healthcare workers following tracheal intubation of patients with {COVID}-19},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/anae.15170},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15170},\n\tabstract = {Healthcare workers involved in aerosol-generating procedures, such as tracheal intubation, may be at elevated risk of acquiring COVID-19. However, the magnitude of this risk is unknown. We conducted a prospective international multicentre cohort study recruiting healthcare workers participating in tracheal intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Information on tracheal intubation episodes, personal protective equipment use, and subsequent provider health status was collected via self-reporting. The primary endpoint was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis or new symptoms requiring self-isolation or hospitalisation after a tracheal intubation episode. Cox regression analysis examined associations between the primary endpoint and healthcare worker characteristics, procedure-related factors, and personal protective equipment use. Between 23 March and 2 June 2020, 1718 healthcare workers from 503 hospitals in 17 countries reported 5148 tracheal intubation episodes. The overall incidence of the primary endpoint was 10.7\\% over a median (IQR [range]) follow-up of 32 (18–48 [0–116]) days. The cumulative incidence within 7, 14 and 21 days of the first tracheal intubation episode was 3.6\\%, 6.1\\%, and 8.5\\%, respectively. The risk of the primary endpoint varied by country and was higher in females, but was not associated with other factors. Around 1 in 10 healthcare workers involved in tracheal intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 subsequently reported a COVID-19 outcome. This has human resource implications for institutional capacity to deliver essential healthcare services, and wider societal implications for COVID-19 transmission.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {n/a},\n\turldate = {2020-06-10},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {El‐Boghdadly, K. and Wong, D. J. N. and Owen, R. and Neuman, M. D. and Pocock, S. and Carlisle, J. B. and Johnstone, C. and Andruszkiewicz, P. and Baker, P. A. and Biccard, B. M. and Bryson, G. L. and Chan, M. T. V. and Cheng, M. H. and Chin, K. J. and Coburn, M. and Fagerlund, M. J. and Myatra, S. N. and Myles, P. S. and O’Sullivan, E. and Pasin, L. and Shamim, F. and Klei, W. A. van and Ahmad, I.},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tnote = {\\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15170},\n\tkeywords = {COVID-19, airway, coronavirus, healthcare workers, intubation},\n\tpages = {1437--47},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A prospective, observational, cohort study of airway management of patients with COVID-19 by specialist tracheal intubation teams.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ahmad, I.; Jeyarajah, J.; Nair, G.; Ragbourne, S. C.; Vowles, B.; Wong, D. J. N.; and El-Boghdadly, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie. September 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{ahmad_prospective_2020,\n\ttitle = {A prospective, observational, cohort study of airway management of patients with {COVID}-19 by specialist tracheal intubation teams},\n\tissn = {1496-8975},\n\turl = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-020-01804-3},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s12630-020-01804-3},\n\tabstract = {Because of the anticipated surge in cases requiring intensive care unit admission, the high aerosol-generating risk of tracheal intubation, and the specific requirements in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients, a dedicated Mobile Endotracheal Rapid Intubation Team (MERIT) was formed to ensure that a highly skilled team would be deployed to manage the airways of this cohort of patients. Here, we report our intubation team experience and activity as well as patient outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2020-10-24},\n\tjournal = {Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie},\n\tauthor = {Ahmad, Imran and Jeyarajah, Jeyanjali and Nair, Ganeshkrishna and Ragbourne, Sophie C. and Vowles, Benjamin and Wong, Danny J. N. and El-Boghdadly, Kariem},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2020},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Associated risks posed to healthcare workers when intubating the trachea of patients with COVID-19: a reply.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ahmad, I.; Owen, R.; Wong, D. J. N.; Johnstone, C.; and El‐Boghdadly, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, 75(11): 1545–1546. 2020.\n _eprint: https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15225\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Associated$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{ahmad_associated_2020,\n\ttitle = {Associated risks posed to healthcare workers when intubating the trachea of patients with {COVID}-19: a reply},\n\tvolume = {75},\n\tcopyright = {© 2020 Association of Anaesthetists},\n\tissn = {1365-2044},\n\tshorttitle = {Associated risks posed to healthcare workers when intubating the trachea of patients with {COVID}-19},\n\turl = {https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/anae.15225},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15225},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {11},\n\turldate = {2020-10-16},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {Ahmad, I. and Owen, R. and Wong, D. J. N. and Johnstone, C. and El‐Boghdadly, K.},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tnote = {\\_eprint: https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15225},\n\tpages = {1545--1546},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Workforce implications of self-isolation resulting from symptomatic schoolchildren.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wong, D. J. N.; and El-Boghdadly, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BMJ, 371. October 2020.\n Publisher: British Medical Journal Publishing Group Section: Letter\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Workforce$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{wong_workforce_2020,\n\ttitle = {Workforce implications of self-isolation resulting from symptomatic schoolchildren},\n\tvolume = {371},\n\tcopyright = {Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions},\n\tissn = {1756-1833},\n\turl = {https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3971},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/bmj.m3971},\n\tabstract = {After a trough in new covid-19 cases in the UK over the summer, case numbers in recent weeks have begun to rise sharply again.1 Either causing this or in spite of this, children have returned to schools2 and the government is actively encouraging people to return to their offices for work.\n\nAs Mathew mentions,3 returning to …},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2020-10-16},\n\tjournal = {BMJ},\n\tauthor = {Wong, Danny J. N. and El-Boghdadly, Kariem},\n\tmonth = oct,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tnote = {Publisher: British Medical Journal Publishing Group\nSection: Letter},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Developing and validating subjective and objective risk-assessment measures for predicting mortality after major surgery: An international prospective cohort study.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wong, D. J. N.; Harris, S.; Sahni, A.; Bedford, J. R.; Cortes, L.; Shawyer, R.; Wilson, A. M.; Lindsay, H. A.; Campbell, D.; Popham, S.; Barneto, L. M.; Myles, P. S.; Collaborators, S. E.; and Moonesinghe, S. R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n PLOS Medicine, 17(10): e1003253. October 2020.\n Publisher: Public Library of Science\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Developing$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{wong_developing_2020,\n\ttitle = {Developing and validating subjective and objective risk-assessment measures for predicting mortality after major surgery: {An} international prospective cohort study},\n\tvolume = {17},\n\tissn = {1549-1676},\n\tshorttitle = {Developing and validating subjective and objective risk-assessment measures for predicting mortality after major surgery},\n\turl = {https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003253},\n\tdoi = {10.1371/journal.pmed.1003253},\n\tabstract = {Background Preoperative risk prediction is important for guiding clinical decision-making and resource allocation. Clinicians frequently rely solely on their own clinical judgement for risk prediction rather than objective measures. We aimed to compare the accuracy of freely available objective surgical risk tools with subjective clinical assessment in predicting 30-day mortality. Methods and findings We conducted a prospective observational study in 274 hospitals in the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, and New Zealand. For 1 week in 2017, prospective risk, surgical, and outcome data were collected on all adults aged 18 years and over undergoing surgery requiring at least a 1-night stay in hospital. Recruitment bias was avoided through an ethical waiver to patient consent; a mixture of rural, urban, district, and university hospitals participated. We compared subjective assessment with 3 previously published, open-access objective risk tools for predicting 30-day mortality: the Portsmouth-Physiology and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality (P-POSSUM), Surgical Risk Scale (SRS), and Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT). We then developed a logistic regression model combining subjective assessment and the best objective tool and compared its performance to each constituent method alone. We included 22,631 patients in the study: 52.8\\% were female, median age was 62 years (interquartile range [IQR] 46 to 73 years), median postoperative length of stay was 3 days (IQR 1 to 6), and inpatient 30-day mortality was 1.4\\%. Clinicians used subjective assessment alone in 88.7\\% of cases. All methods overpredicted risk, but visual inspection of plots showed the SORT to have the best calibration. The SORT demonstrated the best discrimination of the objective tools (SORT Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic curve [AUROC] = 0.90, 95\\% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88–0.92; P-POSSUM = 0.89, 95\\% CI 0.88–0.91; SRS = 0.85, 95\\% CI 0.82–0.87). Subjective assessment demonstrated good discrimination (AUROC = 0.89, 95\\% CI: 0.86–0.91) that was not different from the SORT (p = 0.309). Combining subjective assessment and the SORT improved discrimination (bootstrap optimism-corrected AUROC = 0.92, 95\\% CI: 0.90–0.94) and demonstrated continuous Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI = 0.13, 95\\% CI: 0.06–0.20, p {\\textless} 0.001) compared with subjective assessment alone. Decision-curve analysis (DCA) confirmed the superiority of the SORT over other previously published models, and the SORT–clinical judgement model again performed best overall. Our study is limited by the low mortality rate, by the lack of blinding in the ‘subjective’ risk assessments, and because we only compared the performance of clinical risk scores as opposed to other prediction tools such as exercise testing or frailty assessment. Conclusions In this study, we observed that the combination of subjective assessment with a parsimonious risk model improved perioperative risk estimation. This may be of value in helping clinicians allocate finite resources such as critical care and to support patient involvement in clinical decision-making.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {10},\n\turldate = {2020-10-15},\n\tjournal = {PLOS Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Wong, Danny J. N. and Harris, Steve and Sahni, Arun and Bedford, James R. and Cortes, Laura and Shawyer, Richard and Wilson, Andrew M. and Lindsay, Helen A. and Campbell, Doug and Popham, Scott and Barneto, Lisa M. and Myles, Paul S. and Collaborators, Snap-2: Epiccs and Moonesinghe, S. Ramani},\n\tmonth = oct,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tnote = {Publisher: Public Library of Science},\n\tkeywords = {Cancer risk factors, Death rates, Forecasting, Instrument calibration, Medical risk factors, Obstetric procedures, Surgical and invasive medical procedures, Vascular surgery},\n\tpages = {e1003253},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n

\n Background Preoperative risk prediction is important for guiding clinical decision-making and resource allocation. Clinicians frequently rely solely on their own clinical judgement for risk prediction rather than objective measures. We aimed to compare the accuracy of freely available objective surgical risk tools with subjective clinical assessment in predicting 30-day mortality. Methods and findings We conducted a prospective observational study in 274 hospitals in the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, and New Zealand. For 1 week in 2017, prospective risk, surgical, and outcome data were collected on all adults aged 18 years and over undergoing surgery requiring at least a 1-night stay in hospital. Recruitment bias was avoided through an ethical waiver to patient consent; a mixture of rural, urban, district, and university hospitals participated. We compared subjective assessment with 3 previously published, open-access objective risk tools for predicting 30-day mortality: the Portsmouth-Physiology and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality (P-POSSUM), Surgical Risk Scale (SRS), and Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT). We then developed a logistic regression model combining subjective assessment and the best objective tool and compared its performance to each constituent method alone. We included 22,631 patients in the study: 52.8% were female, median age was 62 years (interquartile range [IQR] 46 to 73 years), median postoperative length of stay was 3 days (IQR 1 to 6), and inpatient 30-day mortality was 1.4%. Clinicians used subjective assessment alone in 88.7% of cases. All methods overpredicted risk, but visual inspection of plots showed the SORT to have the best calibration. The SORT demonstrated the best discrimination of the objective tools (SORT Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic curve [AUROC] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88–0.92; P-POSSUM = 0.89, 95% CI 0.88–0.91; SRS = 0.85, 95% CI 0.82–0.87). Subjective assessment demonstrated good discrimination (AUROC = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.86–0.91) that was not different from the SORT (p = 0.309). Combining subjective assessment and the SORT improved discrimination (bootstrap optimism-corrected AUROC = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.90–0.94) and demonstrated continuous Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.06–0.20, p \\textless 0.001) compared with subjective assessment alone. Decision-curve analysis (DCA) confirmed the superiority of the SORT over other previously published models, and the SORT–clinical judgement model again performed best overall. Our study is limited by the low mortality rate, by the lack of blinding in the ‘subjective’ risk assessments, and because we only compared the performance of clinical risk scores as opposed to other prediction tools such as exercise testing or frailty assessment. Conclusions In this study, we observed that the combination of subjective assessment with a parsimonious risk model improved perioperative risk estimation. This may be of value in helping clinicians allocate finite resources such as critical care and to support patient involvement in clinical decision-making.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Global guidance for surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n COVIDSurg Collaborative\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BJS (British Journal of Surgery), 107(9): 1097–1103. 2020.\n _eprint: https://bjssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/bjs.11646\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Global$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{covidsurg_collaborative_global_2020,\n\ttitle = {Global guidance for surgical care during the {COVID}-19 pandemic},\n\tvolume = {107},\n\tcopyright = {© 2020 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley \\& Sons Ltd},\n\tissn = {1365-2168},\n\turl = {https://bjssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bjs.11646},\n\tdoi = {10.1002/bjs.11646},\n\tabstract = {Background Surgeons urgently need guidance on how to deliver surgical services safely and effectively during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim was to identify the key domains that should be considered when developing pandemic preparedness plans for surgical services. Methods A scoping search was conducted to identify published articles relating to management of surgical patients during pandemics. Key informant interviews were conducted with surgeons and anaesthetists with direct experience of working during infectious disease outbreaks, in order to identify key challenges and solutions to delivering effective surgical services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results Thirteen articles were identified from the scoping search, and surgeons and anaesthetists representing 11 territories were interviewed. To mount an effective response to COVID-19, a pandemic response plan for surgical services should be developed in advance. Key domains that should be included are: provision of staff training (such as patient transfers, donning and doffing personal protection equipment, recognizing and managing COVID-19 infection); support for the overall hospital response to COVID-19 (reduction in non-urgent activities such as clinics, endoscopy, non-urgent elective surgery); establishment of a team-based approach for running emergency services; and recognition and management of COVID-19 infection in patients treated as an emergency and those who have had surgery. A backlog of procedures after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic is inevitable, and hospitals should plan how to address this effectively to ensure that patients having elective treatment have the best possible outcomes. Conclusion Hospitals should prepare detailed context-specific pandemic preparedness plans addressing the identified domains. Specific guidance should be updated continuously to reflect emerging evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {9},\n\turldate = {2020-07-31},\n\tjournal = {BJS (British Journal of Surgery)},\n\tauthor = {{COVIDSurg Collaborative}},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tnote = {\\_eprint: https://bjssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/bjs.11646},\n\tpages = {1097--1103},\n}\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Tracheal intubation of patients with COVID-19: global risks.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n El‐Boghdadly, K.; Wong, D. J. N.; Johnstone, C.; and Ahmad, I.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia, n/a(n/a). July 2020.\n _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15205\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Tracheal$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

@article{elboghdadly_tracheal_2020,\n\ttitle = {Tracheal intubation of patients with {COVID}-19: global risks},\n\tvolume = {n/a},\n\tcopyright = {© 2020 Association of Anaesthetists},\n\tissn = {1365-2044},\n\tshorttitle = {Tracheal intubation of patients with {COVID}-19},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/anae.15205},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/anae.15205},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {n/a},\n\turldate = {2020-07-31},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia},\n\tauthor = {El‐Boghdadly, K. and Wong, D. J. N. and Johnstone, C. and Ahmad, I.},\n\tmonth = jul,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tnote = {\\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/anae.15205},\n}\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n\n