10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Cancelled operations: a 7-day cohort study of planned adult inpatient surgery in 245 UK National Health Service hospitals

      , ,
      British Journal of Anaesthesia
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cancellation of planned surgery impacts substantially on patients and health systems. This study describes the incidence and reasons for cancellation of inpatient surgery in the UK NHS.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Critical care and the global burden of critical illness in adults

            Summary Critical care has evolved from treatment of poliomyelitis victims with respiratory failure in an intensive care unit to treatment of severely ill patients irrespective of location or specific technology. Population-based studies in the developed world suggest that the burden of critical illness is higher than generally appreciated and will increase as the population ages. Critical care capacity has long been needed in the developing world, and efforts to improve the care of the critically ill in these settings are starting to occur. Expansion of critical care to handle the consequences of an ageing population, natural disasters, conflict, inadequate primary care, and higher-risk medical therapies will be challenged by high costs at a time of economic constraint. To meet this challenge, investigators in this discipline will need to measure the global burden of critical illness and available critical-care resources, and develop both preventive and therapeutic interventions that are generalisable across countries.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The variability of critical care bed numbers in Europe.

              To quantify the numbers of critical care beds in Europe and to understand the differences in these numbers between countries when corrected for population size and gross domestic product. Prospective data collection of critical care bed numbers for each country in Europe from July 2010 to July 2011. Sources were identified in each country that could provide data on numbers of critical care beds (intensive care and intermediate care). These data were then cross-referenced with data from international databases describing population size and age, gross domestic product (GDP), expenditure on healthcare and numbers of acute care beds. We identified 2,068,892 acute care beds and 73,585 (2.8 %) critical care beds. Due to the heterogeneous descriptions of these beds in the individual countries it was not possible to discriminate between intensive care and intermediate care in most cases. On average there were 11.5 critical care beds per 100,000 head of population, with marked differences between countries (Germany 29.2, Portugal 4.2). The numbers of critical care beds per country corrected for population size were positively correlated with GDP (r(2) = 0.16, p = 0.05), numbers of acute care beds corrected for population (r(2) = 0.12, p = 0.05) and the percentage of acute care beds designated as critical care (r(2) = 0.59, p < 0.0001). They were not correlated with the proportion of GDP expended on healthcare. Critical care bed numbers vary considerably between countries in Europe. Better understanding of these numbers should facilitate improved planning for critical care capacity and utilization in the future.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                British Journal of Anaesthesia
                British Journal of Anaesthesia
                Elsevier BV
                00070912
                October 2018
                October 2018
                : 121
                : 4
                : 730-738
                Article
                10.1016/j.bja.2018.07.002
                30236235
                5cac4440-b000-4fe0-9347-cd25ceec25d7
                © 2018

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article