Katalog Plus
Bibliothek der Frankfurt UAS
Bald neuer Katalog: sichern Sie sich schon vorab Ihre persönlichen Merklisten im Nutzerkonto: Anleitung.
Dieses Ergebnis aus BASE kann Gästen nicht angezeigt werden.  Login für vollen Zugriff.

Comparison of major abdominal emergency surgery outcomes across organizational models of emergency surgical care: Analysis of the UK NELA national database

Title: Comparison of major abdominal emergency surgery outcomes across organizational models of emergency surgical care: Analysis of the UK NELA national database
Authors: Anand, Easan; Rahman, Saqib A; Tomlinson, Christopher; Mercer, Stuart J; Pucher, Philip H
Source: Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , 96 (2) pp. 305-312. (2024)
Publisher Information: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Publication Year: 2024
Collection: University College London: UCL Discovery
Subject Terms: NELA; Laparotomy; Emergency General Surgery; Acute Care Surgery
Description: BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery (EGS) admissions account for a large proportion of surgical care and represent the majority of surgical patients who suffer in-hospital mortality. Health care systems continue to experience growing demand for emergency services: one way in which this is being increasingly addressed is dedicated subspecialty teams for emergency surgical admissions, most commonly termed “emergency general surgery” in the United Kingdom. This study aims to understand the impact of the emergency general surgery model of care on outcomes from emergency laparotomies. METHODS: Data was obtained from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit database. Patients were dichotomized into EGS hospital or non-EGS hospital. Emergency general surgery hospital is defined as a hospital where >50% of in-hours emergency laparotomy operating is performed by an emergency general surgeon. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were intensive therapy unit (ITU) length of stay and duration of hospital stay. A propensity score weighting approach was used to reduce confounding and selection bias. RESULTS: There were 115,509 patients from 175 hospitals included in the final analysis. The EGS hospital care group included 5,789 patients versus 109,720 patients in the non-EGS group. Following propensity score weighting, mean standardized mean difference reduced from 0.055 to
Document Type: article in journal/newspaper
File Description: text
Language: English
Relation: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10172883/1/_Comparison_of_major_abdominal_emergency_surgery.439.pdf; https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10172883/
Availability: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10172883/1/_Comparison_of_major_abdominal_emergency_surgery.439.pdf; https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10172883/
Rights: open
Accession Number: edsbas.D26BFA9F
Database: BASE