Dataset Information

Surgery and COVID-19: a rapid scoping review of the impact of the first wave of COVID-19 on surgical services.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To understand how surgical services have been reorganised during and following public health emergencies, particularly the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the consequences for patients, healthcare providers and healthcare systems.

Design

A rapid scoping review.

Setting

We searched the MEDLINE, Embase and grey literature sources for documents and press releases from governments and surgical organisations or associations.

Participants

Studies examining surgical service delivery during public health emergencies including COVID-19, and the impact on patients, providers and healthcare systems were included.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Primary outcomes were strategies implemented for the reorganisation of surgical services. Secondary were the impacts of reorganisation and resuming surgical services, such as: adverse events (including morbidity and mortality), primary care and emergency department visits, length of hospital and ICU stay, and changes to surgical waitlists.

Results

One hundred and thirty-two studies were included in this review; 111 described reorganisation of surgical services, 55 described the consequences of reorganising surgical services; and 6 reported actions taken to rebuild surgical capacity in public health emergencies. Reorganisations of surgical services were grouped under six domains: case selection/triage, personal protective equipment (PPE) regulations and practice, workforce composition and deployment, outpatient and inpatient patient care, resident and fellow education, and the hospital or clinical environment. Service reorganisations led to large reductions in non-urgent surgical volumes, increases in surgical wait times and impacted medical training (ie, reduced case involvement) and patient outcomes (eg, increases in pain). Strategies for rebuilding surgical capacity were scarce but focused on the availability of staff, PPE and patient readiness for surgery as key factors to consider before resuming services.

Conclusions

Reorganisation of surgical services in response to public health emergencies appears to be context dependent and has far-reaching consequences that must be better understood in order to optimise future health system responses to public health emergencies.

SUBMITTER: O'Rielly C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8210688 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSince the emergence of COVID-19, preventative public health measures, including lockdown strategies, were declared in most countries to control viral transmission. Recent studies and anecdotes have reported changes in the prevalence of perinatal outcomes during national COVID-19lockdowns.The objective of this rapid review was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on the incidence of low birth weight (LBW), preterm birth (PTB), and stillbirth.MethodsTwo reviewers searched EMBASE, CORD-19, LitCovid (PubMed), WHO Global research on corona virus disease (COVID-19), and MedRxiv for studies published in English from the first reports on COVID-19 until 17 July 2021. Perinatal outcomes of interest included LBW (< 2500 g), PTB (< 37 weeks), and stillbirth.ResultsOf the 1967 screened articles, 17 publications met the inclusion criteria (14 cohort studies, 1 case control and 2 cross-sectional studies). Studies included data from Denmark, UK, Ireland, Nepal, Italy, Israel, Botswana, Australia, China, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Austria, Zimbabwe, India, and Spain. The total sample size ranged from 3399 to 1,599,547 pregnant women. Thirteen studies examined PTB with conflicting results, reporting both an increase and a decrease in PTB incidence, with odds ratios [95% CI] ranging from 0.09 [0.01, 0.40] to 1.93 [0.76, 4.79]. Three studies found a decrease in LBW rates during lockdowns, one of which was statistically significant, with a rate ratio of 3.77 [1.21, 11.75]. Ten studies examined stillbirth rates, including four studies reporting a statistically significant increase in stillbirth rates, with adjusted relative risk ranging from 1.46 [1.13, 1.89] to 3.9 [1.83, 12.0]. Fourteen studies contained data that could be combined in a meta-analysis comparing perinatal outcomes before and during lockdown. We found that lockdown measures were associated with a significant risk of stillbirth with RR = 1.33 [95% CI 1.04, 1.69] when compared to before lockdown period. However, lockdown measures were not associated with a significant risk of PTB, LBW and VLBW compared to prepandemic periods.ConclusionsThis review provides clues about the severity of the indirect influence of COVID-19 lockdown implementation; however, the criteria that lead to unexpected changes in LBW, PTB, and stillbirth remains unclear. Large studies showed conflicting results, reporting both increases and decreases in selected perinatal outcomes. Pooled results show a significant association between lockdown measures and stillbirth rates, but not low birth weight rates. Further studies examining the differences in other countries' lockdowns and sociodemographic groups from low to middle-income countries are needed. Exploration of perinatal outcomes during COVID-19 lockdown poses an opportunity to learn from and make changes to promote the reduction of the leading causes of childhood mortality worldwide.

Project description:BackgroundTechnologies have been extensively implemented to provide health care services for all types of clinical conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. While several reviews have been conducted regarding technologies used during the COVID-19 pandemic, they were limited by focusing either on a specific technology (or features) or proposed rather than implemented technologies.ObjectiveThis review aims to provide an overview of technologies, as reported in the literature, implemented during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) Extension for Scoping Reviews. Studies were retrieved by searching 8 electronic databases, checking the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews (backward reference list checking), and checking studies that cited included studies (forward reference list checking). The search terms were chosen based on the target intervention (ie, technologies) and the target disease (ie, COVID-19). We included English publications that focused on technologies or digital tools implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide health-related services regardless of target health condition, user, or setting. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of studies and extracted data from eligible papers. We used a narrative approach to synthesize extracted data.ResultsOf 7374 retrieved papers, 126 were deemed eligible. Telemedicine was the most common type of technology (107/126, 84.9%) implemented in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the most common mode of telemedicine was synchronous (100/108, 92.6%). The most common purpose of the technologies was providing consultation (75/126, 59.5%), followed by following up with patients (45/126, 35.7%), and monitoring their health status (22/126, 17.4%). Zoom (22/126, 17.5%) and WhatsApp (12/126, 9.5%) were the most commonly used videoconferencing and social media platforms, respectively. Both health care professionals and health consumers were the most common target users (103/126, 81.7%). The health condition most frequently targeted was COVID-19 (38/126, 30.2%), followed by any physical health conditions (21/126, 16.7%), and mental health conditions (13/126, 10.3%). Technologies were web-based in 84.1% of the studies (106/126). Technologies could be used through 11 modes, and the most common were mobile apps (86/126, 68.3%), desktop apps (73/126, 57.9%), telephone calls (49/126, 38.9%), and websites (45/126, 35.7%).ConclusionsTechnologies played a crucial role in mitigating the challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. We did not find papers describing the implementation of other technologies (eg, contact-tracing apps, drones, blockchain) during the first wave. Furthermore, technologies in this review were used for other purposes (eg, drugs and vaccines discovery, social distancing, and immunity passport). Future research on studies on these technologies and purposes is recommended, and further reviews are required to investigate technologies implemented in subsequent waves of the pandemic.