BACKGROUND: Appendicectomy is the most frequent emergency general surgical procedure. Prior research highlights the importance of histopathology analysis after appendicectomy which is the practice in many countries including the United Kingdom (UK), aiming to prevent any oversight of vital findings and the avoidance of potential delays in patient care. Our primary objective was to audit the extent to which surgeons adhere to the NHS England patient safety guidelines from 2016 when it comes to timely reviewing and effectively communicating histopathology results to patients and/or their general practitioners following appendicectomy procedures. Our secondary objective was to amend practice, if deemed necessary, following the implementation of agreed-upon protocols, with the expected improvements being observable in the second cycle of the audit.
METHODS: In our two-cycle audit, we performed a retrospective analysis using online patient records from a single centre in the UK. The initial cycle involved cases of emergency appendectomies carried out consecutively for suspected appendicitis from April 2018 to June 2019. Following the clinical governance meeting and the implementation of recommendations, the second audit cycle covered cases between September 2020 and October 2020.
RESULTS: In the first cycle, among 418 laparoscopic appendectomies, 207 (49.52%) and 47 reports (11.24%) were reviewed within a 15-day and a 16-30-day window, respectively, following the online availability of histopathology results. Notably, 116 reports (27.75%) remained unreviewed by surgeons, and only 67 (16.02%) of these reports documented communication with patients and/or their general practitioners. In the second cycle, involving 49 patients, 38 reports (77.55%) were reviewed within the first 15 days, and 10 reports (20.4%) were reviewed between 16-30 days. Among these, 16 reports (32.65%) documented communication with patients and/or their general practitioners.
CONCLUSIONS: Our adherence to the aforementioned guidance was poor prior to this audit. This two-cycle audit highlighted the need for improvement in the timely review and communication of histopathology reports following appendectomy at our centre. The second cycle showed promising progress, suggesting that changes implemented between the cycles had a positive impact. Nevertheless, continuous efforts may be required to enhance and sustain adherence to these vital patient safety guidelines.

The Acute Surgical Unit (ASU) is a busy service receiving Emergency Department (ED) referrals for adult and paediatric general surgery care alongside trauma. The ASU model deviates from the traditional on-call model and has been shown to improve efficiency and patient outcomes. The primary aim was to evaluate time to surgical review ED presentation and general surgical referral. Secondary aims were to assess referral numbers, pathology and demographics at our institution.
A retrospective observational analysis was conducted on all referral times from the ED to the ASU between 1 April and 30 September 2022. Patient demographics, triage and referral times, and diagnoses were collected from the electronic medical record. Time between referral, review and surgical admission were calculated.
A total of 2044 referrals were collected during the study period, and 1951 (95.45%) were included for analysis. Average time from ED presentation to surgical referral was 4 hours and 54 min with average time to surgical review from referral taking 40 min. On average, total time from ED presentation to surgical admission was 5 h and 34 min. Trauma Responds took 6 min to review. Colorectal pathology was the most commonly referred disease type.
The ASU model is efficient and effective within our health service. Overall delays in surgical care may be external to the general surgery unit, or before the patient is made known to the surgical team. Analysis of time to surgical review is a key statistic in the delivery of acute surgical care.

Background: The implementation of the acute surgical unit (ASU) model has been demonstrated to improve care outcomes for the emergency general surgery patient in comparison to the traditional \"on call\" model. Currently, only few studies have evaluated surgical outcomes of the ASU model in patients with acute biliary pathologies. This is the first comparative study of two different emergency surgery structures in the acute management of patients with acute cholecystitis and biliary colic. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent emergency cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis and biliary colic at two tertiary hospitals between April 2018 and March 2019 was conducted. Primary outcomes included length of hospital stay, time from admission to definitive surgery, and postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes include proportion of cases performed during daylight hours, length of operating time, rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy, and consultant surgeon involvement. Results: A total of 339 patients presented with acute biliary symptoms and were managed operatively. Univariate analysis identified a shorter mean time to surgery in the traditional group compared to the ASU group (29.2 hours versus 43.1 hours; P < .001). There was no difference in mean length of stay, operation duration between models, and postoperative complication rates between groups, with the majority of surgeries performed during daylight hours. The ASU group had a greater proportion of consultant-led cases (48.2% versus 2.5%, P < .001) compared to the traditional group. Conclusion: Patients with acute biliary pathology requiring laparoscopic cholecystectomy achieve equivalent surgical outcomes irrespective of the model of acute surgical care.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review comparative studies on the acute surgical unit (ASU) model.
METHODS: Searches were performed of Cochrane, Embase, Medline and grey literature. Eligible articles were comparative studies of the Acute Surgical Unit (ASU) model published 01/01/2000-12/03/2020. Amongst patients with any diagnosis, primary outcomes were length of stay, after-hours operating, complications and cost. Secondary outcomes were time to surgical review, time to theatre, mortality and re-admission for patients with any diagnosis, and cholecystectomy during index admission for patients with biliary disease. Additional analyses were planned for specific cohorts, such as patients with appendicitis or cholecystitis.
RESULTS: Searches returned 9,677 results from which 77 eligible publications were identified, representing 150,981 unique patients. Cohorts were adequately homogenous for meta-analysis of all outcomes except cost. For patients with any diagnosis, compared with the Traditional model, the introduction of an ASU model was associated with reduced length of stay (mean difference [MD] 0.68 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.98), after-hours operating rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.46-0.69) and complications (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.70). Regarding cost, two studies reported savings following ASU introduction, while one found no difference. Amongst secondary outcomes, for patients with any diagnosis, ASU commencement was associated with reduced time to surgical review, time to theatre and mortality. Re-admissions were unchanged. For patients with biliary disease, ASU establishment was associated with superior rates of index cholecystectomy.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the Traditional structure, the ASU model is superior for most metrics. ASU introduction should be promoted in policy for widespread benefit.

UNASSIGNED: To systematically evaluate the spectrum of models providing dedicated resources for emergency urological patients (EUPs).
UNASSIGNED: A search of Cochrane, Embase, Medline and grey literature from January 1, 2000 to March 26, 2019 was performed using methods pre-published on PROSPERO. Reporting followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and meta-analysis guidelines. Eligible studies were articles or abstracts published in English describing dedicated models of care for EUPs, which reported at least one secondary outcome. Studies were excluded if they examined pathways dedicated only to single presentations, such as torsion, or outpatient solutions, such as rapid access clinics. The primary outcome was the spectrum of models. Secondary outcomes were time-to-theatre, length of stay, complications and cost.
UNASSIGNED: Seven studies were identified, totalling 487 patients. Six studies were conference abstracts, while one study was of full-text length but published in grey literature. Four distinct models were described. These included consultant urologists allocated solely to the care of EUPs (\"Acute Urological Unit\") or dedicated registrars or operating theatres (\"Hybrid structures\"). In some services, EUPs bypassed emergency department assessment and were referred directly to urology (\"Urological Assessment Unit\") or were managed by other dedicated means. Allocating services to EUPs was associated with reduced time-to-theatre, length of stay and hospital cost, and improved supervision of junior medical staff.
UNASSIGNED: Multiple dedicated models of care exist for EUPs. Low-level evidence suggests these may improve outcomes for patients, staff and hospitals. Higher quality studies are required to explore patient outcomes and minimum requirements to establish these models.

BACKGROUND: Acute surgical assessment units (ASAUs) aim to optimise management of surgical patients compared to the traditional \'on-call\' emergency department (ED) system. Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most common acute surgical condition requiring emergency surgery.
OBJECTIVE: We set out to assess if the ASAU improved care provided to patients with AA compared to those managed through the ED.
METHODS: Patients admitted via the ED with AA in the 6 months prior to opening the ASAU were compared to those admitted via the ASAU in the first six months following its implementation. Relevant data was collected on key performance indicators from their charts.
RESULTS: In the ASAU cohort, the mean time to be seen was one hour less than the ED cohort (21 min vs 74 min). The mean time to surgery was also 8.8 h shorter. Most patients in the ASAU group (78.6%) underwent surgery during the day, compared to 40.3% of ED patients. The ASAU patients also had a lower postoperative complication rate (0.9% vs 3.9%), as well as a lower negative appendicectomy rate (14.2% vs 18.6%) and lower conversion-to-open surgery rate. Greater consultant supervision and presence was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: The ASAU has resulted in better outcomes for patients with AA than those admitted via ED. More operations were performed in safer daytime hours with greater consultant presence, allowing for improved senior support for trainee surgeons. Our study supports the role of the ASAU in improving the quality and efficiency of emergency general surgery.

The New Zealand Government announced a four-level COVID-19 alert system soon after the first confirmed case in the country. New Zealand moved swiftly to the highest alert level 4, described as lockdown, as the epidemic curve quickly accelerated. Auckland City Hospital saw a temporary change in acute surgical admissions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the national lockdown on emergency general surgery.
A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients admitted to Auckland City Hospital via the Acute Surgical Unit during lockdown from 26 March to 27 April 2020. A comparison group was collected from the 33 days prior to lockdown, 22 February to 25 March 2020.
The number of admissions decreased by 26% (P-value 0.000). A 56.8% decrease in patients presenting with trauma was found (P-value 0.002). After exclusion of trauma patients, no statistical difference in discharge diagnosis was found. There was a 43.6% reduction in operations performed (P-value 0.037). There was a difference found in the management of appendicitis and cholecystitis (P-value 0.003). Median length of stay was decreased from 1.8 to 1.3 days (P-value 0.031).
Auckland City Hospital had a decrease in admissions and operations during the COVID-19 lockdown. These findings suggest people with serious pathology were staying at home untreated or being treated in the community. This is a snapshot of our experience in managing emergency general surgical patients in this unusual period.

Few studies have assessed the relationship between different emergency general surgery models and staff satisfaction, operative experience or working hours. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons recommends maximum on-call frequency of one-in-four for surgeons and registrars.
A cross-sectional study was conducted of all medium- to major-sized Australian public hospitals offering elective general surgery. At each site, an on-call general surgery registrar and senior surgeon were invited to participate. Primary outcomes were staff satisfaction and registrar-perceived operative exposure. Secondary outcomes were working hours.
Among eligible hospitals, 119/120 (99%) were enrolled. Compared with traditional emergency general surgery models, hybrid or acute surgical unit models were associated with greater surgeon and registrar satisfaction on quantitative (P = 0.012) and qualitative measures. Registrar-perceived operating exposure was unaffected by emergency general surgery model. Longest duration on-duty was higher among traditional structures for both registrars (mean 22 versus 15 h; P = 0.0003) and surgeons (mean 59 versus 41 h; P = 0.020). On-call frequency greater than one-in-four was more common in traditional structures for registrars (51% versus 28%; P = 0.012) but not surgeons (6% versus 0%; P = 0.089). Data on average hours per day off-duty were obtained for registrars only, and were lower in traditional structures (13 versus 15 h; P = 0.00002).
Hybrid or acute surgical unit models may improve staff satisfaction without sacrificing perceived operative exposure. While average maximum duration on-duty exceeded hazardous thresholds for surgeons regardless of model, unsafe working hours for registrars were more common in traditional structures. General surgical departments should review on-call rostering to optimize staff and patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Important incidental pathology requiring further action is commonly found during appendicectomy, macro- and microscopically. We aimed to determine whether the acute surgical unit (ASU) model improved the management and disclosure of these findings.
METHODS: An ASU model was introduced at our institution on 01/08/2012. In this retrospective cohort study, all patients undergoing appendicectomy 2.5 years before (Traditional group) or after (ASU group) this date were compared. The primary outcomes were rates of appropriate management of the incidental findings, and communication of the findings to the patient and to their general practitioner (GP).
RESULTS: 1,214 patients underwent emergency appendicectomy; 465 in the Traditional group and 749 in the ASU group. 80 (6.6%) patients (25 and 55 in each respective period) had important incidental findings. There were 24 patients with benign polyps, 15 with neuro-endocrine tumour, 11 with endometriosis, 8 with pelvic inflammatory disease, 8 Enterobius vermicularis infection, 7 with low grade mucinous cystadenoma, 3 with inflammatory bowel disease, 2 with diverticulitis, 2 with tubo-ovarian mass, 1 with secondary appendiceal malignancy and none with primary appendiceal adenocarcinoma. One patient had dual pathologies. There was no difference between the Traditional and ASU group with regards to communication of the findings to the patient (p = 0.44) and their GP (p = 0.27), and there was no difference in the rates of appropriate management (p = 0.21).
CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of an ASU model did not change rates of surgeon-to-patient and surgeon-to-GP communication nor affect rates of appropriate management of important incidental pathology during appendectomy.

On 4 September 2017, patient care was relocated from one quaternary hospital that was closing, to another proximate greenfield site in Adelaide, Australia, this becoming the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. There are currently no data to inform how best to transition hospitals. We conducted a 12-week prospective study of admissions under our acute surgical unit to determine the impact on our key performance indicators. We detail our results and describe compensatory measures deployed around the move.
Using a standard proforma, data were collected on key performance indicators for acute surgical unit patients referred by the emergency department (ED). This was supplemented by data obtained from operative management software and coding data from medical records to build a database for analysis.
Five hundred and eight patients were admitted during the study period. Significant delays were seen in times to surgical referral, surgical review and leaving the ED. Closely comparable was time spent in the surgical suite. Uptake of the Ambulatory Care Pathway fell by 67% and the Rapid Access Clinic by 46%. Overall mortality and patient length of stay were not affected.
We found the interface with ED was most affected. Staff encountered difficulties familiarizing with a new environment and an anecdotally high number of ED presentations. Delays to referral and surgical review resulted in extended patient stay in ED. Once in theatre, care was comparable pre- and post-transition. This was likely from early identification of patients requiring an emergency operation, close consultant surgeon involvement and robust working relationships between surgeons, anaesthetists and nurses.