Towards actionable international comparisons of health system performance: expert revision of the OECD framework and quality indicators.

OBJECTIVE: To review and update the conceptual framework, indicator content and research priorities of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Health Care Quality Indicators (HCQI) project, after a decade of collaborative work. DESIGN: A structured assessment was carried out using a modified Delphi approach, followed by a consensus meeting, to assess the suite of HCQI for international comparisons, agree on revisions to the original framework and set priorities for research and development. SETTING: International group of countries participating to OECD projects. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the OECD HCQI expert group. RESULTS: A reference matrix, based on a revised performance framework, was used to map and assess all seventy HCQI routinely calculated by the OECD expert group. A total of 21 indicators were agreed to be excluded, due to the following concerns: (i) relevance, (ii) international comparability, particularly where heterogeneous coding practices might induce bias, (iii) feasibility, when the number of countries able to report was limited and the added value did not justify sustained effort and (iv) actionability, for indicators that were unlikely to improve on the basis of targeted policy interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The revised OECD framework for HCQI represents a new milestone of a long-standing international collaboration among a group of countries committed to building common ground for performance measurement. The expert group believes that the continuation of this work is paramount to provide decision makers with a validated toolbox to directly act on quality improvement strategies.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colonic Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS(®)) Society Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colonic surgery and to provide graded recommendations for items for an evidenced-based enhanced perioperative protocol. METHODS: Studies were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts. For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway, available English-language literature was examined, reviewed and graded. A consensus recommendation was reached after critical appraisal of the literature by the group. RESULTS: For most of the protocol items, recommendations are based on good-quality trials or meta-analyses of good-quality trials (quality of evidence and recommendations according to the GRADE system). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence available for each item of the multimodal perioperative care pathway, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society, International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition (IASMEN) and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) present a comprehensive evidence-based consensus review of perioperative care for colonic surgery.

Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations.

BACKGROUND: This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colonic surgery and to provide graded recommendations for items for an evidenced-based enhanced perioperative protocol. METHODS: Studies were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts. For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway, available English-language literature was examined, reviewed and graded. A consensus recommendation was reached after critical appraisal of the literature by the group. RESULTS: For most of the protocol items, recommendations are based on good-quality trials or meta-analyses of good-quality trials (quality of evidence and recommendations according to the GRADE system). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence available for each item of the multimodal perioperative-care pathway, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society, International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition (IASMEN) and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) present a comprehensive evidence-based consensus review of perioperative care for colonic surgery.

What influence do anticoagulants have on oral implant therapy? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to assess the risks (both thromboembolic and bleeding) of an oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) patient undergoing implant therapy and to provide a management protocol to patients under OAT undergoing implant therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Medline, Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE (from 1980 to December 2008) were searched for English-language articles published between 1966 and 2008. This search was completed by a hand research accessing the references cited in all identified publications. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were identified reporting outcomes after oral surgery procedures (mostly dental extractions in patients on OAT following different management protocols and haemostatic therapies). Five studies were randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), 11 were controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and three were prospective case series. The OAT management strategies as well as the protocols during and after surgery were different. This heterogeneity prevented any possible data aggregation and synthesis. The results from these studies are very homogeneous, reporting minor bleeding in very few patients, without a significant difference between the OAT patients who continue with the vitamin K antagonists vs. the patients who stopped this medication before surgery. These post-operative bleeding events were controlled only with local haemostatic measures: tranexamic acid mouthwashes, gelatine sponges and cellulose gauzes's application were effective. Post-operative bleeding did not correlate with the international normalised ratio (INR) status. In none of the studies was a thromboembolic event reported. CONCLUSIONS: OAT patients (INR 2-4) who do not discontinue the AC medication do not have a significantly higher risk of post-operative bleeding than non-OAT patients and they also do not have a higher risk of post-operative bleeding than OAT patients who discontinue the medication. In patients with OAT (INR 2-4) without discontinuation, topical haemostatic agents were effective in preventing post-operative bleeding. OAT discontinuation is not recommended for minor oral surgery, such as single tooth extraction or implant placement, provided that this does not involve autogenous bone grafts, extensive flaps or osteotomy preparations extending outside the bony envelope. Evidence does not support that dental implant placement in patients on OAT is contraindicated.

Monitoring of brain and systemic oxygenation in neurocritical care patients.

Maintenance of adequate oxygenation is a mainstay of intensive care, however, recommendations on the safety, accuracy, and the potential clinical utility of invasive and non-invasive tools to monitor brain and systemic oxygenation in neurocritical care are lacking. A literature search was conducted for English language articles describing bedside brain and systemic oxygen monitoring in neurocritical care patients from 1980 to August 2013. Imaging techniques e.g., PET are not considered. A total of 281 studies were included, the majority described patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). All tools for oxygen monitoring are safe. Parenchymal brain oxygen (PbtO2) monitoring is accurate to detect brain hypoxia, and it is recommended to titrate individual targets of cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), ventilator parameters (PaCO2, PaO2), and transfusion, and to manage intracranial hypertension, in combination with ICP monitoring. SjvO2 is less accurate than PbtO2. Given limited data, NIRS is not recommended at present for adult patients who require neurocritical care. Systemic monitoring of oxygen (PaO2, SaO2, SpO2) and CO2 (PaCO2, end-tidal CO2) is recommended in patients who require neurocritical care.

Management of severe blunt hepatic injury in the era of computed tomography and transarterial embolization: A systematic review and critical appraisal of the literature.

BACKGROUND: During the last decade, the management of blunt hepatic injury has considerably changed. Three options are available as follows: nonoperative management (NOM), transarterial embolization (TAE), and surgery. We aimed to evaluate in a systematic review the current practice and outcomes in the management of Grade III to V blunt hepatic injury. METHOD: The MEDLINE database was searched using PubMed to identify English-language citations published after 2000 using the key words blunt, hepatic injury, severe, and grade III to V in different combinations. Liver injury was graded according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma classification on computed tomography (CT). Primary outcome analyzed was success rate in intention to treat. Critical appraisal of the literature was performed using the validated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence "Quality Assessment for Case Series" system. RESULTS: Twelve articles were selected for critical appraisal (n = 4,946 patients). The median quality score of articles was 4 of 8 (range, 2-6). Overall, the median Injury Severity Score (ISS) at admission was 26 (range, 0.6-75). A median of 66% (range, 0-100%) of patients was managed with NOM, with a success rate of 94% (range, 86-100%). TAE was used in only 3% of cases (range, 0-72%) owing to contrast extravasation on CT with a success rate of 93% (range, 81-100%); however, 9% to 30% of patients required a laparotomy. Thirty-one percent (range, 17-100%) of patients were managed with surgery owing to hemodynamic instability in most cases, with 12% to 28% requiring secondary TAE to control recurrent hepatic bleeding. Mortality was 5% (range, 0-8%) after NOM and 51% (range, 30-68%) after surgery. CONCLUSION: NOM of Grade III to V blunt hepatic injury is the first treatment option to manage hemodynamically stable patients. TAE and surgery are considered in a highly selective group of patients with contrast extravasation on CT or shock at admission, respectively. Additional standardization of the reports is necessary to allow accurate comparisons of the various management strategies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level IV.