METHODS: Prospective, mixed-methods process evaluation to answer the following: (1) how was the collaborative delivered by the faculty and received, understood and enacted by the participants; (2) what influenced teams' ability to improve care for patients requiring emergency cholecystectomy? We collected and analysed a range of data including field notes, ethnographic observations of meetings, and project documentation. Analysis was based on the framework approach, informed by Normalisation Process Theory, and involved the creation of comparative case studies based on hospital performance during the project.
RESULTS: Chole-QuIC was delivered as planned and was well received and understood by participants. Four hospitals were identified as highly successful, based upon a substantial increase in the number of patients having surgery in line with national guidance. Conversely, four hospitals were identified as challenged, achieving no significant improvement. The comparative analysis indicate that six inter-related influences appeared most associated with improvement: (1) achieving clarity of purpose amongst site leads and key stakeholders; (2) capacity to lead and effective project support; (3) ideas to action; (4) learning from own and others' experience; (5) creating additional capacity to do emergency cholecystectomies; and (6) coordinating/managing the patient pathway.
CONCLUSION: Collaborative-based quality improvement is a viable strategy for emergency surgery but success requires the deployment of effective clinical strategies in conjunction with improvement strategies. In particular, achieving clarity of purpose about proposed changes amongst key stakeholders was a vital precursor to improvement, enabling the creation of additional surgical capacity and new pathways to be implemented effectively. Protected time, testing ideas, and the ability to learn quickly from data and experience were associated with greater impact within this cohort.
Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was carried out in this study. A total of the 408 participants were randomly recruited using a systematic method. According to the USG reports, the subjects who had normal USG report for liver, biliary system, and pancreas were described as normals, whereas the subjects who had hepatobiliary diseases such as fatty liver, liver cysts, hemangioma, cirrhosis, gallbladder wall thickening, acute cholecystitis, gallstones, and polyps were recorded as abnormal subjects.
Results: Of the 408 participants with a mean of 52.6 ± 8.4 years old. Of those, 294 (72.1%) participants were normal and 114 (27.9%) subjects were reported as abnormal. More than half of the study population was males, 52.9% versus 47.1% of females. There was a significant difference of liver length, head, and body of the pancreas between genders (P = 0.004, 0.002, and P < 0.001, respectively). Moreover, the pancreatic body only was significantly correlated with age (P = 0.026). There also was a significant difference of the liver length, head, and body of the pancreas between normal and abnormal subjects (P < 0.001, P = 0.007, and P < 0.001).
Conclusion: Liver length, diameter of the head, and body of the pancreas were significantly associated with gender and hepatobiliary diseases. In addition, only the diameter of the body of the pancreas was significantly correlated with age.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-two patients with symptomatic gallstones were recruited within a year. They were randomized into overnight stay and daycare groups. The outcomes and post-operative complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were eligible for analysis and four patients were excluded because of conversion to open cholecystectomy. All patients in daycare group reported no fever but two patients in the overnight stay group complaint of post-operative fever (p=0.150). The mean pain score using Visual Analogue Score (VAS) in daycare group was 2.93 but in the overnight stay was recorded as 3.59 (p=0.98). Five patients had post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in daycare group compared to 2 patients in the overnight stay group (p=0.227). Patient's satisfaction were higher in the daycare group (p=0.160). All patients in daycare group were back at work within a week but in overnight stay, 11 patients had to stay off work for more than one week (p=0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Daycare laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and feasible. The satisfaction of daycare surgery is higher than overnight stay group. Patients' selection is an important aspect of its success.
METHODS: Patients with mild to moderate ABP were prospectively randomized to either an early cholecystectomy versus a delayed cholecystectomy group. Recurrent biliary events, peri-operative complications, conversion rate, length of surgery and total hospital length of stay between the two groups were evaluated.
RESULTS: A total of 72 patients were enrolled at a single public hospital. Of them, 38 were randomized to the early group and 34 patients to the delayed group. There were no differences regarding peri-operative complications (7.78% vs 11.76%; p = 0.700), conversion rate to open surgery (10.53% vs 11.76%; p = 1.000) and duration of surgery performed (80 vs 85 minutes, p = 0.752). Nevertheless, a greater rate of recurrent biliary events was found in the delayed group (44.12% vs 0%; p ≤ 0.0001) and the hospital length of stay was longer in the delayed group (9 vs 8 days, p = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: In mild to moderate ABP, early laparoscopic cholecystectomy reduces the risk of recurrent biliary events without an increase in operative difficulty or perioperative morbidity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective single centre randomised single blinded comparative study conducted in HUSM. The primary endpoints for this study are the overall complete stone clearance rate and complication rate, while the secondary outcome for this study are duration of procedure and rate of usage of adjunct methods. Objective data analysis is conducted using independent sample t-test and chi-squared test.
RESULTS: A total of 66 patients underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis which is CBD stone. 34 patients were allocated to EST plus EPLBD arm (n=34), and 32 patients were in EST alone arm (n=32) using randomisation method. For intention to treat, patients from EST alone arm that unable to achieve complete stone clearance will be switched to EST plus EPLBD arm. The overall complete stone removal rate for both groups were comparable (EST plus EPLDB: 100% versus EST alone: 93.8%; p= 0.139). The two patients from EST alone group (6.2%) that unable to achieve complete stone clearance were converted to EST plus EPLBD group for intention to treat and able to achieve complete stone clearance by EST plus EPLBD. For procedural time, both arms are comparable as well (EST plus EPLDB: 15.8 minutes vs EST alone: 15.5 minutes; p= 0.860). Complications such as pancreatitis occurred in one patient in EST plus EPLBD arm (EST plus EPLDB: 2.9 % vs EST alone: 0 %; p= 0.328), and bleeding occurred in one patient in EST alone arm (EST plus EPLDB: 0 % vs EST alone: 3.1 %; p= 0.299) , but it is not statistically significant. No perforation or cholangitis complication occurred in both groups. No adjunct usage was observed in both groups.
CONCLUSION: In this study with limited sample size, both EST plus EPLBD and EST alone are effective and has comparable procedural time in removing CBD stone. Even though both methods are equally effective, EPLBD plus EST is an alternative solution if complete stone clearance is unable to achieve via EST alone.