Keywords
COVID-19, Pandemic, elective surgery
This article is included in the Health Services gateway.
COVID-19, Pandemic, elective surgery
The World Health Organization (WHO) declared Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) to be a pandemic on March 11, 2020.1 The government of India had adopted several measures to limit and stop the pandemic, including a nationwide lockdown, infection control standards including usage of masks and personal protective equipment (PPE) and social distancing.2,3 The pandemic had a massive impact on healthcare systems all around the world. Several healthcare practitioners were redirected to COVID management. Furthermore, due to resource reallocation and present economic constraints, hospitals throughout the world have been compelled to restructure to offer the best possible treatment for patients while avoiding the transmission of the coronavirus among patients and healthcare personnel. Hospital visits have decreased as a result of the cancellation of elective surgeries and routine outpatient department (OPD) treatments. Institutes and hospitals have cancelled in-person lectures, clinical rounds, seminars, and other educational events.4 This has had a significant impact on learning and teaching for post-graduates (PG). Elective operations are not optional procedures, but rather non-urgent procedures. In 50% of patients, cancelling or delaying elective surgery has unanticipated repercussions that might result in severe morbidity and mortality.5
The effect of the COVID-19 era on specific subspecialists is uncertain, particularly in epicentres where physician’s duties are changing to suit pandemic demands. Furthermore, while emergency and critical care professionals have received a lot of attention, surgeons are frequently overlooked. This cohort has extremely high baseline rates of burnout, and a worldwide pandemic could worsen any existing effects.6,7 Since most elective procedures and in-person clinics have been suspended across the world, many surgeons have had to quickly adapt their practices and help with frontline responsibilities. Moreover, surgeons operate in interdisciplinary teams, thus cancellations of elective surgeries have an impact on a variety of healthcare employees. COVID-19 has also proven to be a financial and social issue, in addition to a medical one.
Oncological surgery
It is important to rationalise every surgery performed because standard surgical procedures have been disrupted due to workforce issues. This is crucial in cancer surgery, when the physician must weigh the risks of both potential viral transmission to the surgical team and potential cancer patient progression.8 In the first instance, patients should be moved to hospitals with more financial resources available for operations, and it is suggested that local “COVID-19 free” surgical hubs be established to continue oncological surgery. General factors must also be taken into account for patients with cancer. Most complicated elective surgical procedures are frequently followed by post-operative care in a hospital ward. Patients occasionally experience postoperative problems that necessitate Intensive Therapy Unit (ITU) admission and/or re-operation, which could be difficult given the rising number of COVID-19 patients needing Level 3 care. It is advised to keep length of stay (LoS) to a minimal, particularly in critical care.9,10
General surgery
The provision of emergency general surgery is a crucial component of the planning of surgical services. Wherever possible, it is crucial to maintain the status quo for both COVID-19-infected patients and those who are not.11 To prevent nosocomial infections in COVID-negative patients, it has been suggested that separate “clean” and “dirty” emergency operating rooms be created. If conservative therapy has failed, poses a risk to the patient’s health, is likely to lengthen hospitalisation, or raises the possibility of readmission at a later time, operations or procedures should be carried out.12 Additionally, surgeons need to be on the lookout for a potential decline in the supply of blood products. Resources are already running out in the UK as a result of rising demand as well as a decline in blood donors brought on by social isolation and quarantine regulations.13 Therefore, it is advised that each particular centre should monitor the regional blood availability and, if necessary, support a restrictive transfusion strategy in both the operating room and the intensive care unit14 or intraoperative cell preservation.15
Cardiothoracic surgery
The impact of COVID-19 on cardiothoracic practise was inevitable. All elective and non-urgent surgeries have been delayed in the US and the UK, and resources have been shifted to the emergency and urgent cardiothoracic care. Additionally, cardiothoracic surgeons are excellent candidates for redeployment since they have general abilities that are typically transferrable to ITU. Based on the stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, the NHS in the UK has released recommendations on the management of cardiothoracic surgeries.10
Urology
Classification of urological surgery into oncological, emergency, and benign procedures by Ahmed et al.,16 included a number of prioritising suggestions. To reduce the impact on resource utilisation and labour shortages caused by the redeployment of anaesthetists, these recommendations include the extensive use of local anaesthesia and day-case surgery whenever possible. Additionally, they recommended the establishment of parallel urology services, with “hot” hospitals treating suspected COVID-19 patients and “cool” hospitals handling oncological and emergency work. Additionally, although the extent of urinary viral shedding is still not entirely understood, there is some preliminary evidence that SARS-CoV-2 Viral RNA can be detected in the urine, indicating that urology services must still take care.17
Ophthalmology
These procedures should be carried out as day cases whenever it is safe to do so. The surgical treatment with the shorter postoperative recovery duration and fewer postoperative follow-up visits should be chosen. Additionally, whenever possible, local anaesthesia is preferred to general anaesthesia.18
Oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS)
NHS England and NHS Improvement have produced recommendations for treating OMFS and trauma patients.19 They recommend that senior team members make decisions about patient care at the initial point of contact with the patient in order to prevent unnecessary admissions and reduce nosocomial infections.
Plastic surgery
To assist in the care of patients undergoing plastic surgery during COVID-19, the British Association of Plastic Surgery (BAPRAS) and NHS England have offered advice to its members. A plastic and reconstructive surgery escalation strategy has been published by the association.20 This offers advice to hospitals on how to handle an increase in COVID-19 prevalence. High prevalence requires limiting emergency surgery and ceasing all elective surgery. Minor surgeries should be carried out in outpatient clinics, where all emergency injuries should be triaged for treatment. Guidelines have been developed for the management of burns, breast reconstruction, and melanoma-specific issues, and advice has been developed to direct local services in order to deal with the anticipated significant reduction in clinical and surgical facilities. A referral letter is still necessary for patients whose melanoma diagnosis is suspected, and it will be examined by a multidisciplinary team (MDT). A recommendation will be made based on the image. The patient may then be immediately sent for surgery to remove the lesion after the pathology has been reviewed, and the results will be telephoned to them.21 NHS England has also provided details on how burn injuries during the COVID-19 epidemic should be managed.22
Paediatric surgery
According to the American College of Surgeons, the fundamental goal of paediatric surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is to treat children with urgent surgical needs with the proper care while efficiently using patient care resources and safeguarding healthcare professionals. To prevent extended hospital stays or additional readmissions to the hospital, non-urgent surgery should only be done when absolutely necessary.23 Additionally, NHS England has advised against performing elective paediatric procedures on children unless they are ASA Grade 1 patients, with the exception of cancer situations.24,25 Paediatric surgical care should prioritise the efficient management of emergency situations, delaying any necessary elective procedures as possible. In order to shorten the preoperative period and guarantee an early discharge, this will provide greater access to theatres and an increase in staff capacity. While minimising the risk of infection transmission, the paediatric surgical team should provide ongoing management of urgent surgical situations. The utilisation of telemedicine as well as reorganising into two groups—one that works in hospitals and the other that operates remotely—are examples of such tactics. The attendance of parents during surgery should be taken into consideration whenever it is safe to do so.23
The purpose of this study is to see how the COVID pandemic affected elective operations, surgeon skills, and post-graduate training.
A prospective cross-sectional study was carried out from June to July 2021 in Kasturba Medical college, through an online cross-sectional survey questionnaire (Google forms) consisting of 15 questions circulated across India primarily to surgeons practising in six states of India that were most severely affected by the pandemic according to recent statistics and also to surgeons in other states of India. This was done through E-mail or any online messaging service. The questionnaire was made by the researchers, no specific program was used and no validity/reliability test was done.
The forms were sent to various surgeons across India. The responses we received from them were considered as their consent to participate in the study. The study was approved by the Institutional Human Ethics Committee (IHEC) clearance from KIMSHEALTH via letter no. KIMS/IHEC/APPROVAL/08/2021/03 dated September 7th, 2021.
Due to the low risk nature of this study and the effects of COVID-19, retrospective ethical approval was obtained. The study was originally submitted to the IHEC at KIMSHEALTH on the 14th of August 2021. At KIMSHEALTH, there are two committees: the Scientific and Research Committee and the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee meets once every three months, while the Scientific Committee meets frequently. The Scientific and Research Committee’s approval allows the principal investigators of these projects to begin patient recruitment. For the purposes of the present study, surgeons across India—not patients—were the population under consideration and there were no ethical issues involved so before the study began we submitted it to the Scientific and Research Committee, which has been given the authorization to review and approve medical research and other observational studies. Three members of the Ethics Committee are represented on the committee to ensure that all ethical guidelines and rules are strictly followed. The Scientific and Research Committee approved the start of the study. The committee’s decision was then ratified by the Ethics Committee at a later date.
Surgeons in the various surgical specialities in six states across India (Bihar, Delhi, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh) that were most severely affected by the pandemic as per recent statistics and also other states in India.
In this study, the questionnaires were sent as Google forms to surgeons via Gmail and WhatsApp platform, out of which 320 responses were received by us, which became the primary data source. The combined responses were recorded and analysed statistically by the authors.
Frequency and percentage were used to represent categorical variables, whereas the mean and standard deviation were used to represent continuous values. The Chi-squared test was used to examine associations between categorical variables. Unpaired t-test analysis was used to compare quantitative data between two groups. The ANOVA analysis was used to compare continuous variables between more than two groups. Comparison of continuous variable among more than two group was analysed by ANOVA with Post hoc tests of multiple comparison -LSD. p<0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. IBM SPSS Statistics (RRID:SCR_016479) version 24 was used for data analysis.
In this present study, a total of 320 participants were enrolled. The age groups were divided into 25-40 years old (170 participants), 40-60 years old (135 participants), and 15 participants were >60 years old (Table 1).29 A total of 241 participants were male and 79 were female (Table 2). In this study, various surgeons participated from various states in India, namely; Bihar (14), Delhi (16), Karnataka (89), Kerala (133), Maharashtra (14), Uttar Pradesh (20), and other states (34) (Table 3, Figure 1). Surgeons from various specialities have participated in this study, and the distribution was as follows: Cardiothoracic vascular surgery (CTVS), 5; General Surgery, 71; Neurosurgery, 5; Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 27; Ophthalmology, 17; Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, 20; Otorhinolaryngology, 31; Paediatric Surgery, 3; Plastic Surgery, 7; Surgical Oncology, 8; Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, 93; and Urology, 33 (Table 4).
Age | Frequency, n | Percentage |
---|---|---|
25-40 years | 170 | 53.1 |
40-60 years | 135 | 42.2 |
>60 years | 15 | 4.7 |
Total | 320 | 100 |
State | Frequency, n | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Bihar | 14 | 4.4 |
Delhi | 16 | 5 |
Karnataka | 89 | 27.8 |
Kerala | 133 | 41.6 |
Maharashtra | 14 | 4.4 |
Others | 34 | 10.6 |
Uttar Pradesh | 20 | 6.3 |
Total | 320 | 100 |
Overall, 59.7% of those participants who agreed that there was a reduction in bed availability also faced the brunt of patient or patient bystander’s dissatisfaction; whereas 40.3% of those who reacted that there was no reduction in the availability of beds also faced the brunt of patient or patient bystander’s dissatisfaction. With a p-value of 0.004, this showed a statistically significant association (Figure 2, Table 5 and Table 6).
There was a reduction in bed availability during the pandemic | Frequency, n | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Strongly agree | 91 | 28.4 |
Agree | 157 | 49.1 |
Neither agree nor disagree | 27 | 8.4 |
Disagree | 32 | 10 |
Strongly disagree | 13 | 4.1 |
Total | 320 | 100 |
Reduction in bed availability | Faced the brunt of patient/patient party dissatisfaction | Total | p-value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | ||||||
N | % | N | % | N | % | ||
Yes | 148 | 59.7 | 100 | 40.3 | 248 | 100 | 0.004 |
No | 29 | 40.3 | 43 | 59.7 | 72 | 100 | |
Total | 177 | 55.3 | 143 | 44.7 | 320 | 100 |
A total of 70.4% of those participants who agreed that there was a shortage of oxygen also faced the brunt of patient or bystander’s dissatisfaction; whereas 29.6% of those who reacted that there was no shortage of oxygen also faced the brunt of patient or patient bystanders dissatisfaction, With a p-value <0.001, this showed a statistically significant association (Figure 3, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9).
Shortage of oxygen | Faced the brunt of patient/patient party dissatisfaction | Total | p-value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | ||||||
N | % | N | % | N | % | ||
Yes | 107 | 70.4 | 45 | 29.6 | 152 | 100 | <0.001 |
No | 70 | 41.7 | 98 | 58.3 | 168 | 100 | |
Total | 177 | 55.3 | 143 | 44.7 | 320 | 100 |
Overall, 78.8% of those participants who agreed that there was a shortage of PPE kits also faced the brunt of patient or bystander’s dissatisfaction; whereas 21.2% of those who reacted that there was no shortage of PPE kits also faced the brunt of patient or patient bystanders dissatisfaction. With a p-value <0.001, this showed a statistically significant association (Figure 4 and Figure 5, Table 10, and Table 11).
Hospital faced an insufficient supply of PPE kits | Frequency, n | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Strongly agree | 15 | 4.7 |
Agree | 51 | 15.9 |
Neither agree nor disagree | 37 | 11.6 |
Disagree | 154 | 48.1 |
Strongly disagree | 63 | 19.7 |
Total | 320 | 100 |
Insufficient supply of PPE kits | Faced the brunt of patient/patient party dissatisfaction | Total | p-value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | ||||||
N | % | N | % | N | % | ||
Yes | 52 | 78.8 | 14 | 21.2 | 66 | 100 | <0.001 |
No | 125 | 49.2 | 129 | 50.8 | 254 | 100 | |
Total | 177 | 55.3 | 143 | 44.7 | 320 | 100 |
Guidelines for the care of acute OMFS and trauma patients have been issued by NHS England and NHS Improvement.19 They recommend that senior team members make decisions about patient care at the initial point of contact with the patient in order to prevent unnecessary admissions and reduce nosocomial infections. Moreover, results showed that doctors found it challenging to get accustomed to the new pre-op guidelines in line with the pandemic (Figure 6, Table 12).
Overall, 60.7% of those participants who agreed that there was a delay in procurement of surgical implants also faced the brunt of patient or bystander’s dissatisfaction, whereas 40.3% of those who reacted that there was no delay in procurement of surgical implants also faced the brunt of patient or bystander’s dissatisfaction. With a p-value of 0.041, this showed a statistical association (Figure 7, Table 13 and Table 14).
Delay in procurement of surgical implants | Faces the brunt of patient/patient party dissatisfaction | Total | p-value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | ||||||
N | % | N | % | N | % | ||
Yes | 102 | 60.7 | 66 | 39.3 | 168 | 100 | 0.041 |
No | 75 | 49.3 | 77 | 50.7 | 152 | 100 | |
Total | 177 | 55.3 | 143 | 44.7 | 320 | 100 |
A total of 64% of participants also agreed that the COVID-19 pandemic had affected the post-graduate teaching program (Figure 8 and Table 15).
PG, post-graduates.
Pandemic affected the PG teaching programme | Frequency, n | Percentage |
---|---|---|
No response | 77 | 24.1 |
Strongly agree | 111 | 34.7 |
Agree | 94 | 29.4 |
Neither agree nor disagree | 20 | 6.3 |
Disagree | 14 | 4.4 |
Strongly disagree | 4 | 1.3 |
Total | 320 | 100 |
More than half of the participants agreed to the fact that they were affected by the fear of contracting COVID-19 during high-risk invasive procedures and there was an increase in the rate of post-operative complications in surgically operated COVID-19 patients (Figure 9 and Figure 10, Table 16 and Table 17). Overall, 74.7% of surgeons felt that there was a decline in aerosol generating procedures during the pandemic (Figure 11, Table 18). A total of 54.1% of surgeons felt that deferral of surgeries in patients with comorbidities led to ‘grave consequences’ (Figure 12, Table 19). Most of the surgeons did not face a personal financial crisis during the pandemic (Figure 13, Table 20). Overall, 46.6% of doctors noticed deterring influence on surgical skills due to abstinence from conducting surgeries whereas, the rest were not affected by it (Figure 14, Table 21).
COVID-19, Coronavirus Disease 2019.
Faced a personal financial crisis during the pandemic | Frequency, n | Percentage |
---|---|---|
No | 154 | 48.1 |
Prefer not to say | 50 | 15.6 |
Yes | 116 | 36.3 |
Total | 320 | 100 |
Surgeons identified that hospital administration made significant changes in healthcare and employment policies during the pandemic (Figure 15, Table 22).
A survey of 611 orthopaedic physicians from 140 Indian cities was conducted by Sahu et al.26 Orthopaedic surgeons reported being slightly stressed 40.5% of the time and being very worried 22.5% of the time. The proportion of orthopaedic surgeons who reported feeling “certainly stressed out” rose as age declined.
In the survey conducted by Upadhyaya et al.27 138 (77.5) PG trainees participated, and 65.1% of them said that there are currently no clinical classes being held. The majority (94%) agreed that COVID-19 had impacted their training in surgery and clinical practise. Overall, 71.6% of students reported dissertation completion issues, and 96% expressed mental health worries.
In a study by Khan et al.,28 15 (53.6%) of the 44 trainees that answered (28/44; 63.6%) were CST/IST. A total of 15 (53.6%) participants worked in general surgery, while 14 (50.0%) were employed by teaching hospitals. In total, 20 participants (71.4%) believed they had less opportunities to serve as the primary surgeon as a result of the pandemic. Only 21 participants (75.0%) had never visited an outpatient clinic. Eight people (28.6%) had no access at all to the laparoscopic box-trainer. Overall, 20 (71.4%) people thought that their degree of trust in their ability to perform surgical skills had been lowered. In total, 18 (64.3%) people felt it challenging to show improvement in their portfolio. A total of 21 trainees (75.0%) had not participated in any instruction. Overall, 10 (35.7%) trainees missed class due to illness. Eight (286%) trainees reported feeling somewhat or much more pressured.
Some of the suggestions and recommendations put forth by the participating surgeons include: i) Anticipation and better preparation for future pandemic waves; ii) at least 10% of GDP to be allotted for health care sector in India; iii) decentralization of COVID care and monitoring system; iv) to promote good COVID appropriate sanitation habits like hand washing; v) prompt completion of all vaccination doses; vi) postponement of elective surgeries (Figure 10, Table 19); vii) adopt newer methods for teaching in the medical education department; viii) reduce the length of hospital stay; ix) parallel training of more health care workers and paramedics to handle pandemics in future; x) peripheral healthcare centres are to be better equipped; and xi) transparency of documentation, periodic pandemic evaluation and amendment of policies and protocols based on evidence-based medicine.
With the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, all doctors with diverse specializations were used to handle patients with COVID-19, as predicted. Due to a shortage of available manpower and materials, elective procedures were different, resulting in a substantial defect in the hands-on and learning process of the surgeons as well as the post-graduate teaching programs. In the future, digital learning should be a part of learning in all specialities so preparedness for the same should be projected. Module and stimulation teaching should be a part of the medical curriculum.
Figshare: A prolonged wait: The impact of COVID-19 on elective surgeries in India, a prospective study. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22347268. 29
This project contains the following underlying data:
- COVID elective surgery responses for analysis.xlsx (spreadsheet data)
- Study on Impact of COVID-19 on Elective Surgeries in India.pdf (blank questionnaire)
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).
The writing of this article was supported by a medical writer at Medwiz Healthcare Communications Private Ltd.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
References
1. Hodgson H, Golmohamad R, Gulati A, Pandit H, et al.: Patient perspectives on elective orthopaedic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a comparison between patients from different ethnic backgrounds.Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2022; 104 (5): 346-352 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Trauma and orthopaedic surgery; major trauma; Mmedical education
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Version 3 (revision) 27 Sep 24 |
read | |||
Version 2 (revision) 05 Jan 24 |
read | read | ||
Version 1 17 Apr 23 |
read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)