Abstract
Objectives During the COVID pandemic the UK saw two peaks in the prevalence of hospital admissions resulting in disruption of routine hospital services in the English National Health Service. This study aimed to track the effect of these peaks on various types of surgery representing differences in urgency, importance, and complexity.
Design Database study using the Hospital Episode Statistics database and surgical operations selected purposively, to represent different combinations of urgency, importance and complexity.
Setting All hospitals within England that carried out procedures funded by the National Health Service.
Main Outcome Measures Number of emergency routine surgeries; cancer-removal surgeries; transplant surgeries; renal transplants Deceased and living donors); and elective routine surgeries carried out prior to and during the COVID pandemic.
Results While all surgeries declined, emergency or urgent operations held up better than elective cases. There was rapid rebound between peaks. Among emergency cases, coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction held up well in contrast to appendectomy, where indications for surgery are more elastic. Among urgent cancer and transplant operations, those with the most complex pathways were the most severely affected. The pandemic affected socio-economic and ethnic groups similarly. Disruption during the second peak was slightly less than during the first peak despite even greater COVID admission rates.
Conclusion The NHS titrated its response appropriately to the pandemic by prioritising emergency and urgent cases over elective cases. However, complex time critical conditions like organ transplants and certain cancers are also disrupted with implications for third peaks in hospital admissions that many countries are experiencing.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands and the NIHR ARC East Midlands through the Margaret Peters Centre at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This observational study was registered with the local Clinical Audit Department (Clinical Audit Registration and Management System number 16961). The University of Birmingham Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Ethical Review Committee board ruled that ethical approval could be waived and patient consent was not needed. Data were used in line with the data sharing agreement with NHS Digital.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos