Joseph N. Hewitt, Thomas J. Milton, Christopher Dobbins, Markus I. Trochsler
{"title":"Emergency Laparotomy Risk Assessment: A Qualitative Study of General Surgeons and Trainees","authors":"Joseph N. Hewitt, Thomas J. Milton, Christopher Dobbins, Markus I. Trochsler","doi":"10.1111/ajr.70075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>General surgeons perform emergency laparotomies on a heterogeneous patient population. Scoring tools have been developed to quantify the risk of mortality after EL, but the uptake of these tools is poor. We aimed to characterise the attitudes of surgeons to risk assessment tools.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting</h3>\n \n <p>Australia.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Participants</h3>\n \n <p>General surgeons, registrars and residents.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Semi-structured interviews with participants, analysed using Framework Method.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Fifteen participants were interviewed. Barriers identified included perceived lack of utility, competing priorities, unit or hospital culture, individual surgeon attitudes, lack of funding, junior medical staff turnover, and lack of familiarity. Potential strategies for improvement identified included education, integration with electronic health records, and prompting at time of theatre booking.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Our findings will be of interest to those undertaking quality improvement work with risk assessment. This is important given recommendations for universal risk assessment but the low uptake of risk assessment in practice.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55421,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Rural Health","volume":"33 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajr.70075","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajr.70075","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
General surgeons perform emergency laparotomies on a heterogeneous patient population. Scoring tools have been developed to quantify the risk of mortality after EL, but the uptake of these tools is poor. We aimed to characterise the attitudes of surgeons to risk assessment tools.
Setting
Australia.
Participants
General surgeons, registrars and residents.
Design
Semi-structured interviews with participants, analysed using Framework Method.
Results
Fifteen participants were interviewed. Barriers identified included perceived lack of utility, competing priorities, unit or hospital culture, individual surgeon attitudes, lack of funding, junior medical staff turnover, and lack of familiarity. Potential strategies for improvement identified included education, integration with electronic health records, and prompting at time of theatre booking.
Conclusion
Our findings will be of interest to those undertaking quality improvement work with risk assessment. This is important given recommendations for universal risk assessment but the low uptake of risk assessment in practice.
期刊介绍:
The Australian Journal of Rural Health publishes articles in the field of rural health. It facilitates the formation of interdisciplinary networks, so that rural health professionals can form a cohesive group and work together for the advancement of rural practice, in all health disciplines. The Journal aims to establish a national and international reputation for the quality of its scholarly discourse and its value to rural health professionals. All articles, unless otherwise identified, are peer reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.