Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS ® ) Society guidelines integrate evidence-based practices into multimodal care pathways that have improved outcomes in multiple adult surgical specialties. There are currently no pediatric ERAS ® Society guidelines. We created an ERAS ® guideline designed to enhance quality of care in neonatal intestinal resection surgery. Methods A multidisciplinary guideline generation group defined the scope, population, and guideline topics. Systematic reviews were supplemented by targeted searching and expert identification to identify 3514 publications that were screened to develop and support recommendations. Final recommendations were determined through consensus and were assessed for evidence quality and recommendation strength. Parental input was attained throughout the process. Results Final recommendations ranged from communication strategies to antibiotic use. Topics with poor-quality and conflicting evidence were eliminated. Several recommendations were combined. The quality of supporting evidence was variable. Seventeen final recommendations are included in the proposed guideline. Discussion We have developed a comprehensive, evidence-based ERAS guideline for neonates undergoing intestinal resection surgery. This guideline, and its creation process, provides a foundation for future ERAS guideline development and can ultimately lead to improved perioperative care across a variety of pediatric surgical specialties.

IntroductionIndigenous peoples across the globe face inequitable access to high-quality care. Emergency departments are the first point of access for many Indigenous peoples and are the interface between the individual and the healthcare system. There is a reliance on emergency services due to a lack of primary healthcare, a history of mistreatment from providers and increased disease complexity. As such, a potential place for health equity reform is within these departments and other acute care settings. It is the purpose of this review to determine what projects have occurred that address emergency care inequities in four countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA and explore their successes and failures.Methods and analysisUsing search strategies developed with a research librarian, publications will be identified from indexed databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, CINAHL and Scopus. Grey literature will also be searched and scanned for inclusion. To be included in the review, articles must describe interventions developed to address Indigenous health equity occurring within emergency care settings. Articles will include both programme descriptions and programme evaluations and be quality appraised by analysing study design and Indigenous research methodologies.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not require ethics approval. This protocol describes a review that attempts to map Indigenous health equity interventions taking place within emergency care settings. It will contribute to Indigenous health scholarship and equity research. Results will be made available in multiple dissemination methods to ensure accessibility by researchers and community members.

Support for the treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis with non-operative management rather than surgery has been increasing in the literature. We aimed to investigate whether treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis with antibiotics in children is inferior to appendicectomy by comparing failure rates for the two treatments. In this pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, unmasked, randomised, non-inferiority trial, children aged 5–16 years with suspected non-perforated appendicitis (based on clinical diagnosis with or without radiological diagnosis) were recruited from 11 children's hospitals in Canada, the USA, Finland, Sweden, and Singapore. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to the antibiotic or the appendicectomy group with an online stratified randomisation tool, with stratification by sex, institution, and duration of symptoms (≥48 h vs <48 h). The primary outcome was treatment failure within 1 year of random assignment. In the antibiotic group, failure was defined as removal of the appendix, and in the appendicectomy group, failure was defined as a normal appendix based on pathology. In both groups, failure was also defined as additional procedures related to appendicitis requiring general anaesthesia. Interim analysis was done to determine whether inferiority was to be declared at the halfway point. We used a non-inferiority design with a margin of 20%. All outcomes were assessed in participants with 12-month follow-up data. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02687464). Between Jan 20, 2016, and Dec 3, 2021, 936 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to appendicectomy (n=459) or antibiotics (n=477). At 12-month follow-up, primary outcome data were available for 846 (90%) patients. Treatment failure occurred in 153 (34%) of 452 patients in the antibiotic group, compared with 28 (7%) of 394 in the appendicectomy group (difference 26·7%, 90% CI 22·4–30·9). All but one patient meeting the definition for treatment failure with appendicectomy were those with negative appendicectomies. Of those who underwent appendicectomy in the antibiotic group, 13 (8%) had normal pathology. There were no deaths or serious adverse events in either group. The relative risk of having a mild-to-moderate adverse event in the antibiotic group compared with the appendicectomy group was 4·3 (95% CI 2·1–8·7; p<0·0001). Based on cumulative failure rates and a 20% non-inferiority margin, antibiotic management of non-perforated appendicitis was inferior to appendicectomy. None.

Academic and large community hospitals are more likely than smaller centres to have daytime orthopedic trauma rooms, emergency operating rooms and available, dedicated surgical personnel. In centres without daytime emergency operating rooms, the general trend is for emergency cases that can wait (such as hip fracture) to do so until after elective procedures are completed and only then to proceed, which results in potential delays in care, and operations occurring at a riskier time.3 The Canadian Collaborative Study on Hip Fractures will explore the effect of after-hours admission time, procedure volume and bed occupancy on risk of death after hip fracture.7 Further, the British Columbia Hip Fracture Redesign Project is collecting prospective data on procedure time to determine the effect of after-hours procedures on outcomes.8 We hope these analyses will shed light on the mechanism underlying our reported association between treatment setting and death. At that time, we may begin to implement and evaluate interventions (such as dedicated daytime orthopaedic trauma rooms) to combat the underlying mechanisms, and hopefully, improve outcomes at all treatment settings for these vulnerable patients. 1. Lardner DR, Brauer CA, Harrop AR, et al. After hours surgery and mortality: the potential role of acute care surgery models as a factor accounting for results [letter]. CMAJ 2017;189:E219.