Emad A H Aly1, R Milne, C D Johnson. 1. Pancreas and Biliary Research Group, University Surgical Unit, Southampton General Hospital, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deficiencies and lack of standardisation of the management of acute pancreatitis in the UK have been reported. National UK guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis were published in 1998. However, implementation of national guidelines in other areas has been patchy, suggesting that evaluation of the uptake of the pancreatitis guidelines would be appropriate. AIM: Identification of current practice in the management of acute pancreatitis as reported by consultant surgeons, in order to determine how effectively the UK guidelines have been introduced into practice. METHODS: A questionnaire was posted to 1,072 full members of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland. It consisted of 13 questions that aimed to identify the surgeon's practice in the management of patients with acute pancreatitis in relation to key points in the UK guidelines. We compared the practice of hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HBP) vs. non-HBP specialists, and teaching vs. non-teaching hospital surgeons using the chi(2) test. RESULTS: Of 538 responses (50%), 519 were from consultant surgeons. 59 did not look after patients with acute pancreatitis and 89 (17%) had a HBP interest. There were differences between the recommendations in the guidelines and reported practice, particularly in the use of critical care resources and referral to specialist units. Of consultants looking after acute pancreatitis 371 (72%) were non-HBP specialists. There were significant overall differences between the practice of HBP specialists and non-specialists: in severity assessment (Glasgow and C-reactive protein vs. Ranson criteria); indication and timing of requesting computed tomography (routinely at 7-10 days vs. when clinically indicated); nutritional support (enteral feeding vs. no support), and in common bile duct assessment prior to cholecystectomy (intra-operative cholangiography vs. endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography). There was no significant difference between practice in teaching and non-teaching hospitals. CONCLUSION: Implementation of national guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis was greater in the practice of HBP specialists than non-specialists. This has implications for the rationale of creating guidelines, and for the strategies associated with their introduction. Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
BACKGROUND: Deficiencies and lack of standardisation of the management of acute pancreatitis in the UK have been reported. National UK guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis were published in 1998. However, implementation of national guidelines in other areas has been patchy, suggesting that evaluation of the uptake of the pancreatitis guidelines would be appropriate. AIM: Identification of current practice in the management of acute pancreatitis as reported by consultant surgeons, in order to determine how effectively the UK guidelines have been introduced into practice. METHODS: A questionnaire was posted to 1,072 full members of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland. It consisted of 13 questions that aimed to identify the surgeon's practice in the management of patients with acute pancreatitis in relation to key points in the UK guidelines. We compared the practice of hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HBP) vs. non-HBP specialists, and teaching vs. non-teaching hospital surgeons using the chi(2) test. RESULTS: Of 538 responses (50%), 519 were from consultant surgeons. 59 did not look after patients with acute pancreatitis and 89 (17%) had a HBP interest. There were differences between the recommendations in the guidelines and reported practice, particularly in the use of critical care resources and referral to specialist units. Of consultants looking after acute pancreatitis 371 (72%) were non-HBP specialists. There were significant overall differences between the practice of HBP specialists and non-specialists: in severity assessment (Glasgow and C-reactive protein vs. Ranson criteria); indication and timing of requesting computed tomography (routinely at 7-10 days vs. when clinically indicated); nutritional support (enteral feeding vs. no support), and in common bile duct assessment prior to cholecystectomy (intra-operative cholangiography vs. endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography). There was no significant difference between practice in teaching and non-teaching hospitals. CONCLUSION: Implementation of national guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis was greater in the practice of HBP specialists than non-specialists. This has implications for the rationale of creating guidelines, and for the strategies associated with their introduction. Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
Authors: J G Williams; S E Roberts; M F Ali; W Y Cheung; D R Cohen; G Demery; A Edwards; M Greer; M D Hellier; H A Hutchings; B Ip; M F Longo; I T Russell; H A Snooks; J C Williams Journal: Gut Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Adrian C Vlada; Bradley Schmit; Andrew Perry; Jose G Trevino; Kevin E Behrns; Steven J Hughes Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Alex Mirnezami; Ben Knight; Brendan Moran; Fergus Noble; Graham Branagan; John Primrose; Katherine Pearson; Malcolm West; Nathan Curtis; Phil Pucher; Ramsey Cuttress; Sian Pugh; Tim Underwood Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: J A Greenberg; J Hsu; M Bawazeer; J Marshall; J O Friedrich; A Nathens; N Coburn; H Huang; R S McLeod Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Matthew J Dimagno; Erik-Jan Wamsteker; Rafat S Rizk; Joshua P Spaete; Suraj Gupta; Tanya Sahay; Jeffrey Costanzo; John M Inadomi; Lena M Napolitano; Robert C Hyzy; Jeff S Desmond Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 10.864