OP E R ATING THEATR E S
Understanding the recovery challenges
John Timmons, international medical director at Mölnlycke, discusses the findings of a major survey which uncovered the impact of the backlog, caused by COVID-19.
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to have many serious and far-reaching impacts on the health service, affecting most if not all clinical settings. The vast numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted into hospitals have placed unprecedented pressures on the system, forcing vital services to pause and treatments to be delayed. One of the areas most impacted by the crisis is elective care.
There has never been a more urgent need to assess the most effective and efficient way to clear the backlog of elective surgery than now. Doing so would not only support the health service to return to non-COVID-19 operations; it would also alleviate the pressure on the system as a whole, and directly improve long-term health outcomes for patients across the country. We cannot allow cancers to be left untreated, nor cardiovascular conditions to be left undiagnosed, or we risk an even greater health crisis in the years to come. As we look to build back better from the crisis, we must carefully consider how the system functions as a whole, placing patient outcomes and staff recovery at the top of our priority list. It is for this reason that Mölnlycke commissioned a survey of 501 healthcare professionals (HCPs) across the country, to look beyond the headline data on the elective care backlog and understand first-hand from HCPs more about the challenges they face. The survey polled surgeons, nurses, procurement managers and operating theatre staff across health service organisations to achieve a comprehensive view of the impact that
SEPTEMBER 2021
COVID-19 has had on elective care. The goal was to ascertain the current pain points in the delivery of elective care, where the backlog is posing the biggest challenges, and how these can be overcome. The survey formed part of an ongoing engagement with the clinical community to build an understanding of how best to support HCPs in the delivery of their work. Nearly three-quarters of respondents cited delays caused by COVID-19, including cancellations and extra theatre preparation time, as having the most impact on the backlog of elective care. The delays themselves were by no means insignificant. 71% of HCPs stated that the number of patients waiting more than 18 weeks for elective care had increased in their hospital since March 2020, with 6% of these saying that it had increased to over a year. According to over half of respondents, hospitals are likely to need at least a year to meet the referral-to-treatment target, with 18% of respondents saying it could take
up to 3-4 years. These findings display the sheer magnitude of the challenge ahead and highlight the imperative to act now. The most immediate impact of the elective care backlog is felt by staff. The survey demonstrated the considerable impact of COVID-19 on staff-wellbeing, with 68% of staff reporting that the backlog is negatively impacting morale. Given that staff recovery is at the forefront of the health service’s priorities for the next year, this sobering statistic illustrates the desperate need to tackle the backlog and provide the tools and space for HCPs to recover from the emotional exhaustion of COVID-19. The results of the survey suggest that the need to clear the elective backlog would add another stressor to staff’s mind, with 70% saying they are concerned about the backlog. This in itself poses a threat to the health service, which can only function effectively when staff feel safe and are not exposed to undue stress. Therefore, clearing the backlog as efficiently as possible must be a priority.
WWW.CLINICALSERVICESJOURNAL.COM l 45
▲
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88
