{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029151483602290473, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013014055179593961, 'mean_word_length': 5.281045751633987, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Multidisciplinary survey of current and future use of emergency laparotomy risk assessment scores in New Zealand

Risk prediction is an important part of the management of emergency laparotomy (EL) patients. This study aims to investigate the current use of and future directions for EL risk prediction scores. New Zealand members of the Royal Australasian College of Surgery (RACS), Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) and College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM) were invited to participate in an anonymous online survey. Responses were received from 316 clinicians (45 RACS, 253 ANZCA and 19 CICM), with 73% of them having >10 years’ experience as a consultant. Risk assessment scores were utilised by respondents for approximately 30% of EL cases. The most common EL risk scores used were Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality (P-POSSUM) and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Programs (ACS-NSQIP). When used, respondents used risk assessment mostly preoperatively (RACS 100%, ANZCA 98% and CICM 78%), although P-POSSUM and ACS-NSQIP scores require intraoperative data (which can only be estimated crudely preoperatively by the clinician). Respondents on average ‘somewhat agreed’ that risk assessment scores should only include preoperative variables. The most common reasons for using P-POSSUM and ACS-NSQIP scores were familiarity and ease of use and availability of online/app calculators. The most important outcomes that the respondents would like to predict were quality of life and 30-day mortality rather than long-term impact from EL. These findings suggest that developing a new score may be required to improve utilisation and help in decision-making. This may require tailoring risk scores specifically for EL, and designing them to predict what is preferred by the clinicians making the decisions.