Sharon Ong

Background/Objectives: Virtual preoperative anaesthetic assessments can significantly reduce healthcare costs and improve patient convenience. The challenge with virtual consults is often the airway assessments, which screen for potentially difficult airways (PDAs). The objective of this pilot study was to determine the reliability of standard airway screening tests for detecting PDAs when conducted virtually. Methods: An observational longitudinal study was conducted between July 2021 and April 2022 at a tertiary hospital in Singapore. We compared the Mallampati score (MS), upper lip bite test (ULBT), thyromental distance, mouth opening test, and neck movements in 94 patients, first during virtual assessments before surgery and subsequently at face-to-face preoperative assessments (gold standard) on the day of surgery by the same team of anaesthesiology trainees. Goodman and Kruskal’s gamma coefficient measured concordance between virtual and face-to-face assessment results. Logistic regression (LR) identified virtual predictors of PDAs in clinical practice. AUROC values informed tool performance. Results: LR showed that elevated virtual MS, virtual ULBT, and body mass index (BMI) were potential predictors of clinical PDAs. Termed the “MBBS”, this collective score showed good performance with a sensitivity of 95% and an AUROC of 0.79. Importantly, all screening tests performed poorly in virtual assessments when applied individually (sensitivity < 50%). Conclusions: In this pilot study, BMI combined with MS and ULBT could reliably detect PDAs during virtual airway assessments. The data herein support further large multi-centre studies to validate the MBBS for clinical use.

Burnout is an important occupational hazard and early detection is paramount in preventing negative sequelae in physicians, patients, and healthcare systems. Several screening tools have been developed to replace lengthy diagnostic tools for large-scale screening, however, comprehensive head–to–head evaluation for performance and accuracy are lacking. The primary objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of five burnout screening tools, including a novel rapid burnout screening tool (RBST). This was a cross-sectional study involving 493 hospital staff (anaesthesiology and intensive care doctors, nurses, and ancillary staff) at the COVID-19 frontline across four hospitals in Singapore between December 2020 and April 2021. The Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) was used as the reference standard. Five burnout screening tools, the single-item MBI measure of burnout (SI-MBI), dual-item MBI (DI-MBI), abbreviated MBI (aMBI), Single Item Burnout Question (SIBOQ), and the RBST, were administered via a 36-item online survey. Tools were administered simultaneously and responses were anonymised. Burnout prevalence was 19.9%. The RBST and the SI-MBI had the two highest accuracies (87.8% and 81.9% respectively) and AUROC scores (0.86, 95% CI: 0.83–0.89 and 0.86, 95% CI: 0.82–0.89 respectively). However, the accuracy of the RBST was significantly higher than the SI-MBI (p < 0.0001), and it had the highest positive likelihood ratio (+LR = 7.59, 95% CI 5.65–10.21). Brief screening tools detect burnout albeit with a wide range of accuracy. This can strain support services and resources. The RBST is a free screening tool that can detect burnout with a high degree of accuracy.

Background and Aims: Burnout is an important occupational hazard, and the scale of the problem within gastroenterology remains poorly understood. The primary objective of this study was to understand the prevalence of burnout in gastroenterology and ascertain if there was a common prevalence within the field. The secondary objective was to identify factors and job‐related stressors that commonly contribute to burnout in gastroenterologists.Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and PsycINFO by two reviewers independently for articles published to 1 September 2020. The primary outcome measure was the reported prevalence of burnout in gastroenterologists. The secondary outcome measures were (i) the prevalence of non‐somatic burnout symptoms (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment) and (ii) the frequency of risk factors and stressors reported in studies. Data were presented, and limited meta‐analyses discussed.Results: Data were extracted from 11 studies. 54.5% (6/11) of these studies reported the prevalence of burnout in gastroenterologists; this ranged from 18.3% to 64.4%. Similar to burnout prevalence, burnout symptoms showed geographical variation and were common in gastroenterologists (up to 63.9%). Factors associated with work volume, age, and female gender were the three most frequently reported risk factors for increased levels of stress and burnout in 72.7% (8/11), 54.5% (6/11), and 45.5% (5/11) of studies, respectively. Significant methodological and clinical heterogeneity was observed.Conclusions: Burnout and its non‐somatic symptoms are common in gastroenterologists, but the syndrome is understudied within the field. Further research and good quality data are needed to help address the problem.

Background and aims Clinician burnout is an important occupational hazard and the scale of the problem within gastroenterology remains poorly understood. The primary objective of this study was to identify the prevalence of burnout and its symptoms in gastroenterologists. The secondary objective was to identify risk factors and job-related stressors that commonly contribute to burnout in gastroenterologists. Methods Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and PsycINFO by two reviewers independently for articles published to 1 September 2020. The primary outcome measure was the reported prevalence of burnout in gastroenterologists. The secondary outcome measures were (i) the prevalence of burnout symptoms (emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and low personal accomplishment) and (ii) the frequency of risk factors and stressors reported in studies. Data were tabulated and meta-analyses were presented as Funnel and Forest plots. Results Data were extracted from 11 studies. 54.5% (6/11) of these studies reported the prevalence of burnout in gastroenterologists; this ranged from 18.3% to 64.4%. Similar to burnout prevalence, burnout symptoms showed geographical variation and were common in gastroenterologists (up to 63.9%). Factors associated with work volume, age, and female gender were the three most frequently reported risk factors for increased levels of anxiety, stress or burnout in 72.7% (8/11), 54.5% (6/11), and 45.5% (5/11) of studies respectively. Significant methodological and clinical heterogeneity was observed. Conclusions Burnout and its symptoms are common in gastroenterologists but the syndrome is understudied within the field. Further research and good quality data are needed to help address the problem. Disclose Statement JO is funded by the British Society of Gastroenterology to conduct burnout research in the UK, and the Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation (Australia) to conduct burnout research in Southeast Asia.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged health systems globally and prompted the publication of several guidelines. The experiences of our international colleagues should be utilized to protect patients and healthcare workers. The primary aim of this article is to appraise national guidelines for the perioperative anesthetic management of patients with COVID-19 so that they can be enhanced for the management of any resurgence of the epidemic. PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for guidelines related to SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, the World Federation Society of Anesthesiologists COVID-19 resource webpage was searched for national guidelines; the search was expanded to include countries with a high incidence of SARS-CoV. The guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Guidelines from Australia, Canada, China, India, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America were evaluated. All the guidelines focused predominantly on intubation and infection control. The scope and purpose of guidelines from China were the most comprehensive. The UK and South Africa provided the best clarity. Editorial independence, the rigor of development, and applicability scored poorly. Heterogeneity and gaps pertaining to preoperative screening, anesthesia technique, subspecialty anesthesia, and the lack of auditing of guidelines were identified. Evidence supporting the recommendations was weak. Early guidelines for the anesthetic management of COVID-19 patients lacked quality and a robust reporting framework. As new evidence emerges, national guidelines should be updated to enhance rigor, clarity, and applicability.

Objective The scale of burnout in UK gastroenterology trainees and the feasibility to determine its prevalence using the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) tool are unknown. The primary objective of this region-wide pilot study was to evaluate the response rate to a 31-item questionnaire. The secondary objectives were to estimate the prevalence of burnout in gastroenterology trainees within the East of England deanery (EoE) and identify common stressors that trainees experience. Design This was a cross-sectional study involving gastroenterology trainees from 16 hospitals across the EoE using a 31-item questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of the 22-item MBI-HSS and nine additional free-text questions. All gastroenterology trainees in the EoE were invited to complete the anonymised survey online. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. Results The response rate for the survey was acceptable: 44.0% (40/91). 57.5% (23/40) of gastroenterology trainees reported emotional exhaustion. 23.5% (8/34) had depersonalisation and 63.9% (23/36) experienced low professional accomplishment. Burnout prevalence was 35.3% (12/34). 48.4% (15/31) of gastroenterology trainees were aware of professional support services within EoE. Stressors related to service requirements (eg, workload, staffing levels) and professional relationships with colleagues and patients were commonly reported: 65.6% and 25.0%, respectively. Conclusions It is feasible to use a 31-item questionnaire in a national cohort of UK gastroenterology trainees for future burnout studies. Burnout in EoE gastroenterology trainees was high and this may reflect a national prevalence within the specialty. More extensive studies, greater awareness of burnout and improved access to professional support services are required.