Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41784554›Full record

ArticleJournal of health services research & policy2026

Assessing the resilience of a key health service: The response of acute surgical provision in England to the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Andrew Hutchings, Orlagh Carroll, Geoff Bellingan, David Cromwell, S Ramani Moonesinghe, Susan J Moug, Neil Smart, Ravinder Vohra, Robert J Hinchliffe, Richard Grieve

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health services research & policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Andrew HutchingsDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Orlagh CarrollDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2449-790X
Geoff BellinganBloomsbury Institute for Intensive Care Medicine, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
David CromwellDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
S Ramani MoonesingheDepartment of Targeted Intervention, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Susan J MougDepartment of Surgery, Royal Alexandra Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Paisley, UK.
Neil SmartCollege of Medicine and Health, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK.
Ravinder VohraCity Hospital, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Robert J HinchliffeBristol Surgical Trials Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Richard GrieveDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8899-1301

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ObjectiveInternational health systems had the opportunity to assess the resilience of core health services to severe disruption following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper examines the resilience of a core health service to shocks from COVID-19. We compare outcomes following emergency admissions in England during the second (Winter 2020/21) and third (Winter 2021/22) major waves of COVID-19 with the first wave and historic admissions from 2016 to 2019.MethodsThis cohort study included adult emergency admissions for five common acute surgical conditions: appendicitis, symptomatic gallstone disease, intestinal obstruction, symptomatic diverticular disease, and abdominal wall hernia in 122 acute hospital Trusts in England. Participants were 647,367 admissions in the hospital episode statistics (HES) inpatient database including 34,560 in the second wave and 36,628 in the third wave. Outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days.ResultsThere were 1308 deaths in wave two (3.8% of admissions) and 1235 (3.4%) in wave three compared with 3431 (3.4%) in the historic cohort and 577 (4.7%) in wave one. Compared with pre-COVID admissions, we found weak evidence of increased mortality in the second wave. There was no evidence of increased mortality in the third wave, compared to historic cohorts the case-mix adjusted odds ratios were: appendicitis 0.96 (95% CI 0.49-1.87); gallstone disease 1.27 (95% CI 0.94-1.72); diverticular disease 1.04 (95% CI 0.79-1.36); hernia 1.06 (95% CI 0.76-1.47); and intestinal obstruction 1.02 (95% CI 0.87-1.19).ConclusionsBy the end of wave three, outcomes for emergency admissions with five common acute conditions had returned to pre-pandemic levels. Lessons learnt during the disruption of the first wave of COVID-19 helped the NHS in England adapt emergency surgical services during subsequent waves. These findings emphasise the importance of maintaining, or quickly restoring core service capacity to help patient outcomes return to pre-pandemic levels.

Indexed as

COVID-19Emergency Service, HospitalState MedicineAdultAgedCohort StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19emergency surgeryhealth system resilience

Identifiers

PMID41784554
PMCPMC13589110

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.