Background: The Covid-19 pandemic abruptly disrupted global healthcare systems, necessitating rapid adaptations. This study evaluates the impact on health systems and services in the aftermath of the first wave in the Indian context. It analyses the disruptions, adaptive measures, and changes made, as well as the challenges faced by healthcare providers and seekers. Valuable insights from this study will enhance the resilience and preparedness of healthcare systems for future challenges. Methods: The eligible studies included primary studies conducted in the Indian context that explore the impact of COVID-19 on health services provision, utilisation, and the well-being of healthcare providers and seekers. Electronic searches were conducted in six databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, and the WHO database on COVID-19. The results were analysed using detailed narrative synthesis. Results: The review includes 38 articles, incorporating a total of 22,502 subjects. There has been a substantial impact on health service provision, particularly in outpatient departments (OPD) (n=19) and elective services (n=16), while emergency services continued at sub-optimal levels (n=20). Various adaptations and changes were implemented in precautionary measures, protocols, staff allocation and training, usage of personal protective equipment (PPE), preoperative, operative, and postoperative measures, as well as physical infrastructure and resources. Depression and stress (n=14), fear of contracting the infection (n=6), stigmatisation (n=5), and financial repercussions (n=5) significantly affected the mental health of healthcare providers, and healthcare seekers also faced significant challenges (n=11). Conclusion: The study reveals COVID-19's substantial impact on health services. The healthcare system responded by quickly adjusting staff management, resource allocation, and infection prevention measures. The study also highlights the mental health challenges faced by healthcare providers and the concerns of healthcare seekers regarding delays and suboptimal care. Looking ahead, the findings underscore the importance of preparedness for future pandemics, including improved healthcare infrastructure, resource optimisation, and comprehensive protocols. Lessons learned from COVID-19 should inform strategies to mitigate disruptions and ensure the well-being of healthcare providers and seekers in future outbreaks.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented the world with increased challenges. The response to this pandemic has led to a sudden disruption of routine medical and elective surgical care. Most hospitals across the globe have had to change the way outpatient clinics are carried out and postpone non-urgent elective surgical procedures. NHS England ceased all elective general surgeries to train and re-deploy their staff to support the increased pressures from COVID-19 in an intensive care setting. However, with a decline of reported cases and deaths, the return to undertaking non-urgent elective services is imminent. In May 2020, Radha and Afzal published the first evidence-based guidelines for the resumption of elective orthopaedic services titled “Evidence based suggestions for the return to elective orthopaedic surgery following the COVID-19 Pandemic”. The pathway presented is adapted from the “Evidence based suggestions for the return to elective orthopaedic surgery following the COVID-19 Pandemic” and could potentially be used as a model for other surgical specialities. We present a three-phased return back to urological services. Safe resumption of elective care is possible but needs to be carefully planned.

Pulmonary aspiration is a serious anaesthetic complication with morbidity and up to 9% of all anaesthesia-related mortality. Aspiration risk is especially focused on fastening time. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of 'risky stomach' defined by ultrasound imagine of solid contents and/or calculated gastric fluid volume >1.25 mL/kg in elective surgery also comparing this definition with the 0-2 qualitative rating scale used for "empty/risky stomach". This prospective study has 97 patients aged 2-18. Ultrasonographic evaluations of the gastric antrum content is scaled with qualitative assessment in supine and right lateral decubitus (RLD) position. Gastric volume was calculated. In our study, stomach content and volume were evaluated by ultrasound in 97% of children and 5.2% had Grade 2 antrum. In RLD position, antral CSA was 2.36 cm², and the median gastric volume was 0.46 mL/kg. In patients with grade 0 antrum has moderate and positive correlation between antral CSA and BMI, and strong and positive correlation between antral CSA and age like grade 1 antrum. We showed that 0.1%-4.7% of elective children had gastric fluid volumes of >1.25 mL/kg as "risky stomach". Ultrasound for gastric contents could be used routine practice to determine pulmonary aspiration risk in emergency and elective procedures.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate parents’/guardians’ late recall of surgical procedures and risks of elective surgery after pre-operative interview with surgeons. Materials and Methods: All parents/guardians of patients <18 years of age undergoing elective procedures from January 15th to September 1st, 2022, were prospectively enrolled in the study. Before discharge, parents/guardians were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding the duration of the consent procedure, duration of the interview, quality of the informative handouts, and their ability to recall the type of disease, type of surgical procedure, and surgical risks. Answers were graded from 1 to 4. Results: One hundred and two questionnaires were returned. In all cases, informed consent was obtained between 24 and 72 hours prior to surgery. The following responses were collected: 98/102 (96%) parents/guardians reported that the duration of the consent process was adequate; 95/102 (93%) reported that the handouts were fully informative, and 7/102 (7%) reported that they were partially informative regarding explanation of the disease and surgical procedure; regarding complications, 93/102 (91%) perceived the handouts to be fully/partially informative, while 4/102 (4%) perceived the handouts to be poorly/non-informative, and 5/102 (5%) did not provide a response; 94/102 (92%) stated that they remembered the pathology, but only 87/94 (93%) recalled it correctly; 90/102 (88%) stated that they remembered the type of procedure, but only 76/90 (84%) recalled it correctly; and 53/102 (52%) stated that they remembered the surgical risks, but only 20/53 (38%) could recall more than one complication. Conclusions: Late recall of surgical complications by parents was poor despite the high perceived quality of the surgical risk handouts and medical interview.

Unexpected preoperative surgery cancellations are one of the important problems in daily anesthesia practice. It's an even bigger problem if these cancellations happen in the operating room. Our aim was to draw attention to this issue and reveal the reasons. This prospective, cross-sectional study aimed to assess the prevalence and causes of elective surgery cancellations once patients are in the operating room. The study sample consisted of 7482 adult patients scheduled for elective surgeries and taken to the operating room. Sixty-seven patients whose surgeries were canceled were grouped into Group 1, while the remaining 7415 whose surgeries were completed were in Group 2. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether their surgeries were completed or canceled. Factors such as age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and surgical department were analyzed. Metrics involved comparisons between the two groups regarding age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, surgical department, and timing of the surgery. The prevalence of elective surgery cancellations after patients were in the operating room was 0.9%. Group 1 was significantly older than Group 2 (p&lt;0.001). The proportion of patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status III was higher in Group 1 (p&lt;0.001). The department with the highest cancellation rate was ophthalmology(2.5%), followed by general surgery(2.1%), urology(1.5%), and ear, nose, and throat(1.4%). Approximately 59.7% of cancellations were deemed potentially avoidable. The study suggests that many of these cancellations are potentially avoidable, underscoring the need for optimized surgical scheduling and patient assessment protocols.