Ambulatory care is defined as the provision of medical treatment by healthcare professionals outside an inpatient hospital setting. While well-established in acute medicine, uptake of ambulatory pathways in emergency general surgery (EGS) is variable and optimal design and delivery is unclear in this context. This systematic review sought to (1) appraise current EGS ambulatory pathway literature and (2) ascertain the constituent components across the identified pathways, guiding the development of comprehensive templates for future EGS ambulatory pathways.

Systematic review.

PubMed, Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library, from 5 December 2018 to 5 December 2023 inclusive.

All primary observational studies (ie, case–control, cohort studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) were included. Case series and conference abstracts were excluded due to the high likelihood of incomplete data. Studies reporting paediatric or non-surgical populations, or ambulatory surgical care within a primary care setting, were also excluded.

General study characteristics (year and journal of publication, country of origin, study design, disease area, number of patients receiving ambulatory management and use of control groups) were recorded. To identify the constituent components of EGS ambulatory pathways, an initial subset of five papers was reviewed, from which four categories were identified (decision-making processes, scoring/classification systems, investigations and care escalation and discharge criteria). An additional fifth component (‘follow-up’) was identified during data extraction. Reporting of the constituent components of ambulatory pathways was also extracted, as well as outcomes including readmission, complications and mortality.

Of 43 included studies, there were 8 RCTs, 31 cohort studies and 4 studies using other methods. Reporting of all aspects of EGS ambulatory pathways was heterogeneous. 24 (56%) papers reported the specialty and grade of clinician acting as senior decision-maker. 17 different scoring/classification systems were used. 32 (74%) papers described using investigations to select ambulatory patients, including blood tests (n=12) and imaging (n=16). Eight studies (19%) specified both care escalation and discharge criteria. Information about follow-up was described in 29 papers, with location (n=29), time points (n=26), personnel (n=16) and the form of the follow-up (n=23) all reported variably. Readmission rates were recorded in 34 studies and ranged from 0% to 13%. Most studies (n=32) reported 30-day readmission, although 48 hours (n=1) and 90 days (n=1) were also used. Mortality was recorded in 24 papers, with 21 reporting a mortality rate of 0 and the remaining 3 reporting rates of

Key components of published EGS ambulatory pathways include decision-making processes, scoring/classification systems, investigations, care escalation and discharge criteria, and follow-up. However, this information is currently inconsistently reported. Future work to identify and agree on guidelines for the ‘core’ components of ambulatory EGS pathways is needed, to facilitate cross-study comparisons, and crucially, provide a ‘gold-standard’ framework for developing future ambulatory pathways.