AbstractAimEmergency laparotomy and laparoscopy (EmLap) are amongst the commonest surgical procedures, with high prevalence of sepsis and hence poorer outcomes. However, whether time taken to receive care influences outcomes in patients requiring antibiotics for suspected infection remains largely unexplored. The aim of this work was to determine whether (1) time to care contributes to outcome differences between patients with and without suspected infection and (2) its impact on outcomes only amongst those with suspected infection.MethodClinical information was retrospectively obtained from the 2017–2018 Emergency Laparotomy and Laparoscopic Scottish Audit (ELLSA). Time to care referred to six temporal variables describing radiological investigation, anaesthetic triage and surgical management. Outcome measures [mortality, readmission, hospital death, postoperative destination and length of stay (LoS)] were compared using adjusted and unadjusted regression analyses to determine whether the outcome differences could be explained by faster or slower time to care.ResultsAmongst 2243 EmLap patients [median age 65 years (interquartile range 51–75 years), 51.1% female], 892 (39.77%) received antibiotics for suspected infection. Although patients with suspected infection had faster time to care (all p ≤ 0.001) and worse outcomes compared with those who did not, outcome differences were not statistically significant when accounted for time (all p > 0.050). Amongst those who received antibiotics, faster time to care was also associated with decreased risk of postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) stay and shorter LoS (all p < 0.050).ConclusionWorse outcomes associated with infection in EmLap patients were attenuated by faster time to care, which additionally reduced the LoS and ICU stay risk amongst those with suspected infection.