Search

Introduction: Right hemicolectomy (RHC) remains the treatment standard for goblet cell adenocarcinoma (GCA), despite limited evidence supporting survival benefit. This study aims to explore factors influencing surgical management and survival outcomes among patients treated with RHC or appendicectomy using NCRAS (UK) and SEER (USA) data. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using 998 (NCRAS) and 1703 (SEER) cases. Factors influencing procedure type were explored using logistic regression analyses. Overall survival (OS) probabilities and Kaplan–Meier (KM) plots were generated using KM analysis and the log-rank test compared survival between groups. Cox regression analyses were performed to assess hazard ratios. Results: The NCRAS analysis revealed that age and regional stage disease were determinants of undergoing RHC, with all age groups showing similar odds of receiving RHC, excluding the 75+ age group. The SEER analysis revealed tumour size > 2 cm, and receipt of chemotherapy were determinants of undergoing RHC, unlike the distant stage, which was associated with appendicectomy. Surgery type was not a significant predictor of OS in both analyses. In NCRAS, age and stage were significant predictors of OS. In SEER, age, stage, and Black race were significant predictors of worse OS. Conclusions: The study shows variations in the surgical management of GCA, with limited evidence to support a widespread recommendation for RHC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are occurring more frequently worldwide. Data from the UK cancer database (National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS)) showed that female patients have better survival with neuroendocrine neoplasms. This study used the U.S. cancer database (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)) to validate and compare these findings. Sixty-months survival for NENs were calculated for both male and female patients from NCRAS and SEER. The findings from NCRAS were confirmed by the findings from SEER that females survive more than males with NENs, mainly with lung and stomach NENs. The reason behind this is unclear and remains unexplained. Background: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are increasing in incidence globally. Previous analysis of the UK cancer database (National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS)) showed a notable female survival advantage in most tumour sites. This study aims to compare NCRAS to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) to validate these results using the same statistical methods. Methods: A total of 14,834 and 108,399 patients with NENs were extracted from NCRAS and SEER, respectively. Sixty-months survival for both males and females for each anatomical site of NENs were calculated using restricted mean survival time (RMST) and Kaplan–Meier Survival estimates. The sixty-month RMST female survival advantage (FSA) was calculated. Results: FSA was similar in NCRAS and SEER. The highest FSA occurred in lung and stomach NENs. Conclusions: The data from SEER confirm the findings published by NCRAS. Female survival advantage remains unexplained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of a national policy of shielding to safeguard clinically vulnerable patients. To ensure consistent care for high-risk patients with hypertension, NHS England introduced the BP@home initiative to enable patients to self-monitor their blood pressure by providing them with blood pressure monitors. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the initiative based on the experience and perspectives of programme managers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in its implementation in London. Methods and findings: We conducted five semi-structured focus groups and one individual interview with a total of 20 healthcare professionals involved at different levels and stages in the BP@home initiative across four of the five London Integrated Care Systems (ICSs). All focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically following the Framework Method. Respondents reported being challenged by the lack of adequate IT, human and financial resources to support the substantial additional workload associated with the programme. These issues resulted in and reinforced the differential engagement capacities of PCNs, practices and patients, thus raising equity concerns among respondents. However respondents also identified several facilitators, including the integration of the eligibility criteria into the electronic health record (EHR), especially when combined with the adoption of practice-specific, pragmatic and opportunistic approaches to the onboarding of patients. Respondents also recommended the provision of blood pressure monitors (BPMs) on prescription, additional funding and training based on needs assessment, the incorporation of BP@home into daily practice and simplification of IT tools, and finally the adoption of a person-centred care approach. Contextualised using the second iteration of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), these findings support key evidence-based recommendations to help streamline the implementation of the BP@home initiative in London's primary care setting. Conclusions: Programs such as BP@Home are likely to become more common in primary care. To successfully support HCPs' aim to care for their hypertensive patients, their implementation must be accompanied by additional financial, human and training resources, as well as supported task-shifting for capacity building. Future studies should explore the perspectives of HCPs based in other parts of the UK as well as patients' experiences with remote monitoring of blood pressure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze the effect of drain placement on postoperative hematoma formation and other associated outcomes post-thyroid surgery in a large national cohort.Methods: This was a retrospective study that analyzed data from the 2016-2017 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) public use files. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared between drain and no drain cohorts.Results: A total of 11,626 patients were included; 3281 had a drain placed intraoperatively and 8345 did not. Otolaryngologists were 6.98 times more likely to place a drain after thyroidectomy than general surgeons (P < .001), and patients undergoing subtotal or total thyroidectomy were 2.17 times more likely to have a drain placed than if undergoing partial thyroidectomy (P < .001). Drain placement did not reduce hematoma formation on both univariate and multivariate analyses (adjusted OR = 0.93, P = .696). A slightly larger proportion of patients underwent unplanned intubation postoperatively among those who had a drain placed (0.76% vs. 0.29%, P < .001). Patients who received a drain were on average 4.63 times as likely to remain in the hospital for 2 or more days compared to those who did not receive a drain.Conclusion: Drain placement did not significantly affect postoperative hematoma formation following thyroidectomy. Drain placement should not be routinely employed in these patients. However, surgeon judgement and intraoperative considerations should be taken into account, as to when to place a drain.Level Of Evidence: N/A Laryngoscope, 130:1349-1356, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The global prevalence of mental health disorders has risen significantly since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has additionally caused disruption to mental health services, leading to a shift from in-person to remote service delivery. Given its long-term impact, it has become critical to evaluate whether changes in health delivery during the pandemic have had an effect on prescribing patterns for commonly prescribed psychotropic drugs. This study aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on changes in psychotropic prescribing patterns in adults, as well as differences in prescribing in different healthcare delivery approaches across various geographical contexts., Design and Eligibility Requirements: Systematic review of cohort, interrupted time-series and cross-sectional studies examining prescribing trends for at least one commonly prescribed psychotropic drug during and after COVID-19 in accessing care remotely or face to face between 1 January 2020 and 17 June 2022., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC and PsycINFO databases were searched in addition to citation chaining of relevant reviews., Extraction and Analysis: Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were completed by two independent reviewers. The PECO strategy was used to devise the systematic review and findings were synthesised narratively., Results: 16 studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies documenting changes in psychotropic prescribing trends provided very conflicting findings. There were no stark differences in prescribing outcomes between different healthcare delivery methods (ie, face-to-face consultations vs remote consultations). A noteworthy finding was that the prescribing rate of benzodiazepines was higher in women than men. No particular trends were observed for the prescription rates of hypnotics, antidepressants or antipsychotics., Conclusions: Findings support mixed trends in the prescription of psychotropic medications in a range of settings, hindering conclusive statements on COVID-19's impact on prescribing. In areas where remote consultations are in use, more comprehensive research is required to assess the safety of prescribing in these settings to inform public health policy and assess if the observed trends in our systematic review persist over time (given the increased consideration of remote and telehealth care in delivering services), particularly the safe and effective deployment of these services., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RI and NM are employees of Oracle UK, a health technology organisation. AJV-V reports past or current participation in investigator-initiated research grants to Imperial College London from Pfizer, Amgen, Sanofi, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo and Regeneron, honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Mylan and Akcea, and steering committee/consulting fees from Radcliffe Cardiology and Bayer, all outside the submitted work. KID reports past or current participation in investigator-initiated research grants to Imperial College London from Amgen, Sanofi, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo and Regeneron and consulting fees from Bayer, all outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In the context of a deepening global shortage of health workers and, in particular, the COVID-19 pandemic, there is growing international interest in, and use of, online symptom checkers (OSCs). However, the evidence surrounding the triage and diagnostic accuracy of these tools remains inconclusive., Objective: This systematic review aimed to summarize the existing peer-reviewed literature evaluating the triage accuracy (directing users to appropriate services based on their presenting symptoms) and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs aimed at lay users for general health concerns., Methods: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), and Web of Science, as well as the citations of the studies selected for full-text screening. We included peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 1, 2010, and February 16, 2022, with a controlled and quantitative assessment of either or both triage and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs directed at lay users. We excluded tools supporting health care professionals, as well as disease- or specialty-specific OSCs. Screening and data extraction were carried out independently by 2 reviewers for each study. We performed a descriptive narrative synthesis., Results: A total of 21,296 studies were identified, of which 14 (0.07%) were included. The included studies used clinical vignettes, medical records, or direct input by patients. Of the 14 studies, 6 (43%) reported on triage and diagnostic accuracy, 7 (50%) focused on triage accuracy, and 1 (7%) focused on diagnostic accuracy. These outcomes were assessed based on the diagnostic and triage recommendations attached to the vignette in the case of vignette studies or on those provided by nurses or general practitioners, including through face-to-face and telephone consultations. Both diagnostic accuracy and triage accuracy varied greatly among OSCs. Overall diagnostic accuracy was deemed to be low and was almost always lower than that of the comparator. Similarly, most of the studies (9/13, 69 %) showed suboptimal triage accuracy overall, with a few exceptions (4/13, 31%). The main variables affecting the levels of diagnostic and triage accuracy were the severity and urgency of the condition, the use of artificial intelligence algorithms, and demographic questions. However, the impact of each variable differed across tools and studies, making it difficult to draw any solid conclusions. All included studies had at least one area with unclear risk of bias according to the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool., Conclusions: Although OSCs have potential to provide accessible and accurate health advice and triage recommendations to users, more research is needed to validate their triage and diagnostic accuracy before widescale adoption in community and health care settings. Future studies should aim to use a common methodology and agreed standard for evaluation to facilitate objective benchmarking and validation., Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020215210; https://tinyurl.com/3949zw83., (©Eva Riboli-Sasco, Austen El-Osta, Aos Alaa, Iman Webber, Manisha Karki, Marie Line El Asmar, Katie Purohit, Annabelle Painter, Benedict Hayhoe. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 02.06.2023.)

Objectives: While smoking tobacco remains a substantial cause of harm in Europe, novel products such as electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes (ECs) and heated tobacco products (HTPs) have entered the market recently. While debate still persists over the role of these novel products, they are now in widespread use. This study aimed to explore the prevalence and methods of attempts to quit EC and HTP., Setting: We analysed the 2020 Eurobarometer survey, which collected data in 28 European countries., Participants: A representative sample of individuals residing in these countries aged ≥15 years., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Multilevel regression analyses were performed to assess differences in quit attempts and cessation methods among tobacco smokers and exclusive EC/HTP users separately., Results: 51.1% of current tobacco smokers and 27.1% of exclusive EC or HTP users reported having ever made a quit attempt. The majority of former and current smokers (75.8%) who made a quit attempt did so unassisted, with 28.8% reporting at least one attempt using a cessation aid. The most popular cessation aids were nicotine replacement therapy or other medication (13.4%) and ECs (11.3%). 58.8% of exclusive EC or HTP users who had made a quit attempt did so unassisted, with 39.5% reporting the use of a cessation aid., Conclusion: Most EC and HTP users in Europe try to quit unassisted, although more of them report the use of a cessation aid compared with tobacco smokers. Cessation support services should take into consideration the increasing numbers of users of EC and HTP who may be trying to quit., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Chronic diseases are the leading cause of disability globally. Most chronic disease management occurs in primary care with outcomes varying across primary care providers. Computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been shown to positively affect clinician behaviour by improving adherence to clinical guidelines. This study provides a summary of the available evidence on the effect of CDSS embedded in electronic health records on patient-reported and clinical outcomes of adult patients with chronic disease managed in primary care., Design and Eligibility Criteria: Systematic review, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, quasi-RCTs, interrupted time series and controlled before-and-after studies, assessing the effect of CDSS (vs usual care) on patient-reported or clinical outcomes of adult patients with selected common chronic diseases (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, myocardial ischaemia, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidaemia, arthritis and osteoporosis) managed in primary care., Data Sources: Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, Health Management Information Consortium and trial register clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception to 24 June 2020., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for quality appraisal., Results: From 5430 articles, 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were heterogeneous in population characteristics, intervention components and outcome measurements and focused on diabetes, asthma, hyperlipidaemia and hypertension. Most outcomes were clinical with one study reporting on patient-reported outcomes. Quality of the evidence was impacted by methodological biases of studies., Conclusions: There is inconclusive evidence in support of CDSS. A firm inference on the intervention effect was not possible due to methodological biases and study heterogeneity. Further research is needed to provide evidence on the intervention effect and the interplay between healthcare setting features, CDSS characteristics and implementation processes., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020218184., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RI and NM are employees of Cerner UK, a health technology organisation. AJV-V reports past or current participation in investigator-initiated research grants to Imperial College London from Pfizer, Amgen, Sanofi, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo and Regeneron, honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Mylan and Akcea, and steering committee/consulting fees from Radcliffe Cardiology and Bayer, all outside the submitted work. KID reports past or current participation in investigator-initiated research grants to Imperial College London from Amgen, Sanofi, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo and Regeneron and consulting fees from Bayer, all outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)