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: Even prior to the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was ample evidence that loneliness and social isolation negatively impacted physical and mental health, employability, and are a financial burden on the state. In response, there has been significant policy-level attention on tackling loneliness. The objective of this scoping review was to conduct a loneliness policy landscape analysis across 52 countries of the UN European country groups. Our policy analysis sought to highlight commonalities and differences between the different national approaches to manage loneliness, with the goal to provide actionable recommendations for the consideration of policymakers wishing to develop, expand or review existing loneliness policies. Methods: We searched governmental websites using the Google search engine for publicly available documents related to loneliness and social isolation. Seventy-eight documents were identified in total, from which 23 documents were retained. Exclusion of documents was based on predetermined criteria. A structured content analysis approach was used to capture key information from the policy documents. Contextual data were captured in a configuration matrix to highlight common and unique themes. Results: We could show that most policies describe loneliness as a phenomenon that was addressed to varying degrees in different domains such as social, health, geographical, economic and political. Limited evidence was found regarding funding for suggested interventions. We synthesised actionable recommendations for the consideration of policy makers focusing on the use of language, prioritisation of interventions, revisiting previous campaigns, sharing best practice across borders, setting out a vision, evaluating interventions, and the need for the rapid and sustainable scalability of interventions. Conclusions: Our study provides the first overview of the national loneliness policy landscape, highlighting the increasing prioritisation of loneliness and social isolation as a major public health and societal issue. Our findings suggest that policymakers can sustain this momentum and strengthen their strategies by incorporating rigorous, evidence-based intervention evaluations and fostering international collaborations for knowledge sharing. We believe that policymakers can more effectively address loneliness by directing funds to develop and implement interventions that impact the individual, the community and society. [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]