Search

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid shifts in cancer survivorship care, including the widespread use of telehealth. Given the swift transition and limited data on preferences and experiences around telehealth, we surveyed oncology providers and post-treatment survivors to better understand experiences with the transition to telehealth. METHODS: We distributed provider (MD, PA or NP, nurse, navigator, and social worker) and survivor surveys through the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer in mid-October 2020. Survivor surveys were also disseminated through patient advocacy organizations. We included questions on demographics, experiences with telehealth, and preferences for future telehealth utilization. RESULTS: Among N = 607 providers and N = 539 cancer survivors, there was overwhelmingly more support from providers than from survivors for delivery of various types of survivorship care via telehealth and greater comfort with telehealth technologies. The only types of appointments deemed appropriate for survivorship care by both > 50% of providers and survivors were discussion of laboratory results or imaging, assessment and/or management of cancer treatment symptoms, nutrition counseling, and patient navigation support. Only a quarter of survivors reported increased access to health care services (25.5%), and 32.0% reported that they would use telehealth again. CONCLUSION: Although there have been drastic changes in technological capabilities and billing reimbursement structures for telehealth, there are still concerns around delivery of a broad range of survivorship care services via telehealth, particularly from the patient perspective. Still, offering telehealth services, where endorsed by providers and if available and acceptable to cancer survivors, may provide more efficient and accessible care following the COVID-19 pandemic.

There is no reason to be pollyannaish when approaching patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Although technology has allowed refining diagnosis and resectability of cancers causing biliary obstruction, outcomes have not improved significantly. The previous preponderant place of surgical procedures now is replaced by endoluminal and percutaneous techniques for the management of symptoms of MBO. Because quantity of life often is the primary and sole outcome for evaluation of various interventions, the main focus of patient quality of life may be erroneously deemphasized. Lagging behind scientific advances are the availability of palliative care services and studies of patient-related outcomes.

Background Most guidelines recommend both pelvic packing (PP) and angioembolization for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures, however their sequence varies. Some argue to use PP first because orthopaedic surgeons are more available than interventional radiologists; however, there is no data confirming this. Methods This cross-sectional survey of 158 trauma medical directors at US Level I trauma centers collected the availability of orthopaedic surgeons and interventional radiologists, the number of orthopaedic trauma surgeons trained to manage pelvic fractures, and priority treatment sequence for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. The study objective was to compare the availability of orthopaedic surgeons to interventional radiologists and describe how the availability of orthopaedic surgeons and interventional radiologists affects the treatment sequence for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. Fisher’s exact, chi-squared, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used, alpha = 0.05. Results The response rate was 25% (40/158). Orthopaedic surgeons (86%) were on-site more often than interventional radiologists (54%), p = 0.003. Orthopaedic surgeons were faster to arrive 39% of the time, and interventional radiologists were faster to arrive 6% of the time. There was a higher proportion of participants who prioritized PP before angioembolization at centers with above the average number (> 3) of orthopaedic trauma surgeons trained to manage pelvic fractures, as among centers with equal to or below average, p = 0.02. Arrival times for orthopaedic surgeons did not significantly predict prioritization of angioembolization or PP. Conclusions Our results provide evidence that orthopaedic surgeons typically are more available than interventional radiologists but contrary to anecdotal evidence most participants used angioembolization first. Familiarity with the availability of orthopaedic surgeons and interventional radiologists may contribute to individual trauma center’s treatment sequence.

In this study, we seek to understand which form of peer assessment is most effective in helping pupils progress in their speaking skills: when the peers discuss the feedback they are giving in subgroups or when they provide it in writing and individually. We also want to analyze what the students say, for what purpose, and what elements of oral communication skills they talk about when they provide feedback. The sample consisted of 42 pupils aged 10–11 years in two conditions (same school): written feedback condition and discussed oral feedback condition. Results indicated that the pupils in the discussed oral feedback condition progressed more than their peers in the written feedback condition. In addition, in the written feedback condition the majority of comments were mainly descriptive observations, with a few prescriptive comments. On the other hand, in the discussed oral feedback condition the comments were mostly suggestions.

Background Patients with hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures have high mortality due to delayed hemorrhage control. We hypothesized that the availability of interventional radiology (IR) for angioembolization may vary in spite of the mandated coverage at US Level I trauma centers, and that the priority treatment sequence would depend on IR availability. Methods This survey was designed to investigate IR availability and pelvic fracture management practices. Six email invitations were sent to 158 trauma medical directors at Level I trauma centers. Participants were allowed to skip questions and irrelevant questions were skipped; therefore, not all questions were answered by all participants. The primary outcome was the priority treatment sequence for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. Predictor variables were arrival times for IR when working off-site and intervention preparation times. Kruskal-Wallis and ordinal logistic regression were used; alpha = 0.05. Results Forty of the 158 trauma medical directors responded to the survey (response rate: 25.3%). Roughly half of participants had 24-h on-site IR coverage, 24% (4/17) of participants reported an arrival time ≥ 31 min when IR was on-call. 46% (17/37) of participants reported an IR procedure setup time of 31–120 min. Arrival time when IR was working off-site, and intervention preparation time did not significantly affect the sequence priority of angioembolization for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. Conclusions Trauma medical directors should review literature and guidelines on time to angioembolization, their arrival times for IR, and their procedural setup times for angioembolization to ensure utilization of angioembolization in an optimal sequence for patient survival.

Partager une recherche qui met en évidence les effets d'un dispositif d'enseignement/apprentissage de l'oral (Itinéraires) au primaire, avec un focus sur d'évaluation par les pairs des productions. Questions de recherche : quels sont les effets de deux types d’évaluation par les pairs (en sous-groupe ou individuelle) sur le développement des compétences orales des élèves ? quels sont les aspects abordés par les élèves dans les rétroactions qu'ils donnent aux autres ?

Strategic planning is a process. One way to think of strategic planning is to envision its development and design as a framework that will help your hospital navigate through internal and external changing environments over time. Although the process of strategic planning can feel daunting, following a simple formula involving five steps using the mnemonic B.E.G.I.N. (Begin, Evaluate, GoalsObjectives, Integration, and Next steps) will help the planning process feel more manageable, and lead you to greater success.

BackgroundFamiliarity with liver anatomy and refinements in operative technique have led to interest in liver conservation when dealing with hepatic tumors. There is thought to be less morbidity, less blood loss (EBL), a shorter hospital stay (LOS), and no penalty for long‐term survival with segmental hepatectomy.MethodsOne hundred ninety‐six patients who underwent segmental (SEG group) (N=70) or major (MAJOR group) (N=126) hepatectomy for liver neoplasms were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical parameters of mortality, morbidity, EBL, LOS, and actuarial survival in patients with colorectal metastases were examined.ResultsThere were no differences in age or gender between the SEG and MAJOR groups. There were no deaths among 64 non‐cirrhotic patients in the SEG group and 4 deaths (3.2%) among 124 non‐cirrhotic patients in the MAJOR group (p=0.19). There were 4 postoperative complications in the SEG group (5.6%) and 22 in the MAJOR group (17.3%) (p

As described in chapter 1, there is always fluid within the interstitial space, the space between tissue cells. The amount of fluid depends on 2 factors: the amount introduced into the interstitial space, and the amount removed from it. Fluid enters the space from arterioles and venules; some returns to the venules, and the remainder is taken up by the lymphatics. In the normal physiologic state, entrance and exit are approximately equal, so that tissues retain their usual morphologic appearance and function (1),(2).

Presence of preformed lymphocytotoxic antibodies may represent a barrier to isolated intestinal transplantation (IITx). We developed an intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) based desensitization protocol for candidates with high panel-reactive antibodies (PRA). Six patients with a mean PRA of 72+/-22% were included in a four-level (L) protocol with escalating doses of IVIg (L1, L2), addition of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or plasmapheresis (L3); and anti-CD20 (Rituximab) (L4). Four of six candidates improved their PRAs (from a mean of 66.2% to 25.5%; P=0.01) and were successfully transplanted. At a mean follow-up of 8 months, number and severity of rejection episodes of protocol patients did not differ from patients with low PRA transplanted during the same period. These data support the use of IVIg to desensitize patients waiting for IITx. It increases the applicability of IITx, and reduces the waiting time and mortality on the waiting list with outcomes comparable to nonsensitized recipients.