Nutritional Support of the Surgical Oncology Patient

1991 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike K. Chen ◽  
Wiley W. Souba ◽  
Edward M. Copeland
2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Olshinka ◽  
S. Mottard

Sarcoma treatment during the covid-19 pandemic is a new challenge. This patient population is often immunocom­promised and potentially more susceptible to viral complications.    Government guidelines highlight the need to minimize patient exposure to unnecessary hospital visits. However, those guidelines lack practical recommendations on ways to manage triage and diagnosis expressly for new cancer patients. Furthermore, there are no reports on the efficiency of the guidelines.    One of the main issues in treating musculoskeletal tumours is the complexity and variability of presentation. We offer a triage model, used in a quaternary-referral musculoskeletal oncology centre, that allows us to maintain an open pathway for referral of new patients while minimizing exposure risks. A multidisciplinary approach and analysis of existing investigations allow for a pre-clinic evaluation.    The model identifies 3 groups of patients: Patients with suspected high-grade malignancy, or benign cases with aggressive features, both in need of further evaluation in the clinic and prompt treatment Patients with low-grade malignancy, and benign cases whose treatment is not urgent, that are managed, during the pandemic by telemedicine, with reassurance and information about their illness Patients who can be managed by their local medical professionals    In comparison to a pre-pandemic period, that approach resulted in a higher ratio of malignant-to-benign con­ditions for new patients seen in the clinic (3:4 vs. 1:3 respectively), thus using available resources more efficiently and prioritizing patients with suspected high-grade malignancy.    We believe that this triage system could be applied in other surgical oncology fields during a pandemic.


2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6105-6105
Author(s):  
C. R. Friese ◽  
L. H. Aiken

6105 Background: Increased attention has focused on the role of hospital characteristics on cancer patient outcomes. We examined two cancer-specific credentials, as well registered nurse practice environments, on outcomes of care. Methods: Through secondary analysis of existing data from hospital claims, the tumor registry, and a statewide of survey of nurses (RNs), we studied 30-day mortality (D) and failure to rescue (death given a complication) (FTR) for surgical oncology patients treated in 164 Pennsylvania hospitals from 1998–1999 (N=24,618). We compared D and FTR rates by a hospital’s NCI cancer center designation, American College of Surgeon’s (ACoS) cancer program approval and categorized scores on the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI). The PES-NWI scales measure RN participation in hospital affairs, RN foundations for quality of care, nurse manager leadership/support, staffing/resource adequacy, and RN-physician relations. Multivariate logistic regression models examined predictors of D and FTR, controlling for 25 patient variables. Standard errors were corrected for patient clustering in hospitals. Results: NCI centers had lower D and FTR rates (p < .01). ACoS hospitals had lower D and FTR rates (ns). Hospitals with low scores on PES-NWI scales had the poorest outcomes (p < .01). In logistic regression models, significant predictors included unfavorable PES-NWI Scores for D (OR=1.32, 95% CI: 1.06–1.65) and FTR (OR=1.39, 95% CI:1.03–1.88), and NCI centers for D (OR=0.64, 95% CI: 0.50–0.83) and FTR (OR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.47–0.96). The NCI effect lost significance when environment was included. ACoS program effects were small (OR= 0.99, p = .90) for both outcomes. Conclusions: Favorable outcomes in NCI centers may be partly explained by practice environments. The practice environment of RNs significantly predicts surgical oncology patient outcomes, and should be a focus of quality improvement activities. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


Nutrition ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J Andrassy ◽  
Walter Jakob Chwals

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 449-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinil K. Shah ◽  
Peter A. Walker ◽  
Stacey D. Moore-Olufemi ◽  
Alamelu Sundaresan ◽  
Anil D. Kulkarni ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsia Gillis ◽  
Leslee Hasil ◽  
Popi Kasvis ◽  
Neil Bibby ◽  
Sarah J. Davies ◽  
...  

The nutrition care process is a standardized and systematic method used by nutrition professionals to assess, diagnose, treat, and monitor patients. Using the nutrition care process model, we demonstrate how nutrition prehabilitation can be applied to the pre-surgical oncology patient.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document