scholarly journals Restoration of Colorectal Services in the Recovery Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A view from Oxford

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor Yeung ◽  
Julia Merchant ◽  
Patrick Chen ◽  
Corinne Smart ◽  
Hamira Ghafoor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Recovery Period ◽  
Information Management System ◽  
Recovery Phase ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Record System ◽  
Patient Pathways ◽  
The Impact

Abstract BackgroundThe coronavirus pandemic has significantly disrupted the way we deliver healthcare worldwide. We have been flexible and creative in order to continue providing elective colorectal cancer operations and to restart services for benign cases during the recovery period of the pandemic. In this paper, we describe the impact of coronavirus on our elective services and how we have implemented new patient pathways to allow us to continue providing patient care.MethodsData on major colorectal elective resections was prospectively collected in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) database. Data on the number of proctology cases and telemed appointments were collected from the hospital theatre information management system and electronic patient record system respectively. ResultsDuring the pandemic, there was a complete shift towards cancer cases, with benign services and proctology cases being placed on hold. Hospital length of stay was reduced. We implemented earlier hospital discharge and more intense telephone follow up after elective major surgery. This has not resulted in an increase in post-operative complications, nor any increase in readmission into hospital. During the recovery phase, we have introduced a higher proportion of telemed consultations, including one-stop telemed proctology clinics, resulting in straight to tests or investigations.ConclusionsWe have created a streamlined multi-disciplinary pathway to reinstate our elective colorectal services as soon as possible and to minimise potential harm caused to patients whose treatment have been delayed. We anticipate many of these changes will be permanently incorporated into our clinical practice once the pandemic is over.

The Impact of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program on Patients Treated for Gynecologic Cancer in the Community Hospital Setting

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 581-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto A. Mendivil ◽  
Justin R. Busch ◽  
David C. Richards ◽  
Heather Vittori ◽  
Bram H. Goldstein
Keyword(s):  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Hospital Costs ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Readmission Rates ◽  
Historical Cohort ◽  
Eras Protocol ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of gynecologic oncology patients treated in the community hospital setting either under the auspices of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol or in accordance with physician discretion.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated a series of consecutive gynecologic oncology patients who were managed via open surgery in coincident with an ERAS pathway from January 2015 to December 2016. They were compared with a historical open surgery cohort who was treated from November 2013 to December 2014. The primary clinical end points encompassed hospital length of stay, hospital costs, and patient readmission rates.ResultsThere were 86 subjects accrued in the ERAS group and 91 patients in the historical cohort. The implementation of ERAS occasioned a greater than 3-day mean reduction in hospital stay (8.04 days for the historical group vs 4.88 days for the ERAS subjects; P = 0.001) and correspondingly diminished hospital costs ($11,877.47/patient vs $9305.26/patient; P = 0.04). Moreover, there were 2 readmissions (2.3%) in the ERAS group compared with 4 (4.4%) in the historical cohort (P = 0.282).ConclusionsThe results from our investigation suggest that adhering to an ERAS protocol confers beneficial hospital length of stay and hospital cost outcomes, without compromising patient readmission rates. Additional investigation scrutinizing the impact of ERAS enactment with more defined study variables in a larger, randomized setting is warranted.

scholarly journals Association of Emergency Department Waiting Times With Patient Experience in Admitted and Discharged Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 237437352110114
Author(s):  
Andrew Nyce ◽  
Snehal Gandhi ◽  
Brian Freeze ◽  
Joshua Bosire ◽  
Terry Ricca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Waiting Times ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Short Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Patient’S Experience ◽  
Discharged Patients ◽  
The Impact

Prolonged waiting times are associated with worse patient experience in patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). However, it is unclear which component of the waiting times is most impactful to the patient experience and the impact on hospitalized patients. We performed a retrospective analysis of ED patients between July 2018 and March 30, 2020. In all, 3278 patients were included: 1477 patients were discharged from the ED, and 1680 were admitted. Discharged patients had a longer door-to-first provider and door-to-doctor time, but a shorter doctor-to-disposition, disposition-to-departure, and total ED time when compared to admitted patients. Some, but not all, components of waiting times were significantly higher in patients with suboptimal experience (<100th percentile). Prolonged door-to-doctor time was significantly associated with worse patient experience in discharged patients and in patients with hospital length of stay ≤4 days. Prolonged ED waiting times were significantly associated with worse patient experience in patients who were discharged from the ED and in inpatients with short length of stay. Door-to-doctor time seems to have the highest impact on the patient’s experience of these 2 groups.

scholarly journals Ethnicity and outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 infection in East London: an observational cohort study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e042140
Author(s):  
Vanessa J Apea ◽  
Yize I Wan ◽  
Rageshri Dhairyawan ◽  
Zudin A Puthucheary ◽  
Rupert M Pearse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Premature Death ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Organ Support ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Black Patients ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Observational Cohort ◽  
The Impact ◽  
To Receive

ObjectiveTo describe outcomes within different ethnic groups of a cohort of hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. To quantify and describe the impact of a number of prognostic factors, including frailty and inflammatory markers.SettingFive acute National Health Service Hospitals in east London.DesignProspectively defined observational study using registry data.Participants1737 patients aged 16 years or over admitted to hospital with confirmed COVID-19 infection between 1 January and 13 May 2020.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was 30-day mortality from time of first hospital admission with COVID-19 diagnosis during or prior to admission. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU and hospital length of stay and type and duration of organ support. Multivariable survival analyses were adjusted for potential confounders.Results1737 were included in our analysis of whom 511 had died by day 30 (29%). 538 (31%) were from Asian, 340 (20%) black and 707 (40%) white backgrounds. Compared with white patients, those from minority ethnic backgrounds were younger, with differing comorbidity profiles and less frailty. Asian and black patients were more likely to be admitted to ICU and to receive invasive ventilation (OR 1.54, (95% CI 1.06 to 2.23); p=0.023 and OR 1.80 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.71); p=0.005, respectively). After adjustment for age and sex, patients from Asian (HR 1.49 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.86); p<0.001) and black (HR 1.30 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.65); p=0.036) backgrounds were more likely to die. These findings persisted across a range of risk factor-adjusted analyses accounting for major comorbidities, obesity, smoking, frailty and ABO blood group.ConclusionsPatients from Asian and black backgrounds had higher mortality from COVID-19 infection despite controlling for all previously identified confounders and frailty. Higher rates of invasive ventilation indicate greater acute disease severity. Our analyses suggest that patients of Asian and black backgrounds suffered disproportionate rates of premature death from COVID-19.

scholarly journals The risk of clinical complications and death among pregnant women with COVID-19 in the Cerner COVID-19 cohort: a retrospective analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fares Qeadan ◽  
Nana A. Mensah ◽  
Benjamin Tingey ◽  
Joseph B. Stanford
Keyword(s):  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Disease Outbreaks ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Morbidity And Mortality ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Female Patients ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Pregnant women are potentially a high-risk population during infectious disease outbreaks such as COVID-19, because of physiologic immune suppression in pregnancy. However, data on the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 among pregnant women, compared to nonpregnant women, are sparse and inconclusive. We sought to assess the impact of pregnancy on COVID-19 associated morbidity and mortality, with particular attention to the impact of pre-existing comorbidity. Methods We used retrospective data from January through June 2020 on female patients aged 18–44 years old utilizing the Cerner COVID-19 de-identified cohort. We used mixed-effects logistic and exponential regression models to evaluate the risk of hospitalization, maximum hospital length of stay (LOS), moderate ventilation, invasive ventilation, and death for pregnant women while adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, insurance, Elixhauser AHRQ weighted Comorbidity Index, diabetes history, medication, and accounting for clustering of results in similar zip-code regions. Results Out of 22,493 female patients with associated COVID-19, 7.2% (n = 1609) were pregnant. Crude results indicate that pregnant women, compared to non-pregnant women, had higher rates of hospitalization (60.5% vs. 17.0%, P < 0.001), higher mean maximum LOS (0.15 day vs. 0.08 day, P < 0.001) among those who stayed < 1 day, lower mean maximum LOS (2.55 days vs. 3.32 days, P < 0.001) among those who stayed ≥1 day, and higher moderate ventilation use (1.7% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.001) but showed no significant differences in rates of invasive ventilation or death. After adjusting for potentially confounding variables, pregnant women, compared to non-pregnant women, saw higher odds in hospitalization (aOR: 12.26; 95% CI (10.69, 14.06)), moderate ventilation (aOR: 2.35; 95% CI (1.48, 3.74)), higher maximum LOS among those who stayed < 1 day, and lower maximum LOS among those who stayed ≥1 day. No significant associations were found with invasive ventilation or death. For moderate ventilation, differences were seen among age and race/ethnicity groups. Conclusions Among women with COVID-19 disease, pregnancy confers substantial additional risk of morbidity, but no difference in mortality. Knowing these variabilities in the risk is essential to inform decision-makers and guide clinical recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in pregnant women.

scholarly journals 108 A Multidisciplinary Team Initiative to End PJ Paralysis Was Successful in Achieving Cultural Change on An Acute Geriatric Ward

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i12-i42
Author(s):  
J Butler ◽  
T Welford
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Change ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Recovery Phase ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Service Development ◽  
Steady Increase ◽  
Geriatric Ward ◽  
Additional Equipment ◽  
Acute Geriatric Ward

Abstract Introduction Prolonged bedrest amongst the elderly causes deconditioning leading to; increased hospital length of stay, additional social costs and decreased quality of life. An audit on an acute geriatric ward in November 2018, found that over a third of patients medically fit (PMF) to sit out remained in bed all day. Therefore, a service development initiative was undertaken, addressing the misconception that keeping elderly patients in bed is safe, when in fact, unintentional harm results. Method In a root cause analysis, four main reasons for bedrest were identified: risk aversion, unknown function, widespread “bed is safe” culture and lack of equipment. The project tasked getting PMF out of bed each day and was audited daily from November 2018 to present, involving all members of the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) and using a “plan, do, study, act” approach. Results Initially, the project showed an increase in percentage of PMF sitting out each day, but this subsequently decreased with winter pressures. However, for a whole year (February 2019–February 2020) a sustained and significant improvement was achieved (64.3%–89.7%). The pre-COVID19 period (February–March 2020) saw fluctuations in PMF sitting out. Data collection halted during the COVID19 peak, although observationally most patients remained in bed. Auditing resumed from June 2020 (COVID19 recovery phase) which showed a steady increase in PMF out of bed, with recent figures surpassing pre-COVID19 levels (97.8%). Conclusion Cultural change takes time to embed and needs persistent reviewing by a dedicated and engaged MDT. Improvements were made through more accessible doctor’s advice, better MDT education and communication, daily feedback of data and sourcing additional equipment. Disruption to working patterns over the COVID19 period made this unachievable and the project lost impetus. In the COVID19 recovery phase, the specialized MDT reformed and worked successfully to restore the cultural change as evidenced by audited data.

scholarly journals The Impact of Selenium Supplementation on Trauma Patients—Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Nutrients ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 342
Author(s):  
Jen-Fu Huang ◽  
Chih-Po Hsu ◽  
Chun-Hsiang Ouyang ◽  
Chi-Tung Cheng ◽  
Chia-Cheng Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Standard Difference ◽  
The Impact

This study aimed to assess current evidence regarding the effect of selenium (Se) supplementation on the prognosis in patients sustaining trauma. MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched with the following terms: “trace element”, “selenium”, “copper”, “zinc”, “injury”, and “trauma”. Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that Se supplementation was associated with a lower mortality rate (OR 0.733, 95% CI: 0.586, 0.918, p = 0.007; heterogeneity, I2 = 0%). Regarding the incidence of infectious complications, there was no statistically significant benefit after analyzing the four studies (OR 0.942, 95% CI: 0.695, 1.277, p = 0.702; heterogeneity, I2 = 14.343%). The patients with Se supplementation had a reduced ICU length of stay (standard difference in means (SMD): −0.324, 95% CI: −0.382, −0.265, p < 0.001; heterogeneity, I2 = 0%) and lesser hospital length of stay (SMD: −0.243, 95% CI: −0.474, −0.012, p < 0.001; heterogeneity, I2 = 45.496%). Se supplementation after trauma confers positive effects in decreasing the mortality and length of ICU and hospital stay.

scholarly journals What Is the Impact of Ambulatory Vital Sign Monitoring on Deterioration Detection and Related Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalised Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Morgado Areia ◽  
Christopher Biggs ◽  
Mauro Santos ◽  
Neal Thurley ◽  
Stephen Gerry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Ambulatory Monitoring ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Monitoring Systems ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Timely recognition of the deteriorating inpatient remains challenging. Ambulatory monitoring systems (AMS) may augment current monitoring practices. However, there are many challenges to implementation in the hospital environment, and evidence describing the clinical impact of AMS on deterioration detection and patient outcome remains unclear. Objective: To assess the impact of vital signs monitoring on detection of deterioration and related clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients using ambulatory monitoring systems, in comparison with standard care.Methods: A systematic search was conducted in August 2020 using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL and Health Technology Assessment databases, as well as grey literature. Studies comparing the use of AMS against standard care for deterioration detection and related clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients were included. Deterioration related outcomes (primary) included unplanned intensive care admissions, rapid response team or cardiac arrest activation, total and major complications rate. Other clinical outcomes (secondary) included in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay. Exploratory outcomes included alerting system parameters and clinical trial registry information. Results: Of 8706 citations, 10 studies with different designs met the inclusion criteria, of which 7 were included in the meta-analyses. Overall study quality was moderate. The meta-analysis indicated that the AMS, when compared with standard care, was associated with a reduction in intensive care transfers (risk ratio, RR, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.66 to 1.15), rapid response or cardiac arrest team activation (RR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.01), total (RR, 0.77; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.32) and major (RR, 0.55; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.30) complications prevalence. There was also association with reduced mortality (RR, 0.48; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.29) and hospital length of stay (mean difference, MD, -0.09; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.44). However, none were statistically significant.Conclusion: This systematic review indicates that implementation of AMS may have a positive impact on early deterioration detection and associated clinical outcomes, but differing design/quality of available studies and diversity of outcomes measures limits a definite conclusion. Our narrative findings suggested that alarms should be adjusted to minimise false alerts and promote rapid clinical action in response to deterioration.PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020188633

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document