Validation of an Announced Telephone Pill Count Compared to a Home-Visit Pill Count in People With Type 2 Diabetes or Cardiovascular Disease.

We aimed to assess the validity of an announced telephone pill count in people with type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease by comparing this method to a home-visit pill count. We also assessed whether a second telephone pill count improved accuracy. People aged ≥35 years using oral type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease medication were included. Thirty-four participants completed a telephone pill count followed by a home-visit pill count, and a subsample of this population (n = 11) completed a second telephone pill count. Scatterplots were used for a visual representation of the number of pills counted with both methods, intraclass correlation coefficients for agreement, and Bland-Altman plots for absolute differences and outliers. A total of 203 pill counts were conducted. The study population consisted of 53% men, with a mean age of 69.6 (±9.2) years and an average of 6.1 (±2.8) medication prescriptions per participant. Scatterplots showed that pills counted with both methods were mostly scattered around the y = x equation. Agreement between the first telephone pill count and home-visit pill count was high, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.96 (medication count level) and 0.98 (individual level). No learning effects were observed in the subsample (n = 11), the intraclass correlation coefficient for the first telephone pill count was 0.88 versus 0.89 for the second telephone pill count. Bland-Altman plots indicated high agreement between the two methods. An announced telephone pill count is considered a valid alternative for a home-visit pill count in people with type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease. A single pill count appears sufficient.

Differences in organization of care are associated with mortality, severe complication and failure to rescue in emergency colon cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Emergency colon cancer surgery is associated with increased mortality and complication risk, which can be due to differences in the organization of hospital care. This study aimed. OBJECTIVE: To explore which structural factors in the preoperative, perioperative and postoperative periods influence outcomes after emergency colon cancer surgery. METHODS: An observational study was performed in 30 Dutch hospitals. Medical records from 1738 patients operated in the period 2012 till 2015 were reviewed on the type of referral, intensive care unit (ICU) level, surgeon specialization and experience, duration of surgery and operating room time, blood loss, stay on specialized postoperative ward, complication occurrence, reintervention and day of surgery and linked to case-mix data available in the Dutch Colorectal Audit. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the influence of these factors on 30-day mortality, severe complication and failure to rescue (FTR), after adjustment for case-mix. RESULTS: Patients operated by a non-Gastro intestinal/oncology specialized surgeon have significantly increased mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.28 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.23-4.23]) and severe complication risk (OR 1.61 [95% CI 1.08-2.39]). Also, duration of stay in the operating room was significantly associated with increased risk on severe complication (OR 1.03 [95% CI 1.01-1.06]). Patients admitted to a non-specialized ward have significantly increased mortality (OR 2.25 [95% CI 1.46-3.47]) and FTR risk (OR 2.39 [95% CI 1.52-3.75]). A low ICU level (basic ICU) was associated with a lower severe complication risk (OR 0.72 [95% CI 0.52-1.00]). Surgery on Tuesday was associated with a higher mortality risk (OR 2.82 [95% CI 1.24-6.40]) and a severe complication risk (OR 1.77, [95% CI 1.19-2.65]). CONCLUSION: This study identified a non-specialized surgeon and ward, operating room, time and day of surgery to be risk factors for worse outcomes in emergency colon cancer surgery.

Do Outcomes in Elective Colon and Rectal Cancer Surgery Differ by Weekday? An Observational Study Using Data From the Dutch ColoRectal Audit.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies showing higher mortality after elective surgery performed on a Friday were based on administrative data, known for insufficient case-mix adjustment. The goal of this study was to investigate the risk of adverse events for patients with colon and rectal cancer by day of elective surgery using clinical data from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospectively collected data from the 2012-2015 Dutch ColoRectal Audit (n=36,616) were used to examine differences in mortality, severe complications, and failure to rescue by day of elective surgery (Monday through Friday). Monday was used as a reference, analyses were stratified for colon and rectal cancer, and case-mix adjustments were made for previously identified variables. RESULTS: For both colon and rectal cancer, crude mortality, severe complications, and failure-to-rescue rates varied by day of elective surgery. After case-mix adjustment, lower severe complication risk was found for rectal cancer surgery performed on a Friday (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97) versus Monday. No significant differences were found for colon cancer surgery performed on different weekdays. CONCLUSIONS: No weekday effect was found for elective colon and rectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands. Lower severe complication risk for elective rectal cancer surgery performed on a Friday may be caused by patient selection.

Weekend Effect in Emergency Colon and Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Prospective Study Using Data From the Dutch ColoRectal Audit.

Background: It is unclear whether emergency weekend colon and rectal cancer surgery are associated with worse outcomes (ie, weekend effect) because previous studies mostly used administrative data, which may insufficiently adjust for case-mix. Materials and Methods: Prospectively collected data from the 2012-2015 Dutch ColoRectal Audit (n=5,224) was used to examine differences in 30-day mortality and severe complication and failure-to-rescue rates for emergency weekend (Saturday and Sunday) versus Monday surgery, stratified for colon and rectal cancer. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score, tumor stage, presence of metastasis, preoperative complication, additional resection for metastasis or locally advanced tumor, location primary colon tumor, type of rectal surgery (lower anterior resection or abdominal perineal resection), and type of neoadjuvant therapy (short-course radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy). Results: A total of 5,052 patients undergoing colon cancer surgery and 172 undergoing rectal cancer surgery were included. Patients undergoing colon or rectal cancer surgery during weekends had significantly more preoperative tumor complications compared with those undergoing surgery on a weekday. Additionally, differences in year of surgery and location of primary tumor were found for colon cancer surgery. Emergency colon cancer surgery during the weekend was associated with increased 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; 95% CI, 1.10-2.50) and severe complications (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.63) compared with surgery on Monday. Estimates for emergency weekend rectal cancer surgery were similar but not statistically significant, likely explained by small numbers. Conclusions: Weekend emergency colon cancer surgery was associated with higher mortality and severe complication rates. More research is needed to understand which factors explain and contribute to these differences.