Surgical outcomes in surgical oncology patients who participated in a family involvement program.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence regarding the relationship between family involvement and outcomes in gastrointestinal oncology patients after surgery. To evaluate the effect of a family involvement program for patients undergoing oncologic gastrointestinal surgery on unplanned readmissions within 30 days after surgery. METHODS: A multicenter patient-preference cohort study compared 2 groups: patients who participated in the family involvement program versus usual care. The program comprised involvement of family caregivers in care and training of health care professionals in family-centered care. Multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate the effect of the FIP on the number of unplanned readmissions up to 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included complications sensitive to fundamental care activities, emergency department visits, intensive care unit admissions, hospital length of stay, and the need for professional home care after discharge. RESULTS: Of the 301 patients included, 152 chose the family involvement program, and 149 chose usual care. Postoperative readmissions occurred in 25 (16.4%) patients in the family involvement program group, and 15 (10.1%) in the usual care group (P = .11). A significant reduction of 16.2% was observed in the need for professional home care after discharge in the family involvement program group (P < .01). No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: The family involvement program did not reduce the number of unplanned readmissions, but it led to a substantial reduction in-home care, which suggests an economic benefit from a societal perspective. Implementation of the family involvement program should, therefore, be considered in clinical practice.

Post-operative nursing activities to prevent wound complications in patients undergoing colorectal surgeries: A scoping review.

AIMS: To identify postoperative interventions and quality improvement initiatives used to prevent wound complications in patients undergoing colorectal surgeries, the types of activities nurses undertake in these interventions/initiatives and how these activities align with nurses' scope of practice. DESIGN: A scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Three health databases were searched, and backward and forward citation searching occurred in April 2022. Research and quality improvement initiatives included focussed on adult patients undergoing colorectal surgery, from 2010 onwards. Data were extracted about study characteristics, nursing activities and outcomes. The 'Dimensions of the scope of nursing practice' framework was used to classify nursing activities and then the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendations framework was used to synthesise the review findings. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included. These studies often reported negative wound pressure therapy and surgical site infection bundle interventions/initiatives. Nurses' scope of practice was most frequently 'Technical procedure and delegated medical care' meaning nurses frequently acted under doctors' orders, with the most common delegated activity being dressing removal. CONCLUSION: The full extent of possible interventions nurses could undertake independently in the postoperative period requires further exploration to improve wound outcomes and capitalise on nurses' professional role. IMPACT STATEMENT: Nurses' role in preventing postoperative wound complications is unclear, which may inhibit their ability to influence postoperative outcomes. In the postoperative period, nurses undertake technical activities, under doctors' orders to prevent wound infections. For practice, nurses need to upkeep and audit their technical skills. New avenues for researchers include exploration of independent activities for postoperative nurses and the outcomes of these activities. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: There may be opportunities to broaden nurses' scope of practice to act more autonomously to prevent wound complication. REPORTING METHOD: Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A health consumer interpreted the data and prepared the manuscript.

Activating Relatives to Get Involved in Care After Surgery: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications and readmissions to hospital are factors known to negatively influence the short- and long-term quality of life of patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Active family involvement in activities, such as fundamental care activities, has the potential to improve the quality of health care. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the relationship between active family involvement and outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal cancer after surgery. OBJECTIVE: This protocol aims to evaluate the effect of a family involvement program (FIP) on unplanned readmissions of adult patients undergoing surgery for malignant gastrointestinal tumors. Furthermore, the study aims to evaluate the effect of the FIP on family caregiver (FC) burden and their well-being and the fidelity of the FIP. METHODS: This cohort study will be conducted in 2 academic hospitals in the Netherlands. The FIP will be offered to adult patients and their FCs. Patients are scheduled for oncological gastrointestinal surgery and have an expected hospital stay of at least 5 days after surgery. FCs must be willing to participate in fundamental care activities during hospitalization and after discharge. Consenting patients and their families will choose to either participate in the FIP or be included in the usual care group. According to the power calculation, we will recruit 150 patients and families in the FIP group and 150 in the usual care group. The intervention group will receive the FIP that consists of information, shared goal setting, task-oriented training, participation in fundamental care, presence of FCs during ward rounds, and rooming-in for at least 8 hours a day. Patients in the comparison group will receive usual postoperative care. The primary outcome measure is the number of unplanned readmissions up to 30 days after surgery. Several secondary outcomes will be collected, that is, total number of complications (sensitive to fundamental care activities) at 30 and 90 days after surgery, emergency department visits, intensive care unit admissions up to 30 and 90 days after surgery, hospital length of stay, patients' quality of life, and the amount of home care needed after discharge. FC outcomes are caregiver burden and well-being up to 90 days after participating in the FIP. To evaluate fidelity, we will check whether the FIP is executed as intended. Univariable regression and multivariable regression analyses will be conducted. RESULTS: The first participant was enrolled in April 2019. The follow-up period of the last participant ended in May 2022. The study was funded by an unrestricted grant of the University hospital in 2018. We aim to publish the results in 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide evidence on outcomes from a FIP and will provide health care professionals practical tools for family involvement in the oncological surgical care setting. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/38028.

Impact of family visit restrictions due to COVID-19 policy on patient outcomes: A cohort study.

AIM: To investigate the impact of family visit restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic on deliriums, falls, pneumonia, pressure ulcers and readmissions among surgical inpatients with gastrointestinal (oncologic) diseases. DESIGN: Cohort study. METHODS: This study was conducted among adult inpatients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery in two academic hospitals. During the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, over a 10-week period, one cohort was subjected to family visit restrictions. Per patient, one person per day was allowed to visit for a maximum of 30 min. This cohort was compared with another cohort in which patients were not subjected to such restrictions during a 10-week period in 2019. Logistic regression analyses were used to investigate the impact of the restrictions on deliriums, falls, pneumonia, pressure ulcers and readmissions. RESULTS: In total, 287 patients were included in the 2020 cohort and 243 in the 2019 cohort. No differences were observed in the cohorts with respect to baseline characteristics. Logistic regression analyses showed no significant differences in deliriums, falls, pneumonia, pressure ulcers and readmissions between the cohorts. CONCLUSION: We cautiously conclude that the family visit restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic did not contribute to deliriums, falls, pneumonia, pressure ulcers or readmissions in surgical patients with gastrointestinal (oncologic) diseases. IMPACT: COVID-19 influenced family-centred care due to family visit restrictions. Nurses need to continue monitoring outcomes known to be sensitive to family-centred care to gain insight into the effects of visit restrictions and share the results in order to include nurses' perspectives in COVID-19-decision-making. Re-implementing of family visit restrictions should be carefully considered in policy-making.

Impact of a surgical ward breakfast buffet on nutritional intake in postoperative patients: A prospective cohort pilot study.

BACKGROUND: An early return to normal intake and early mobilization enhances postoperative recovery. However, one out of six surgical patients is undernourished during hospitalization and approximately half of the patients eat 50% or less of the food provided to them. We assessed the use of newly introduced breakfast buffets in two wards for gastrointestinal and oncological surgery and determined the impact on postoperative protein and energy intake. METHODS: A prospective pilot cohort study was conducted to assess the impact of the introduction of breakfast buffets in two surgical wards. Adult patients had the opportunity to choose between an attractive breakfast buffet and regular bedside breakfast service. Primary outcomes were protein and energy intake during breakfast. We asked patients to report the type of breakfast service and breakfast intake in a diary over a seven-day period. Prognostic factors were used during multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients were included. The median percentage of buffet use per patient during the seven-day study period was 50% (IQR 0-83). Mean protein intake was 14.7 g (SD 8.4) and mean energy intake 332.3 kcal (SD 156.9). Predictors for higher protein intake included the use of the breakfast buffet (ß = 0.06, p = 0.01) and patient weight (ß = 0.13, p = 0.01). Both use of the breakfast buffet (ß = 1.00, p = 0.02) and Delirium Observation Scale scores (ß = -246.29, p = 0.02) were related to higher energy intake. CONCLUSION: Introduction of a breakfast buffet on a surgical ward was associated with higher protein and energy intake and it could be a promising approach to optimizing such intake in surgical patients. Large, prospective and preferably randomized studies should confirm these findings.