Management of foreign body ingestion in adults: Time to STOP and rethink endoscopy.

Background and study aims Foreign body ingestion is a common cause for Emergency Department presentation. In adults, foreign body ingestion is more common in patients with underlying psychiatric comorbidity, the elderly, alcohol intoxication, and in prisoners. This study reviewed the management of patients presenting to a tertiary hospital with foreign body ingestion. Patients and methods A retrospective review of patients presenting with foreign body ingestion to a tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Victoria, was undertaken from January 2017 to December 2021. Data collected included patient demographics, type of foreign body, length of stay, imaging modalities, management strategies, and complications. High-risk ingestion was defined as sharp objects, length >5 cm, diameter >2.5 cm, button battery and/or magnet ingestion or esophageal as per international guidelines. Results A total of 157 presentations by 63 patients with foreign body ingestion occurred between 2017 and 2021 (50% male; median age 30 years). Of the patients, 56% had underlying psychiatric comorbidities. The majority of presentations occurred in prisoners (65%). The most commonly ingested objects were batteries (23%), alleged drug-containing balloons (17%), razor blades (16%), and miscellaneous (40%). High-risk ingestion occurred in approximately two-thirds of presentations. Conservative management was the most common approach in 55% of patients. Complications, defined as perforation, bowel obstruction or fistula formation, did not occur in this cohort despite more than half presenting with high-risk ingestions. Thirty-day re-presentation rates were high (31%) and that was most common in patients with intentional ingestion, underlying mental health disorders, and a documented history of self-harm. Conclusions Conservative management for patients presenting with recurrent high-risk foreign body ingestion was safe in appropriately selected cases. Re-presentation is common and poses significant challenges for health care providers.

A home-based, multidisciplinary liver optimisation programme for the first 28 days after an admission for acute-on-chronic liver failure (LivR well): a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) represents a rising global healthcare burden, characterised by increasing prevalence among patients with decompensated cirrhosis who have a 28-day transplantation-free mortality of 33.9%. Due to disease complexity and a high prevalence of socio-economic disadvantage, there are deficits in quality of care and adherence to guideline-based treatment in this cohort. Compared to other chronic conditions such as heart failure, those with liver disease have reduced access to integrated ambulatory care services. The LivR Well programme is a multidisciplinary intervention aimed at improving 28-day mortality and reducing 30-day readmission through a home-based, liver optimisation programme implemented in the first 28 days after an admission with either ACLF or hepatic decompensation. Outcomes from our feasibility study suggest that the intervention is safe and acceptable to patients and carers. METHODS: We will recruit adult patients with chronic liver disease from the emergency departments, in-patient admissions, and an ambulatory liver clinic of a multi-site quaternary health service in Melbourne, Australia. A total of 120 patients meeting EF-Clif criteria will be recruited to the ACLF arm, and 320 patients to the hepatic decompensation arm. Participants in each cohort will be randomised to the intervention arm, a 28-day multidisciplinary programme or to standard ambulatory care in a 1:1 ratio. The intervention arm includes access to nursing, pharmacy, physiotherapy, dietetics, social work, and neuropsychiatry clinicians. For the ACLF cohort, the primary outcome is 28-day mortality. For the hepatic decompensation cohort, the primary outcome is 30-day re-admission. Secondary outcomes assess changes in liver disease severity and quality of life. An interim analysis will be performed at 50% recruitment to consider early cessation of the trial if the intervention is superior to the control, as suggested in our feasibility study. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. Patients will be followed up for 12 weeks from randomisation. Three exploratory subgroup analyses will be conducted by (a) source of referral, (b) unplanned hospitalisation, and (c) concurrent COVID-19. The trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. DISCUSSION: This study implements a multidisciplinary intervention for ACLF patients with proven benefits in other chronic diseases with the addition of novel digital health tools to enable remote patient monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our feasibility study demonstrates safety and acceptability and suggests clinical improvement in a small sample size. An RCT is required to generate robust outcomes in this frail, high healthcare resource utilisation cohort with high readmission and mortality risk. Interventions such as LivR Well are urgently required but also need to be evaluated to ensure feasibility, replicability, and scalability across different healthcare systems. The implications of this trial include the generalisability of the programme for implementation across regional and urban centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12621001703897 . Registered on 13 December 2021. WHO Trial Registration Data Set. See Appendix 1.

Telehealth model of care for outpatient inflammatory bowel disease care in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Advances in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) monitoring, greater number of available treatments and a shift towards tight disease control, IBD care has become more dynamic with regular follow ups. AIMS: We assessed the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on outpatient IBD patient care at a tertiary centre in Melbourne. More specifically, we assessed patient satisfaction with a telehealth model of care, failure to attend rates at IBD clinics and work absenteeism prior to and during the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, qualitative analysis to assess our aims through an online survey. We invited patients who attended an IBD outpatient clinic from April to June 2020 to participate. This study was conducted at a single, tertiary referral hospital in Melbourne. The key data points that we analysed were patient satisfaction with a telehealth model of care and the effect of telehealth clinics on work absenteeism. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen (88.1%) patients were 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with the care received in the telehealth clinic. Eighty-four (60.4%) patients reported needing to take time off work to attend a face-to-face appointment, compared to 29 (20.9%) patients who needed to take time off work to attend telehealth appointments (P < 0.001). Clinic non-attendance rates were similar prior to and during the pandemic with rates of 11.4% and 10.4% respectively (P = 0.840). CONCLUSIONS: Patients report high levels of satisfaction with a telehealth model of care during the COVID-19 pandemic, with clinic attendance rates not being affected. Telehealth appointments significantly reduced work absenteeism when compared to traditional face-to-face clinics.