First Phase Development of a Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Midface Oncology.

Background: Facial cancer surgery involving the midface (comprising the lower eyelids, nose, cheeks, and upper lip) can have debilitating life-changing functional, social, and psychological impacts on the patient. Midface symptoms are inadequately captured by existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROMs are increasingly used for individual patient care, quality improvement, and standardized reporting of treatment outcomes. This study aimed to present our findings from the first phase of the development of a midface, specifically periocular and nasal, PROM. Methods: After international guidance for PROM development, the first phase comprised identification of salient issues and item generation. Fifteen patients who had midface surgery and 10 clinicians from various specialties with more than 5 years' experience treating these patients were recruited. Semi-structured interviews explored aesthetic, functional, social, and psychological outcomes, with specific attention to deficiencies in current PROMs. Thematic analysis was used to develop an item pool, and group interviews with clinicians were carried out to create and refine PROM scales. Results: Qualitative data from patient interviews were grouped into aesthetic, functional, and psychosocial domains for the eyelids and nose. Ninety-nine draft items were generated across these domains. Following focus group discussions, the final version of the midface-specific PROM contained 31 items (13 eye-specific, 10-nose-specific, eight general midface items). Conclusions: This midface-specific PROM is valuable in assessing and comparing patient-reported outcomes in those who have undergone complex resection and reconstruction of the midface. This PROM is currently undergoing field testing.

Spiced RCT: Success and Pain Associated with Intravenous Cannulation in the Emergency Department Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral venous cannulation is one of the most common procedures in medicine. A larger cannula allows higher rates of fluid to be provided if needed in a deteriorating patient; however, it is also perceived that larger-gauge cannula placement is associated with increased pain and procedural difficulty. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the pain and procedural difficulty experienced during insertion between 18-gauge (18G) and 20-gauge (20G) cannulas. METHODS: We conducted a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial on adult patients who required peripheral IV cannulation within a tertiary hospital emergency department between April and October 2018. Patients were randomized to either the 18G or 20G cannula group. The primary outcomes of the study-pain experienced by patients and procedural difficulties experienced by clinical staff-were recorded on two separate 10-cm visual analog scales. Other outcomes include first-attempt success rate, operator designation, complications, and the intent and actual use of the IV cannula were documented on preformatted questionnaires. RESULTS: Data from 178 patients were included in the analysis. Eighty-nine patients were allocated to each cannula group. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences between mean pain score (0.23; 95% CI 0.56-1.02; p = 0.5662) and mean procedural difficulty score (0.12; 95% CI 0.66-0.93; p = 0.7396). between the two groups. There was no difference in first-attempt success rate (73 of 89 vs. 75 of 89; p = 0.1288), complications (2 of 89 vs. 1 of 89) between the 20G group and 18G group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the 18G or 20G cannula for either pain experienced by patients or procedural difficulty experienced by clinicians.

Improving the Safety of Computed Tomography Through Automated Quality Measurement: A Radiologist Reader Study of Radiation Dose, Image Noise, and Image Quality.

OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services funded the development of a computed tomography (CT) quality measure for use in pay-for-performance programs, which balances automated assessments of radiation dose with image quality to incentivize dose reduction without compromising the diagnostic utility of the tests. However, no existing quantitative method for assessing CT image quality has been validated against radiologists' image quality assessments on a large number of CT examinations. Thus to develop an automated measure of image quality, we tested the relationship between radiologists' subjective ratings of image quality with measurements of radiation dose and image noise. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Board-certified, posttraining, clinically active radiologists rated the image quality of 200 diagnostic CT examinations from a set of 734, representing 14 CT categories. Examinations with significant distractions, motion, or artifact were excluded. Radiologists rated diagnostic image quality as excellent, adequate, marginally acceptable, or poor; the latter 2 were considered unacceptable for rendering diagnoses. We quantified the relationship between ratings and image noise and radiation dose, by category, by analyzing the odds of an acceptable rating per standard deviation (SD) increase in noise or geometric SD (gSD) in dose. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five radiologists contributed 24,800 ratings. Most (89%) were acceptable. The odds of an examination being rated acceptable statistically significantly increased per gSD increase in dose and decreased per SD increase in noise for most categories, including routine dose head, chest, and abdomen-pelvis, which together comprise 60% of examinations performed in routine practice. For routine dose abdomen-pelvis, the most common category, each gSD increase in dose raised the odds of an acceptable rating (2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-3.24), whereas each SD increase in noise decreased the odds (0.90; 0.79-0.99). For only 2 CT categories, high-dose head and neck/cervical spine, neither dose nor noise was associated with ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation dose and image noise correlate with radiologists' image quality assessments for most CT categories, making them suitable as automated metrics in quality programs incentivizing reduction of excessive radiation doses.