[The abdominal pain unit as a treatment pathway : Structured care of patients with atraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department]. / Die Abdominal Pain Unit als Behandlungspfad : Strukturierte Versorgung von Patient*innen mit atraumatischen Bauchschmerzen in der Notaufnahme.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atraumatic abdominal pain are common in the emergency department and have a relatively high hospital mortality, with a very wide spectrum of different causes. Rapid, goal-directed diagnosis is essential in this context. METHODS: In a Delphi process with representatives of different disciplines, a diagnostic treatment pathway was designed, which is called the Abdominal Pain Unit (APU). RESULTS: The treatment pathway was designed as an extended event process chain. Crucial decision points were specified using standard operating procedures. DISCUSSION: The APU treatment pathway establishes a consistent treatment structure for patients with atraumatic abdominal pain. It has the potential to improve the quality of care and reduce intrahospital mortality over the long term.

The Abdominal Pain Unit (APU). Study protocol of a standardized and structured care pathway for patients with atraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department: A stepped wedged cluster randomized controlled trial.

This study aims to improve emergency department (ED) care for patients suffering from atraumatic abdominal pain. An application-supported pathway for the ED will be implemented, which supports quick, evidence-based, and standardized diagnosis and treatment steps for patients with atraumatic abdominal pain at the ED. A mixed-methods multicentre cluster randomized controlled stepped wedge trial design will be applied. A total of 10 hospitals with EDs (expected n = 2.000 atraumatic abdominal pain patients) will consecutively (every 4 months) be randomized to apply the intervention. Inclusion criteria for patients are a minimum age of 18 years, suffering from atraumatic abdominal pain and being insured with a German statutory health insurance. Primary outcomes: acute pain score at time of discharge from ED, duration of treatment at the ED, patient-reported satisfaction. Secondary endpoints include patient safety and quality of care parameters, process evaluation parameters, and costs and cost-effectiveness parameters. Quantitative data will be gathered from patient-surveys, clinical records, and routine data from hospital information systems as well as from a participating German statutory health insurance. Descriptive and analytic statistical analysis will be performed to provide summaries and associations for primary patient-reported outcomes, process measures, quality measures, and costs. Qualitative data collection consists of participatory patient observations and semi-structured expert interviews, which will be inductively analysed. Findings will be disseminated in publications in peer-reviewed journals, on conferences, as well as via a project website. To ensure data protection, appropriate technical and organisational measures will be taken. Trial registration: DRKS00021052.

Patients' perceptions of mortality risk for localized prostate cancer vary markedly depending on their treatment strategy.

Treatment choice for localized prostate cancer (PCa) is a controversial issue, and mortality risk is probably the most decisive factor in this regard. The study aimed to compare prostate-cancer-specific mortality risk estimates for different treatment options assigned by patients managed with active surveillance (AS), radical prostatectomy (RP) and patients who had discontinued AS (DAS). Patients initially managed with AS or RP (N = 370) were matched according to length of therapy. All patients completed mailed questionnaires assessing their mortality risk estimates (in %) and prostate-cancer-specific anxiety. Differences in risk estimates among the three treatment groups were analyzed using ANOVA, relationships of clinical and psychosocial variables with risk estimates using standard multiple regression. In all treatment groups, the prostate- cancer-specific mortality risk was overestimated. This applied whether it was the patient's own treatment or the alternative treatment option. RP patients assigned a mortality risk to AS that was almost three times higher than that assigned to RP (50.9 ± 25.0 vs. 17.8 ± 19.7, d = 1.48; p < 0.001). Anxiety was significantly associated with risk estimates for AS (p = 0.008) and RP (p = 0.001). Compared with clinical data that suggest that the prostate-cancer-specific mortality risk for AS is low and does not significantly differ from that for RP, patients strongly overestimated the mortality risk. This was most markedly so in RP patients, who drastically overestimated the benefits of RP compared to the risk of AS. This overestimation could increase overtreatment and should therefore be corrected by better patient education.