Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Oncologist ; 25(12): e2006-e2009, 2020 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32744351

RESUMEN

Hospitalists, rather than oncologists, are increasingly providing inpatient medical care to hospitalized patients with cancer, yet the opinions of oncologists regarding this model of care delivery are unknown. A survey was conducted assessing these opinions and experiences with inpatient cancer care delivery at a tertiary cancer center. Only 30% of oncologists agreed that caring for hospitalized patients with cancer was an efficient use of their time, and most believed a hospitalist service allowed them to pursue other interests. Most had a positive experience with hospitalists, agreeing that hospitalists can diagnose and manage toxicities of cancer therapy, exhibit professionalism, and communicate with them and their patients appropriately. Hematologic malignancy specialists were more likely to value inpatient service time and had less confidence in the ability of hospitalists. Overall, the hospitalist model was generally accepted by oncologists and will continue to be an important part of oncologic care delivery.


Asunto(s)
Médicos Hospitalarios , Neoplasias , Oncólogos , Hospitalización , Humanos , Pacientes Internos , Oncología Médica , Neoplasias/terapia
2.
J Palliat Med ; 20(7): 774-778, 2017 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28437204

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a frequent complication in patients with advanced solid tumors. Palliative relief may be achieved by the use of a drainage percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (dPEG) tube, although optimal timing of placement remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine median survival after diagnosis of MBO and dPEG placement, factors associated with worse survival in MBO, factors associated with receipt of dPEG, and association of timing of dPEG placement on survival. METHODS: This observational retrospective cohort study examined 439 patients with MBO on a gastrointestinal medical oncology inpatient service. Patients were characterized by age, gender, race, primary cancer type, length of stay, readmission, complications (aspiration pneumonia or bowel perforation), and receipt of dPEG. Select factors were analyzed to examine overall survival (OS) and dPEG placement. RESULTS: Median survival from diagnosis of first MBO was 2.5 months. Median survival after dPEG placement was 37 days. In univariate analysis, dPEG placement, complications, longer length of stay, and readmissions were significantly associated with worse OS. Receipt of dPEG was significantly associated with younger age, longer length of stay at first admission, and shorter interval to readmission. In patients who received dPEG, longer interval from MBO diagnosis to dPEG placement did not affect OS. CONCLUSION: We found that prognosis following diagnosis of MBO in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies remains poor. Our data suggest that timing of dPEG placement in MBO does not affect OS and, therefore, earlier intervention with this procedure may allow earlier and prolonged palliative relief.


Asunto(s)
Drenaje/métodos , Neoplasias Gastrointestinales/complicaciones , Neoplasias Gastrointestinales/cirugía , Gastrostomía/métodos , Obstrucción Intestinal/etiología , Obstrucción Intestinal/cirugía , Cuidados Paliativos/normas , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios de Cohortes , Endoscopía/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pronóstico , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Tiempo
3.
J Hosp Med ; 11(4): 292-6, 2016 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26588430

RESUMEN

Every year, nearly 5 million adults with cancer are hospitalized. Limited evidence suggests that hospitalization of the cancer patient is associated with adverse morbidity and mortality. Hospitalization of the patient with advanced cancer allows for an intense examination of health status in the face of terminal illness and an opportunity for defining goals of care. This experience-based guide reports what is currently known about the topic and outlines a systematic approach to maximizing opportunities, improving quality, and enhancing the well-being of the hospitalized patient with advanced cancer.


Asunto(s)
Competencia Clínica/normas , Médicos Hospitalarios/normas , Neoplasias/terapia , Atención al Paciente/métodos , Atención al Paciente/normas , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Médicos Hospitalarios/psicología , Hospitalización , Humanos , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/epidemiología
4.
J Oncol Pract ; 11(2): e114-9, 2015 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25563702

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Hospitalists provide quality care in various inpatient settings, but the ability of hospitalists to provide quality inpatient care for patients with complex cancer has not been studied. This study explores outcomes with a hospitalist-led versus medical oncologist-led house staff team on an inpatient medical GI oncology teaching service. METHODS: This observational retrospective cohort study examined 829 patient discharges from August 2012 to January 2013 on the GI oncology inpatient teaching service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, a tertiary cancer center in New York, New York. We compared average length of stay (ALOS), 30-day readmission rates, establishment of new do not resuscitate (DNR) orders, nosocomial pneumonia and urinary tract infection (UTI) rates, radiographic and laboratory tests per patient, and disposition on discharge between hospitalist-led and oncologist-led teams. RESULTS: Median years of clinical experience was 6 (range, 4 to 9 years) for hospitalists and 7 (range, 0.5 to 36 years) for oncologists. ALOS (hospitalist led, 5.6 v oncologist led, 5.2 days; P = .30), readmission within 30 days (hospitalist led, 14% v oncologist led, 16%; P = .44), new DNR orders (hospitalist led, 18% v oncologist led, 19%; P = .90), nosocomial pneumonia (hospitalist led, 0.5% v oncologist led, 0.7%; P = .63) and UTI rates (hospitalist led, 0.5% v oncologist led, 0.7%; P = .63), number of radiographic studies and laboratory tests, and disposition on discharge were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: A hospitalist-led inpatient service with house staff represents a novel approach for caring for hospitalized GI oncology patients with cancer.


Asunto(s)
Médicos Hospitalarios/estadística & datos numéricos , Hospitales de Enseñanza/estadística & datos numéricos , Oncología Médica/educación , Especialización/estadística & datos numéricos , Centros de Atención Terciaria/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Femenino , Hospitalización , Humanos , Pacientes Internos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Readmisión del Paciente , Órdenes de Resucitación , Estudios Retrospectivos , Atención Terciaria de Salud
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA