Telehealth follow-up after cholecystectomy is safe in veterans.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought many challenges including barriers to delivering high-quality surgical care and follow-up while minimizing the risk of infection. Telehealth has been increasingly utilized for post-operative visits, yet little data exists to guide surgeons in its use. We sought to determine safety and efficacy of telehealth follow-up in patients undergoing cholecystectomy during the global pandemic at a VA Medical Center (VAMC). METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients undergoing cholecystectomy at a level 1A VAMC over a 2-year period from August 2019 to August 2021. Baseline demographics, post-operative complications, readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits and need for additional procedures were reviewed. Patients who experienced a complication prior to discharge, underwent a concomitant procedure, had non-absorbable skin closure, had new diagnosis of malignancy or were discharged home with drain(s) were ineligible for telehealth follow-up and excluded. RESULTS: Over the study period, 179 patients underwent cholecystectomy; 30 (17%) were excluded as above. 20 (13%) missed their follow-up, 52 (35%) were seen via telehealth and 77 (52%) followed-up in person. There was no difference between the two groups regarding baseline demographics or intra-operative variables. There was no significant difference in post-operative complications [4 (8%) vs 6 (8%), p > 0.99], ED utilization [5 (10%) vs 7 (9%), p = 0.78], 30-day readmission [3 (6%) vs 6 (8%), p = 0.74] or need for additional procedures [2 (4%) vs 4 (5%), p = 0.41] between telehealth and in-person follow-up. CONCLUSION: Telehealth follow-up after cholecystectomy is safe and effective in Veterans. There were no differences in outcomes between patients that followed up in-person vs those that were seen via phone or video. Routine telehealth follow-up after uncomplicated cholecystectomy should be considered for all patients.

A dedicated feeding tube clinic reduces emergency department utilization for gastrostomy tube complications.

INTRODUCTION: Enteral access is required for a variety of reasons from neuromuscular disorders to dysphagia. Gastrostomy tubes (GTs) can be placed endoscopically, surgically, or radiographically and complications include infection, bleeding, leakage and unintentional removal. Routine post-procedural follow-up is limited by inconsistent guidelines and management by different specialty teams. We established a dedicated GT clinic to provide continuity of care and prophylactic GT exchange. We hypothesized that patients followed in the GT clinic would have reduced Emergency Department (ED) utilization. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent GT placement from January 2010 to January 2020 was conducted. Baseline demographics, indications for GT placement, number and reason for ED visits and utilization of a multidisciplinary GT clinic were studied. RESULTS: A total of 97 patients were included. The most common indication for placement was dysphagia (88, 91%) and the most common primary diagnosis was head and neck malignancy (51, 51%). The GT clinic is a multidisciplinary clinic staffed by surgeons and residents, dieticians, and wound care specialists and cared for 16 patients in this study. Three patients (19%) in the GT clinic group required ED visits compared to 44 (54%) in the standard of care (SOC) group (p < 0.05). There was an average of 0.9 ED visits per patient (range 0-7) in the GT clinic group vs 1.6 ED visits per patient (range 0-20) in the SOC group (p = 0.34). Feeding tubes were prophylactically exchanged an average of 7 times per patient in the GT clinic group vs 3 times per patient in the SOC group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary clinic dedicated to GT care limits ED visits for associated complications by more than 50%. Follow-up in a dedicated clinic with prophylactic tube exchange decreases ED visits and should be considered at facilities that care for patients with GTs.