Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
1.
Ann Surg Oncol ; 27(4): 985-990, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31965373

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The opioid epidemic in the United States is a public health crisis. Breast surgeons are obligated to provide good pain control for their patients after surgery but also must minimize administration of narcotics to prevent a surgical episode of care from becoming a patient's gateway into opioid dependence. METHODS: A survey to ascertain pain management practice patterns after breast surgery was performed. A review of currently available literature that was specific to breast surgery was performed to create recommendations regarding pain management strategies. RESULTS: A total of 609 surgeons completed the survey and demonstrated significant variations in pain management practices, specifically within regards to utilization of regional anesthesia (e.g., nerve blocks), and quantity of prescribed narcotics. There is excellent data to guide the use of local and regional anesthesia. There are, however, fewer studies to guide narcotic recommendations; thus, these recommendations were guided by prevailing practice patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Pain management practices after breast surgery have significant variation and represent an opportunity to improve patient safety and quality of care. Multimodality approaches in conjunction with standardized quantities of narcotics are recommended.


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Neoplasias da Mama/cirurgia , Entorpecentes/administração & dosagem , Dor Pós-Operatória/prevenção & controle , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Mastectomia/efeitos adversos , Bloqueio Nervoso , Manejo da Dor , Medição da Dor , Sociedades Médicas , Cirurgiões , Inquéritos e Questionários , Estados Unidos
2.
Ann Surg Oncol ; 25(2): 501-511, 2018 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29168099

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Nine breast cancer quality measures (QM) were selected by the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Payment Programs (QPP) and other performance improvement programs. We report member performance. STUDY DESIGN: Surgeons entered QM data into an electronic registry. For each QM, aggregate "performance met" (PM) was reported (median, range and percentiles) and benchmarks (target goals) were calculated by CMS methodology, specifically, the Achievable Benchmark of Care™ (ABC) method. RESULTS: A total of 1,286,011 QM encounters were captured from 2011-2015. For 7 QM, first and last PM rates were as follows: (1) needle biopsy (95.8, 98.5%), (2) specimen imaging (97.9, 98.8%), (3) specimen orientation (98.5, 98.3%), (4) sentinel node use (95.1, 93.4%), (5) antibiotic selection (98.0, 99.4%), (6) antibiotic duration (99.0, 99.8%), and (7) no surgical site infection (98.8, 98.9%); all p values < 0.001 for trends. Variability and reasons for noncompliance by surgeon for each QM were identified. The CMS-calculated target goals (ABC™ benchmarks) for PM for 6 QM were 100%, suggesting that not meeting performance is a "never should occur" event. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons self-reported a large number of specialty-specific patient-measure encounters into a registry for self-assessment and participation in QPP. Despite high levels of performance demonstrated initially in 2011 with minimal subsequent change, the ASBrS concluded "perfect" performance was not a realistic goal for QPP. Thus, after review of our normative performance data, the ASBrS recommended different benchmarks than CMS for each QM.


Assuntos
Benchmarking , Neoplasias da Mama/diagnóstico , Neoplasias da Mama/terapia , Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde , Melhoria de Qualidade , Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à Saúde , Cirurgiões/normas , Feminino , Humanos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Sistema de Registros , Mecanismo de Reembolso , Autorrelato , Estados Unidos
3.
Ann Surg Oncol ; 25(10): 2795-2800, 2018 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29968026

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of all women encounter benign breast problems. In contrast to breast cancer, high-level evidence is not available to guide treatment. Management is therefore largely based on individual physician experience/training. The American board of internal medicine (ABIM) initiated its Choosing Wisely® campaign to promote conversations between patients and physicians about challenging the use of tests or procedures which may not be necessary. The American society of breast surgeons (ASBrS) Patient safety and quality committee (PSQC) chose to participate in this campaign in regard to the management of benign breast disease. METHODS: The PSQC solicited initial candidate measures. PSQC surgeons represent a wide variety of practices. The resulting measures were ranked by modified Delphi appropriateness methodology in two rounds. The final list was approved by ASBrS and endorsed by the ABIM. RESULTS: The final five measures are as follows. (1) Don't routinely excise areas of pseuodoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (PASH) of the breast in patients who are not having symptoms from it. (2) Don't routinely surgically excise biopsy-proven fibroadenomas that are < 2 cm. (3) Don't routinely operate for a breast abscess without an initial attempt to percutaneously aspirate. (4) Don't perform screening mammography in asymptomatic patients with normal exams who have less than a 5-years life expectancy. (5) Don't routinely drain nonpainful, fluid-filled cysts. CONCLUSIONS: The ASBrS Choosing Wisely® measures that address benign breast disease management are easily accessible to patients via the internet. Consensus was reached by PSQC regarding these recommendations. These measures provide guidance for shared decision-making.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/terapia , Comportamento de Escolha , Tomada de Decisões , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto/normas , Oncologia Cirúrgica/normas , Neoplasias da Mama/psicologia , Feminino , Humanos , Participação do Paciente , Sociedades Médicas , Estados Unidos
4.
Ann Surg Oncol ; 23(4): 1123-8, 2016 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26553439

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 defined clinical node negativity by physical examination alone. Although axillary ultrasound with biopsy has a positive predictive value for lymph node (LN) metastases approaching 100 %, it may not appropriately identify clinically node-negative women with ≥3 positive LNs who require axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). We sought to identify the total number of positive LNs in women presenting with cT1-2N0 breast carcinoma with a positive preoperative LN biopsy to evaluate the potential for overtreatment when ALND is performed on the basis of a positive needle biopsy in patients who otherwise meet ACOSOG Z0011 eligibility criteria. METHODS: Patients with cT1-2N0 breast cancer by physical examination with a positive preoperative LN biopsy were identified from a prospective institutional database. Clinicopathologic characteristics and axillary imaging results were compared between women with 1 to 2 total positive LNs and ≥3 total positive LNs. RESULTS: Between May 2006 and December 2013, a total of 141 women with cT1-2N0 breast cancer had abnormal axillary imaging and a preoperative positive LN biopsy (median patient age 51 years, median tumor size 2.4 cm, 86 % ductal histology, 79 % estrogen receptor positive). Sixty-six women (47 %) had 1 to 2 total positive LNs, and 75 (53 %) had ≥3 total positive LNs. Women with ≥3 total positive LNs had larger tumors (2.4 vs. 2.2 cm, p = 0.03), fewer tumors with ductal histology (79 vs. 94 %, p = 0.01), more lymphovascular invasion (80 vs. 61 %, p = 0.01), and higher median body mass index (29.2 vs. 27.1 kg/m(2), p = 0.04). Having >1 abnormal LN on axillary imaging was significantly associated with having ≥3 total positive LNs at final pathology (68 vs. 43 %, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Axillary imaging with preoperative LN biopsy does not accurately discriminate low- versus high-volume nodal disease in clinically node-negative patients.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/patologia , Carcinoma Ductal de Mama/patologia , Carcinoma Lobular/patologia , Excisão de Linfonodo , Avaliação das Necessidades , Cuidados Pré-Operatórios , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Axila , Neoplasias da Mama/metabolismo , Neoplasias da Mama/cirurgia , Carcinoma Ductal de Mama/metabolismo , Carcinoma Ductal de Mama/cirurgia , Carcinoma Lobular/metabolismo , Carcinoma Lobular/cirurgia , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Mamografia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Invasividade Neoplásica , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Prognóstico , Estudos Prospectivos , Receptor ErbB-2/metabolismo , Receptores de Estrogênio/metabolismo , Receptores de Progesterona/metabolismo
5.
Ann Surg Oncol ; 23(10): 3112-8, 2016 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27334216

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Current breast cancer care is based on high-level evidence from randomized, controlled trials. Despite these data, there continues to be variability of breast cancer care, including overutilization of some tests and operations. To reduce overutilization, the American Board of Internal Medicine Choosing Wisely (®) Campaign recommends that professional organizations provide patients and providers with a list of care practices that may not be necessary. Shared decision making regarding these services is encouraged. METHODS: The Patient Safety and Quality Committee of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) solicited candidate measures for the Choosing Wisely (®) Campaign. The resulting list of "appropriateness" measures of care was ranked by a modified Delphi appropriateness methodology. The highest-ranked measures were submitted to and later approved by the ASBrS Board of Directors. They are listed below. RESULTS: (1) Don't routinely order breast magnetic resonance imaging in new breast cancer patients. (2) Don't routinely excise all the lymph nodes beneath the arm in patients having lumpectomy for breast cancer. (3) Don't routinely order specialized tumor gene testing in all new breast cancer patients. (4) Don't routinely reoperate on patients with invasive cancer if the cancer is close to the edge of the excised lumpectomy tissue. (5) Don't routinely perform a double mastectomy in patients who have a single breast with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The ASBrS list for the Choosing Wisely (®) campaign is easily accessible to breast cancer patients online. These measures provide surgeons and their patients with a starting point for shared decision making regarding potentially unnecessary testing and operations.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/cirurgia , Tomada de Decisões , Mau Uso de Serviços de Saúde/prevenção & controle , Excisão de Linfonodo/estatística & dados numéricos , Participação do Paciente , Oncologia Cirúrgica/normas , Neoplasias da Mama/diagnóstico por imagem , Técnica Delphi , Feminino , Testes Genéticos/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/estatística & dados numéricos , Margens de Excisão , Mastectomia Segmentar , Neoplasia Residual , Mastectomia Profilática/estatística & dados numéricos , Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à Saúde , Reoperação/estatística & dados numéricos , Sociedades Médicas/normas
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA