Patients' Perceived Satisfaction Through Telephone-Assisted Tele-Consultation During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Period: Observational Single-Centre Study at a Tertiary-Referral Colorectal Surgery Department.

Introduction: The pandemic produced by SARS-CoV-2 has obliged us to set up the tele-assistance to offer a continuity of care. This implies an innovation, being the degree of satisfaction of patients unknown. Methods: A telephonic survey was conducted with the validated in the Spanish tool Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (Telehealth Usability Questionnaire; rating from 1-7) of all candidate patients assisted consecutively in the Coloproctology Unit. We included demographic variables, education level, job status, diagnosis and consultation type. A descriptive study was done. The relationship between the willingness of consultation model in the future (telemedicine vs traditional) and the categorical variables was analysed through the chi-squared test. Results: A total of 115 patients were included. The average age was 59.9 years, being 60% women. The average score in each of the survey items was higher than 6 in all the questions but 1. 26.1% of the surveyed patients confessed being advocated to tele-assistance in the future. The only factors related to greater willingness to tele-assistance were male gender (37% vs 18.8%; P = .03) and a higher academic preparation level in favour of higher technical studies (35.9%) and university studies (32.4%) opposite to the rest (P = .043). The rest of variables studied, job status, labour regimen, diagnostic group and consultation type did not show any relationship. Conclusions: A vast majority of patients answered favourably to almost all the items of the survey. However, only 26.1% of them would choose a model of tele-assistance without restrictions.

Proctologic emergency consultation during COVID-19: Comparative cross-sectional cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Proctologic issues entail a frequent reason for consultation in the emergency department (ED). We aim to analyze how the SARS-COV-2 pandemic has impacted in the demand for proctological consultations. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Descriptive comparative retrospective study of cross-sectional cohorts of patients attending the ED for proctological complaints from March to April in 2020 and 2019. Demographic variables, comorbidities, reasons for consultation and diagnosis, treatment and readmission were included. Four periods were analyzed according to the different stages of the pandemic derived limitations. RESULTS: A total of 191 patients were reviewed, 58 in 2020 and 133 in 2019 with an average age of 48 years (SD 20.1) and 112 (58.6%) males. The average number of daily consultations was 2.18 patients in 2019 versus 0.95 in 2020 (p=0.025) meaning a 56% reduction in consultations for proctological reasons. This difference in average consultations was significant in both periods of lockout (p=0.001) and previous de-escalation (p=0.014). The diagnosis distribution was similar between both periods; however, perianal abscesses doubled their rate in 2020, 22.4% versus 11.3% (p=0.045). There was an increasing need for surgery, 31% vs 15% (p=0.011) with no difference in outpatients regimen after emergency surgery (12.5% vs 7.5%, p=0.201). Three patients in 2020 required readmission to the ED (5.2% vs 12.9%, p=0.086). CONCLUSION: There was a decrease of a 56% in proctologic emergency consultation, however, the need for surgery was twice more frequent during the study period. Reflection on the use of emergencies for proctological reasons is warranted.

Proctologic emergency consultation during COVID-19: Comparative cross-sectional cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Proctologic issues entail a frequent reason for consultation in the emergency department (ED). We aim to analyze how the SARS-COV-2 pandemic has impacted in the demand for proctological consultations. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Descriptive comparative retrospective study of cross-sectional cohorts of patients attending the ED for proctological complaints from March to April in 2020 and 2019. Demographic variables, comorbidities, reasons for consultation and diagnosis, treatment and readmission were included. Four periods were analyzed according to the different stages of the pandemic derived limitations. RESULTS: A total of 191 patients were reviewed, 58 in 2020 and 133 in 2019 with an average age of 48 years (SD 20.1) and 112 (58.6%) males. The average number of daily consultations was 2.18 patients in 2019 versus 0.95 in 2020 (p=0.025) meaning a 56% reduction in consultations for proctological reasons. This difference in average consultations was significant in both periods of lockout (p=0.001) and previous de-escalation (p=0.014). The diagnosis distribution was similar between both periods; however, perianal abscesses doubled their rate in 2020, 22.4% versus 11.3% (p=0.045). There was an increasing need for surgery, 31% vs 15% (p=0.011) with no difference in outpatients regimen after emergency surgery (12.5% vs 7.5%, p=0.201). Three patients in 2020 required readmission to the ED (5.2% vs 12.9%, p=0.086). CONCLUSION: There was a decrease of a 56% in proctologic emergency consultation, however, the need for surgery was twice more frequent during the study period. Reflection on the use of emergencies for proctological reasons is warranted.

Safety of Percutaneous Cholecystostomy Early Removal: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: There are no strong recommendations regarding the management of percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC). The aim of this study was to assess the safety of early PC removal in terms of complications and recurrent disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study of consecutive patients who underwent PC for acute cholecystitis from January 2012 to December 2017. We first evaluated PC-related complications and recurrent disease in patients whose drainage was removed as inpatients (IPR) or as outpatients (OPR). Patients were then divided into 2 groups according to the timing of PC removal: G1 with the PC removed within the first 7 days after its collocation and G2 with the PC removed after 7 days. RESULTS: We included 151 patients. Patients in the OPR group had their catheters removed after 52 days (26 to 67 d) while the IPR group after 8 days (6 to 11 d); P<0.001. No difference was seen regarding complications, recurrent disease rate, or readmissions.G1 was comprised of 56 patients (37.1%), whereas G2 had 95 (62.9%). When G1 was compared with G2, no differences were seen in terms of complications. However, G1 presented a shorter duration of antibiotic treatment with 11 days (8 to 14 d) versus 15 days (12 to 23 d) in G2; P<0.001, but had a higher rate of recurrent disease 32.1% versus 14.7% in G2; P=0.014 and a higher rate of readmission 30.3% versus 13.6% in G2; P=0.019. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of the PC during the index admission was not associated with a higher risk of complications. However, the PC removal before 7 days could be related to an increase in recurrent disease and readmissions.