"Peace of Mind" After Mastectomy: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Many women eligible for breast conservation therapy (BCT) elect unilateral mastectomy (UM) with or without contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and cite a desire for "peace of mind." This study aimed to characterize how peace of mind is defined and measured and how it relates to surgical choice. METHODS: Nine databases were searched for relevant articles through 8 October 2023, and data were extracted from articles meeting the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by 20 studies. Most were prospective cohort studies (65%, 13/20). In the majority of the studies (72%, 13/18), Non-Hispanic white/Caucasian women comprised 80 % or more of the study's sample. Almost half of the studies used the phrase "peace of mind" in their publication (45%, 9/20), and few directly defined the construct (15%, 3/20). Instead, words representing an absence of peace of mind were common, specifically, "anxiety" (85%, 17/20), "fear" (75%, 15/20), and "concern" (75%, 15/20). Most of the studies (90%, 18/20) measured peace of mind indirectly using questionnaires validated for anxiety, fear, worry, distress, or concern, which were administered at multiple postoperative time points (55%, 11/20). Most of the studies (95%, 18/19) reported at least one statistically significant result showing no difference in peace of mind between BCT, UM, and/or CPM at their latest time of assessment. CONCLUSION: Peace of mind is largely framed around concepts that suggest its absence, namely, anxiety, fear, and concern. Existing literature suggests that peace of mind does not differ among average-risk women undergoing BCT, UM, or CPM. Shared surgical decisions should emphasize at least comparable emotional and/or psychosocial well-being between CPM and breast conservation.

Outcomes of SADI and OAGB Compared to RYGB from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Quality Improvement Program: The North American Experience.

BACKGROUND: Rapid adoption of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in the last decade aptly reflects the desire of patients and surgeons for alternatives to RYGB and DS. While SG provides good outcomes, other options that address specific patient needs are warranted. Recently approved by ASMBS, SADI, and OAGB have garnered increasing interest due to their single anastomosis technique. METHODS: Using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Quality Improvement Program database, we examined laparoscopic and robotic cases from 2018 to 2021 to understand the percentage of primary bariatric surgery cases that are SADI and OAGB. We used coarsened exact matching to match patients who underwent SADI or OAGB to patients who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). We examined outcomes of matched patients using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 667,979 patients that underwent bariatric-metabolic surgery, 1326 (0.2%) underwent SADI, and 2541 (0.4%) underwent OAGB. SADI was not identified in the database until 2020. In 2020, there were 487 SADI procedures compared to 839 in 2021. From 2018 to 2021, OAGBs went from 149 to 940. Compared with RYGB, SADI was associated with higher rates of anastomotic or staple line leak (OR 2.21 (95% CI 1.08-4.53)) and sepsis (OR 3.62 (95% CI 1.62-8.12)). Compared with RYGB, OAGB was associated with lower rates of gastrointestinal bleeding (OR 0.29 (95% CI 0.12-0.71)) and bowel obstruction (OR 0.10 (95% CI 0.02-0.39)). Of note, there were no differences between these procedures and RYGB for 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: More SADIs and OAGBs are being performed. However, there were higher complication rates associated with the SADI procedure. Further studies will be needed to better understand the key drivers for these outcomes.

OR and ICU teams 'running in parallel' at the end of cardiothoracic surgery improves perceptions of handoff safety.

The transfer of a cardiac surgery patient from the operating room (OR) to the intensive care unit (ICU) is both a challenging process and a critical period for outcomes. Information transferred between these two teams-known as the 'handoff'-has been a focus of efforts to improve patient safety. At our institution, staff have poor perceptions of handoff safety, as measured by low positive response rates to questions found in the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS). In this quality improvement project, we developed a novel handoff protocol after cardiac surgery where we invited the ICU nurse and intensivist into the OR to receive a face-to-face handoff from the circulating nurse, observe the final 30 min of the case, and participate in the end-of-case debrief discussions. Our aim was to increase the positive response rates to handoff safety questions to meet or surpass the reported AHRQ national averages. We used plan, do, study, act cycles over the course of 123 surgical cases to test how our handoff protocol was leading to changes in perceptions of safety. After a 10-month period, we achieved our aim for four out of the five HSOPS questions assessing safety of handoff. Our results suggest that having an ICU team 'run in parallel' with the cardiac surgical team positively impacts safety culture.

Improving SCD compliance in trauma patients at Kings County Hospital Center: a quality improvement report.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the fourth most commonly reported complication in trauma patients. For these patients, thromboprophylaxis is a standard of care. Patient compliance with sequential compression devices (SCDs), a form of mechanical VTE prophylaxis, has been a focus of efforts to improve patient safety. At our institution, a baseline audit in July 2020 revealed that patients admitted to the trauma floors have poor compliance with the use of SCDs. In this quality improvement project, we developed a patient education intervention to improve SCD compliance. We distributed an informational flyer to patients and led short educational sessions on VTE risk factors and proper SCD use. Our aim was to increase our SCD compliance rate by 30% in 4 weeks. We used three plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles to implement and refine our intervention. We measured SCD compliance during morning and afternoon patient observations and generated run charts to understand how our cycles were leading to change. After a 4-week period, we did not achieve our aim, but increased our overall compliance from 45% to 60% and sustained this improvement throughout our PDSA cycles. Morning compliance was lower than afternoon compliance both at baseline (45% vs 48.5%) and at the end the project (45% vs 53%). Our results suggest that patient education should be coupled with interventions that address other barriers to SCD compliance.