Public health nurse perspectives on predicting nonattendance for cervical cancer screening through classification, ensemble, and deep learning models.

OBJECTIVES: Women's attendance to cervical cancer screening (CCS) is a major concern for healthcare providers in community. This study aims to use the various algorithms that can accurately predict the most barriers of women for nonattendance to CS. DESIGN: The real-time data were collected from women presented at OPD of primary health centers (PHCs). About 1046 women's data regarding attendance and nonattendance to CCS were included. In this study, we have used three models, classification, ensemble, and deep learning models, to compare the specific accuracy and AU-ROC for predicting non-attenders for CC. RESULTS: The current model employs 22 predictors, with soft voting in ensemble models showing slightly higher specificity (96%) and sensitivity (93%) than weighted averaging. Bagging excels with the highest accuracy (98.49%), specificity (97.3%), and ideal sensitivity (100%) with an AUC of 0.99. Classification models reveal Naive Bayes with higher specificity (97%) but lower sensitivity (91%) than Logistic Regression. Random Forest and Neural Network achieve the highest accuracy (98.49%), with an AUC of 0.98. In deep learning, LSTM has an accuracy of 95.68%, higher specificity (97.60%), and lower sensitivity (93.42%) compared to other models. MLP and NN showed the highest AUC values of 0.99. CONCLUSION: Employing ensemble and deep learning models proved most effective in predicting barriers to nonattendance in cervical screening.

Factors associated with the absence of postpartum consultations in a high-risk population.

Objective: To assess the rate of missed postpartum appointments at a referral center for high-risk pregnancy and compare puerperal women who did and did not attend these appointments to identify related factors. Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study with all women scheduled for postpartum consultations at a high-risk obstetrics service in 2018. The variables selected to compare women were personal, obstetric, and perinatal. The variables of interest were obtained from the hospital's electronic medical records. Statistical analyses were performed using the Chi-square, Fisher's exact, or Mann-Whitney tests. For the variable of the interbirth interval, a receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to best discriminate whether or not patients attended the postpartum consultation. The significance level for the statistical tests was 5%. Results: A total of 1,629 women scheduled for postpartum consultations in 2018 were included. The rate of missing the postpartum consultation was 34.8%. A shorter interbirth interval (p = 0.039), previous use of psychoactive substances (p = 0.027), current or former smoking (p = 0.003), and multiparity (p < 0.001) were associated with non-attendance. Conclusion: This study showed a high rate of postpartum appointment non-attendance. This is particularly relevant because it was demonstrated in a high-risk obstetric service linked to clinical severity or social vulnerability cases. This highlights the need for new approaches to puerperal women before hospital discharge and new tools to increase adherence to postpartum consultations, especially for multiparous women.

Effect of a Patient Portal Reminder Message After No-Show on Appointment Reattendance in Ophthalmology: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of electronic health record (EHR) messaging for re-engaging patients with ophthalmology care after a missed appointment. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial. METHODS: The study setting was an academic ophthalmology department. The patient population comprised of return patients age 18 years or older with an appointment "no show," or missed appointment. Over 2 phases of recruitment, 362 patients with an active patient portal in the EHR were selected consecutively each business day. Patients were randomized using a web-based tool to receive a reminder to reschedule via a standard mailed letter only (control) or the mailed letter plus an electronic message through the EHR within 1 business day of the missed appointment (intervention). Reengagement with eye care was defined as attendance of a rescheduled appointment within 30 days of the no-show visit. Patient charts were reviewed for demographic and clinical data. RESULTS: The average age of recruited patients was 59.9 years, just under half of the sample was male (42.5%, 154/362), and most patients were White (56.9%, 206/362) or Black (36.2%, 131/362). Patients were most commonly recruited from the retina service (39.2%, 142/362) followed by the glaucoma service (29.3%, 106/362). Many patients in this study had previous no-show appointments, with an average no-show rate of 18.8% out of all scheduled visits across our health system. In total, 22.2% (42/189) of patients in the intervention group attended a follow-up appointment within 30 days of their no-show visit compared to 11.6% (20/173) of the control group (OR, 2.186; 95% CI, 1.225-3.898; P = .008). When including only the 74 patients in the intervention group who read the intervention message in the patient portal, 28.4% (21/74) attended a follow-up compared to 11.6% (20/173) of the control group (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: EHR-based reminder messages sent within a business day of a missed appointment may promote re-engagement in ophthalmology care after appointment no-show.

Factors Contributing to Non-Attendance of GI Endoscopic Procedures in a Tertiary Care Center in the Middle East.

INTRODUCTION: The cancer burden in the Middle East is high and growing. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer for both men and women in the UAE. Although early diagnosis of malignancy reduces morbidity and increases the survival rates, non-attendance of gastroenterology (GI) endoscopic procedures is a significant global problem, which can lead to delay in cancer diagnosis and treatment. Several factors have been found to contribute to non-attendance behavior, including socioeconomic, cultural, and organizational related barriers. The purpose of this study was to identify factors contributing to non-attendance behavior among outpatients scheduled for GI endoscopic procedures in a tertiary hospital in the United Arab Emirates. We conclude with recommendations that can help in reducing the rate of patient no-shows for GI endoscopic procedures in the region. METHODS: In a tertiary medical center in the Middle East, we surveyed patients who did not attend their scheduled GI endoscopic procedures over a period of one year. The questionnaire sought to identify possible reasons for patient's non-attendance. Descriptive measures including means, standard deviation, frequencies, and percentages were used to analyze the demographic characteristics of the study participants. The chi-square test was performed to analyze gender differences. RESULTS: Of 314 outpatients who met study inclusion criteria, 168 agreed to participate (53.5% response rate). The majority of participants were women (n=96, 60.4 %), aged 18 to 73, with a mean of 42 years. The largest age group was between 35 and 44 (n=46, 28.9 %). Approximately equal numbers of non-attendance appointments were scheduled for combined colonoscopy and upper endoscopy (36.3 %), colonoscopy alone (31.3 %), or upper endoscopy alone (31.3 %). The most common causes for cancellation or non-attendance included concerns about the appointment (35.5%), inconvenient timing of the appointment (27.9%) and changes in medical status (26.4%). Gender differences were noted for non-attendance behaviors, with women significantly more likely than men to report feelings of embarrassment (Chi-square 6.261, df=1, p=.012). CONCLUSION: Our study has identified several barriers to patient attendance of endoscopic procedures, as well as opportunities to reduce the rate of patient no-shows, including patient education, scheduling options, and protocols to minimize discomfort and misconceptions around GI endoscopic procedures, particularly accommodating for same gender endoscopists, with the ultimate goal of increasing early cancer screening and prevention.

"Rescue" of Nonparticipants in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Three Noninvasive Test Options.

Few studies have directly targeted nonparticipants in colorectal cancer screening to identify effective engagement strategies. We undertook a randomized controlled trial that targeted nonparticipants in a previous trial of average-risk subjects which compared participation rates for mailed invitations offering a fecal test, a blood test or a choice of either. Nonparticipants (n = 899) were randomized to be offered a kit containing a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), directions on how to arrange a blood DNA test, or the option of doing either. Screening participation was assessed 12 weeks after the offer. To assess the cognitive and attitudinal variables related to participation and invitee choice, invitees were surveyed after 12 weeks, and associations were investigated using multinomial logistic regression. Participation rates were similar between groups (P = 0.88): 12.0% for FIT (35/292), 13.3% for the blood test (39/293), and 13.4% for choice (39/290). Within the choice group, participation was significantly higher with FIT (9.7%, 28/290) compared with the blood test (3.8%, 11/290, P = 0.005). The only variable significantly associated with participation was socioeconomic status when offered FIT, and age when offered choice but there was none when offered the blood test. Survey respondents indicated that convenience, time-saving, comfort, and familiarity were major influences on participation. There was no clear advantage between a fecal test, blood test, or choice of test although, when given a choice, the fecal test was preferred. Differences in variables associated with participation according to invitation strategy warrant consideration when deciding upon an invitation strategy for screening nonparticipants. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This trial of screening for those at average risk for colorectal cancer targeted past fecal-test nonparticipants and compared participation rates for mailed invitations offering a fecal test, blood test, or choice of either. Although there was no clear advantage between strategies, factors associated with participation differed between each strategy.

Cigarette Smoking in an Acute Partial Hospital Program.

ABSTRACT: This study explored demographic and clinical features, plus clinical outcomes, in a smoke-free acute partial hospital (PH) among current smokers, former smokers, and those who had never smoked (nonsmokers). Compared with nonsmokers, current smokers were younger and more likely to be unmarried and unpartnered, unemployed, or receiving disability benefits. They had more prior inpatient (IP) and PH episodes. They also had more problems with interpersonal relationships, mood lability, psychosis, and substance use. Compared with nonsmokers, current smokers were more likely to miss PH treatment days and drop out. They also had longer time to readmission to PH or IP. Former smokers resembled nonsmokers, except that former smokers also had a high rate of dropout. Changes in symptoms and functioning for patients who completed PH were the same among all groups. In an acute PH setting, smoking is a marker for psychiatric and psychosocial impairment plus treatment interruption.

Non-attendance at an out-patient otolaryngology and head and neck clinic in New Zealand: impact of coronavirus disease 2019, and demographic, clinical and environmental factors.

BACKGROUND: Fear of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 may be the latest addition to the barriers to clinic attendance. This study aimed to examine the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 and other variables on non-attendance rate at an out-patient clinic. METHODS: Clinic attendance at the Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Waikato Hospital, New Zealand, was assessed. For each appointment, the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 and other variables on non-attendance rate were analysed. RESULTS: In total, 1963 appointments were scheduled, with 194 non-attendances (9.9 per cent). Patients who had their appointments confirmed beforehand were 10.0 times more likely to attend their appointment. Sex, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and age were found to impact non-attendance rate. CONCLUSION: In New Zealand, coronavirus disease 2019 does not appear to be a barrier to out-patient clinic appointment attendance. The patient's age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and prior appointment confirmation were found to influence clinic attendance.

Factors associated with non-attendance in the Irish national diabetic retinopathy screening programme (INDEAR study report no. 2).

AIMS: We aimed to determine the patient and screening-level factors that are associated with non-attendance in the Irish National Diabetic Retinal screening programme (Diabetic RetinaScreen). To accomplish this, we modelled a selection of predictors derived from the historical screening records of patients with diabetes. METHODS: In this cohort study, appointment data from the national diabetic retinopathy screening programme (RetinaScreen) were extracted and augmented using publicly available meteorological and geospatial data. A total of 653,969 appointments from 158,655 patients were included for analysis. Mixed-effects models (univariable and multivariable) were used to estimate the influence of several variables on non-attendance to screening appointments. RESULTS: All variables considered for analysis were statistically significant. Variables of note, with meaningful effect, were age (OR: 1.23 per decade away from 70; 95% CI: [1.22-1.24]), type 2 diabetes (OR: 1.10; 95% CI: [1.06-1.14]) and socio-economic deprivation (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: [1.09-1.16]). A majority (52%) of missed appointments were from patients who had missed three or more appointments. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to outline factors that are associated with non-attendance within the Irish national diabetic retinopathy screening service. In particular, when corrected for age and other factors, patients with type 2 diabetes had higher rates of non-attendance. Additionally, this is the first study of any diabetic screening programme to demonstrate that weather may influence attendance. This research provides unique insight to guide the implementation of an optimal and cost-effective intervention strategy to improve attendance.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Lung Cancer Screening Program and Subsequent Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer mortality by at least 20%. The COVID-19 pandemic required an unprecedented shutdown in our institutional LDCT program. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of COVID-19 on lung cancer screening and subsequent cancer diagnosis. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed our prospective institutional LDCT screening database, which began in 2012. In all, 2,153 patients have participated. Monthly mean number of LDCTs were compared between baseline (January 2017 to February 2020) and COVID-19 periods (March 2020 to July 2020). RESULTS: LDCT was suspended on March 13, 2020 and 818 screening visits were cancelled. Phased reopening began on May 5, 2020 and full opening on June 1, 2020. Total monthly mean ± SD LDCTs (146 ± 31 vs 39 ± 40; p < 0.01) and new patient monthly LDCTs (56 ± 14 vs 15 ± 17; p < 0.01) were significantly decreased during the COVID-19 period. New patient monthly LDCTs have remained low despite resuming full operations. Three- and 6-month interval follow-up LDCTs were prioritized and were significantly increased compared with baseline (11 ± 4 vs 30 ± 4; p < 0.01). The "no-show" rate was significantly increased from baseline (15% vs 40%; p < 0.04). Most concerning, the percentage of patients with lung nodules suspicious for malignancy (Lung-RADS 4) were significantly increased after screenings resumed (8% vs 29%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 caused significant disruption in lung cancer screening, leading to a decrease in new patients screened and an increased proportion of nodules suspicious for malignancy once screening resumed. Using lung cancer and the LDCT screening program as a model, this early analysis showed the unrecognized consequences related to the pandemic for screening programs and cancer care.

Patient Engagement with Interactive Text Message System Improves Successful Colonoscopy Rates in an Outpatient Endoscopy Center.

INTRODUCTION: Text message-based interventions reduce colonoscopy no-show rates and improve bowel preparation scores. In this non-randomized study, we assessed whether an interactive text messaging system could improve colonoscopy outcomes. METHODS: Colonoscopy pre-procedural instructions were programmed into a dedicated software platform created for this study. In the intervention arm, text messages were sent to veterans during a 4-week study period. Validated pre-procedural satisfaction questionnaires were completed by patients during standard protocol and intervention periods. Demographics and colonoscopy outcomes data were compared between the standard protocol and intervention arms, including procedure completion rate on scheduled date, Boston bowel preparation score (BPPS), adenoma detection rate, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Of 241 patients, 128 were in the standard protocol arm and 113 in the intervention arm. Higher proportions of patients receiving text messages underwent colonoscopy on their scheduled date (69.9%) compared to the ones in the standard protocol (50.8%, p = 0.015). Patients with ≥3 interactions with the system had 80.6% likelihood of completing colonoscopy on the scheduled date compared to 56.9% with <3 interactions and 50.8% with standard protocol (p < 0.001). Frequency of interaction with the system was similar between older (>65 years) and younger patients (p = 1.0). Among older patients, colonoscopy was completed successfully in 84.2% when alert-based human interactions occurred compared to 65.6% in those without and 47.9% with standard protocol (p = 0.018). More than 90% indicated they would recommend the system to patients undergoing future colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: An interactive text messaging system improves successful colonoscopy rates in a VA setting, with greatest impact in older patients.

Improving Attendance and Patient Experiences During the Expansion of a Telehealth-Based Pediatric Otolaryngology Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates and primary causes of missed appointments (MAs) for telehealth visits and present remedies for improvement. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was conducted at a tertiary care pediatric otolaryngology practice during expansion of telehealth-based visits. A review of questionnaire responses was performed for 103 consecutive patients with MAs over 50 business days from March 20, 2020, to May 29, 2020. Families were asked a brief survey regarding the cause of the MA and assisted with technical support and rescheduling. MA rates and causes were analyzed. RESULTS: The overall MA rate during the initiation of telehealth services was significantly increased at 12.4% as compared with clinic-based visits of a similar duration before COVID of 5.2% (P < .001). Technical issues were the most common causes of MAs (51.3%). Of the caregivers, 23.8% forgot or reported cancellation of the appointment. Five percent of patients were non-English speaking and scheduled without translator support. Minorities and patients with public insurance represented 53.6% and 61.9% of MAs, respectively. DISCUSSION: Technical difficulties were the most commonly reported cause of missed telehealth appointments. Optimization of applications by providing patient reminders, determining need for translator assistance, and reducing required upload/download speeds may significantly reduce rates of MAs and conversions to other communication. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Clear, concise education materials on the technical aspects of telehealth, platform optimization, and robust technical and administrative support may be necessary to reduced missed telehealth appointments and support large-scale telehealth operations. An assessment of institutional capacity is critical when considering telehealth expansion.

Short Message Service reminders reduce outpatient colonoscopy nonattendance rate: A randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Nonattendance of outpatient colonoscopy leads to inefficient use of health-care resources. We aimed to study the effectiveness of using Short Message Service (SMS) reminder prior in patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy on their nonattendance rate. METHODS: Patients who scheduled for an outpatient colonoscopy and had access of SMS were recruited from three clinics in Hong Kong. Patients were randomized to SMS group and standard care (SC) group. All patients were given a written appointment slip on the booking date. In addition, patients in the SMS group received an SMS reminder 7-10 days before their colonoscopy appointment. Patients' demographics, attendance, colonoscopy completion, and bowel preparation quality were recorded. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of nonattendance. RESULTS: From November 2013 to October 2019, a total of 2225 eligible patients were recruited. A total of 1079 patients were allocated to the SMS group and 1146 to the SC group. The nonattendance rate of patients in the SMS group was significantly lower than that in the SC group (8.9% vs 11.9%, P = 0.022). There were no significant differences in their baseline characteristics and colonoscopy completion rate and bowel preparation quality. A trend towards a higher rate of adequate bowel preparation was observed in the SMS group when compared with the SC group (69.9% vs 65.8%, P = 0.053). Independent predictors for nonattendance included younger age, underprivilege, and existing diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: An SMS reminder for outpatient colonoscopy is effective in reducing the nonattendance rate and may potentially improve the bowel preparation quality.

Barriers to colonoscopy in remote northern Canada: an analysis of cancellations.

Background: Colonoscopy is a critical diagnostic and therapeutic procedure that is challenging to access in northern Canada. In part, this is due to frequent cancellations. We sought to understand the trends and reasons for colonoscopy cancellations in the Northwest Territories (NWT). Methods: A retrospective review of colonoscopy cancellations January, 2018 to May, 2019 was conducted at Stanton Territorial Hospital, NWT. Cancellation details and rationale were captured from the endoscopy cancellation logs. Thematic analysis was used to group cancellation reasons. Descriptive statistics were generated, and trends were analysed using run chart. Results: Of the scheduled colonoscopies, 368(28%) were cancelled during the 16 month period, and cancellations occurred, on average, 27 days after booking. Cancellation reasons were grouped into 15 themes, encompassing personal, social, geographic and health system factors. The most frequently cited theme was work/other commitments (69 respondents; 24%). Cancellations due to travel and accommodation issues occurred more frequently in the winter. Conclusion: Over one in four booked colonoscopies were cancelled and the reasons for cancellations were complex. Initiatives focusing on communication and support for patients with personal or occupational obligations could dramatically reduce cancellations. Ongoing collaborative efforts are needed to inform and optimise access to colonoscopy in this region.

Factors Associated with Increased Risk of Patient No-Show in Telehealth and Traditional Surgery Clinics.

BACKGROUND: With the growing use of telehealth, understanding factors affecting patient follow-up in traditional and telehealth settings is important. Few data exist examining the use of telehealth compared with traditional settings. Bridging this gap is critical to optimizing telehealth use and reducing barriers. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of return and postoperative (electronic video [eClinic] and traditional) visits from January 2018 to March 2020 at single tertiary care center. There were 12,359 unique first-encounter patients with 903 eClinic and 11,456 traditional visits; 11,547 patients completed visits, while 812 patients did not show up. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was performed to identify factors associated with no-show. County-level mapping was used to identify patterns in no-show rates. RESULTS: Patients from the eClinic had twice the odds of no-show compared with those from a traditional clinic (p < 0.001). Age was inversely proportional to odds of no-show, with each additional decade associated with a 16% decrease in these odds (p < 0.001). African-American patients had greater odds of no-show compared to Caucasian patients (odds ratio [OR] 2.47; 95% CI 1.95-3.13, p < 0.001). Marital statuses of single and legal separation were associated with higher odds of no-show compared with married marital status (p < 0.001 and p = 0.04, respectively). Minimally invasive and endocrine surgery clinics had lower odds of no-show compared with acute care surgery clinic (p < 0.001 for both). County-level no-show rates demonstrate similar patterns between clinic settings. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors are associated with increased odds of no-show, including the visit being in eClinic. County-level analysis suggests no-show variation is not dependent on geographic location. Understanding these patterns allows for prospective identification of barriers and development of interventions to optimize access and patient care.

What Was the Change in Telehealth Usage and Proportion of No-show Visits for an Orthopaedic Trauma Clinic During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

BACKGROUND: In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services pledged payment for telehealth visits for the duration of this public health emergency in an effort to decrease COVID-19 transmission and allow for deployment of residents and attending physicians to support critical-care services. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has vastly expanded telehealth use, no studies to our knowledge have analyzed the implementation and success of telehealth for orthopaedic trauma. This population is unique in that patients who have experienced orthopaedic trauma range in age from early childhood to late adulthood, they vary across the socioeconomic spectrum, may need to undergo emergent or urgent surgery, often have impaired mobility, and, historically, do not always follow-up consistently with healthcare providers. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) To what extent did telehealth usage increase for an outpatient orthopaedic trauma clinic at a Level 1 trauma center from the month before the COVID-19 stay-at-home order compared with the month immediately following the order? (2) What is the proportion of no-show visits before and after the implementation of telehealth? METHODS: After nonurgent clinic visits were postponed, telehealth visits were offered to all patients due to the COVID-19 stay-at-home order. Patients with internet access who had the ability to download the MyChart application on their mobile device and agreed to a telehealth visit were seen virtually between March 16, 2020 and April 10, 2020 (COVID-19) by three attending orthopaedic trauma surgeons at a large, urban, Level 1 trauma center. Clinic schedules and patient charts were reviewed to determine clinical volumes and no-show proportions. The COVID-19 period was compared with the 4 weeks before March 16, 2020 (pre-COVID-19), when all visits were conducted in-person. The overall clinic volume decreased from 340 to 233 (31%) between the two periods. The median (range) age of telehealth patients was 46 years (20 to 89). Eighty-four percent (72 of 86) of telehealth visits were postoperative and established nonoperative patient visits, and 16% (14 of 86) were new-patient visits. To avoid in-person suture or staple removal, patients seen for their 2-week postoperative visit had either absorbable closures, staples, or nonabsorbable sutures removed by a home health registered nurse or skilled nursing facility registered nurse. If radiographs were indicated, they were obtained at outside facilities or our institution before patients returned home for their telehealth visit. RESULTS: There was an increase in the percentage of office visits conducted via telehealth between the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods (0% [0 of 340] versus 37% [86 of 233]; p < 0.001), and by the third week of implementation, telehealth comprised approximately half of all clinic visits (57%; [30 of 53]). There was no difference in the no-show proportion between the two periods (13% [53 of 393] for the pre-COVID-19 period and 14% [37 of 270] for the COVID-19 period; p = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should consider implementing telehealth strategies to provide high-quality care for patients and protect the workforce during a pandemic. In a previously telehealth-naïve clinic, we show successful implementation of telehealth for a diverse orthopaedic trauma population that historically has issues with mobility and follow-up. Our strategies include postponing long-term follow-up visits, having sutures or staples removed by a home health or skilled nursing facility registered nurse, having patients obtain pertinent imaging before the visit, and ensuring that patients have access to mobile devices and internet connectivity. Future studies should evaluate the incidence of missed infections or stiffness as a result of telehealth, analyze the subset of patients who may be more vulnerable to no-shows or technological failures, and conduct patient surveys to determine the factors that contribute to patient preferences for or against the use of telehealth. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Factors Influencing Nonadherence to Recommended Postdischarge Follow-Up After Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Historically, trauma patients have low adherence to recommended outpatient follow-up plans, which is crucial for improved long-term clinical outcomes. We sought to identify characteristics associated with nonadherence to recommended outpatient follow-up visits. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective examination of inpatient trauma survivors admitted to a level 1 trauma center (March 2017-March 2018). Patients with known alternative follow-up were excluded. All outpatient visits within 1 y from the index admission were identified. The primary outcome was nonadherence, which was noted if a patient failed to follow-up for any specialty recommended in the discharge instructions. Factors for nonadherence studied included age, injury severity score, mechanism, length of stay, number of referrals made, and involvement with a Trauma Recovery Services program. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of498 patients were identified (69% men, median age 43 y [range, 26-58 y], median injury severity score 14 [range, 9-19]). Among them, 240 (47%) were nonadherent. The most common specialties recommended were orthopedic surgery (56% referred, 19% nonadherent), trauma (54% referred, 35% nonadherent), and neurosurgery (127 referred, 35% nonadherent). Lowest levels of follow-up were seen for nonsurgical referrals. In adjusted analysis, a higher number of referrals made (odds ratio [OR], 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.95-3.05) and older age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) were associated with nonadherence. Trauma Recovery Service participants and penetrating trauma patients were more likely to be adherent (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The largest contributor to nonadherence was the number of referrals made; patients who were referred to multiple specialists were more likely to be nonadherent. Peer support services may lower barriers to follow-up.

How does COVID-19 fear and anxiety affect chemotherapy adherence in patients with cancer.

Aim: To investigate how COVID-19 fear and anxiety (COV-FA) affects chemotherapy adherence in patients with cancer. Materials & methods: The records of 3661 patients with chemotherapy (CT) appointments were retrospectively reviewed. Results: The CT postponement rates before and after COVID-19 were 11.6% and 14.2%, respectively (p = 0.017). The rate of COV-FA-related CT postponement after telemedicine was lower than that before (4.6% vs 17.4%; p = 0.012). The median time to come back to treatment of the COV-FA group was 47 days (range 19-72 days). Advanced age (≥60 years) was found to be the independent factor that was predictive of time to come back to treatment (p = 0.043). Conclusion: The CT postponement rate increased after COVID-19. COV-FA-related CT postponement decreased after telemedicine. Advanced age could be predictive of time to come back to treatment.

Analysis of patients attitude to undergo urgent endoscopic procedures during COVID-19 outbreak in Italy.

We conducted a survey to investigate to what extent the fear of COVID-19 has influenced the patients decision to undergo or to cancel endoscopic procedures. We collected data from 847 patients from 13 centres. The main indication for endoscopy was anemia, followed by pain and unexplained weight loss. The percentage of not presenters progressively increased throughout the three weeks of study, from 15.1% at the beginning to 48.2% at the end. 37 (34.2%) upper GI endoscopies and 112 (56.3 %) colonoscopies showed an organic cause explaining the symptoms presented by the patients, respectively; 5 cases of gastric cancer (4.6%) and 16 cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) (6.0%), respectively, were detected; during the second week the percentage of organic diseases found at upper endoscopy was 19 (33.3%) with 5 cancer (8.7%), and 61 (49.1% ) at colonoscopy, with 2 CRC (1.6%); finally, during the third week the corresponding figures were 19 (48.7%) for upper GI examinations, with 3 gastric cancers (7.7%), and 43 (60.5%) with 4 (6.5%) CRC cases found.We conclude that patients weighted the fear of having a clinically relevant disease with the fear of becoming infected by coronavirus, and a relevant percentage of them (29.4%) decided not to attend the endoscopy suites at the scheduled date.

Predictors of Lost to Follow-Up in Patients Being Treated for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy.

PURPOSE: To identify risk factors for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) who are lost to follow-up (LTFU) while undergoing intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF (IVIs) and/or panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) at an urban institution. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: A chart review was performed in a total of 418 adult patients with PDR who received IVI and/or PRP between January 1, 2014, and June 1, 2018, at the authors' institution. Rates of LTFU, risk factors associated with LTFU, and vision outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of a total of 418 patients, 256 patients (61%) were LTFU. Risk factors positively associated with LTFU on multivariate analysis included non-English as the primary language (odds ratio [OR], 1.83; P = .006); age 56-65 years old (OR, 1.86; P = .014); age older than 65 years (OR, 1.94; P = .027) compared to age 55 years or younger; living 20 miles or less from the institution (OR, 2.68; P = .009); having greater than 5 comorbidities (OR, 2.38; P = .034); seeing 20 or more distinct departments (OR, 4.66; P = .007); missing more than 10% of non-eye care appointments (OR, 1.61; P = .038); and receiving only PRP compared to only IVIs (OR, 1.93; P = .031). CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage of patients treated for PDR at the authors' institution were LTFU over a 4-year time span. Identifying patients at high risk for being LTFU may help in choosing treatment modality and appropriate patient counseling.

Loss to Follow-Up Among Patients With Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: To determine the proportion of patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) who were counted as loss to follow-up (LTFU) patients and to investigate predictive factors. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Information was collected for 4,423 patients with PDR between April 30, 2012, and April 30, 2017. Two definitions of LTFU were used. Complete LTFU referred to the population who never returned to care within the study period. Interval LTFU referred to the population who did not adhere to clinical recommendations and missed scheduled appointments, resulting in intervals longer than 6 months or 1 year between 2 appointments. Age, average gross income, and insurance were assessed as potential predictors of interval LTFU. RESULTS: Among 4,423 patients with PDR, 2,407 (54.4%) and 2,320 (52.4%) were complete LTFU at 6 months and 1 year, respectively; 782 (17.7%) and 468 (10.6%) patients were interval LTFU for 6 months and 1 year, respectively. Age and average gross income were not found to be significant predictors of interval LTFU. Compared to self-pay, government and private insurance patients were more likely to be interval LTFU at 6 months (government, P = .035; private, P = .005). Private insurance patients were also more likely to be interval LTFU at 1 year (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: The identified complete LTFU rates were notably high and warrant further study. More than 1 of 6 patients were interval LTFU for at least 6 months, and 1 of 10 patients was interval LTFU for more than 1 year. Insurance status was significant in determining interval LTFU status. Consistent with other analyses, these results indicate that compliance with clinical appointments among patients with PDR is a substantial clinical challenge.