An evaluation of postoperative outcomes and treatment changes after frailty screening and geriatric assessment and management in a cohort of older patients with colorectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Adequate patient selection is crucial within the treatment of older patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). While previous studies report increased morbidity and mortality in older patients screened positive for frailty, improvements in the perioperative care and postoperative outcomes have raised the question of whether older patients screened positive for frailty still face worse outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the postoperative outcomes of older patients with CRC screened positive for frailty, and to evaluate changes in treatment after frailty screening and geriatric assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients ≥70 years with primary CRC who underwent frailty screening between 1 January 2019 and 31 October 2021 were included. Frailty screening was performed by the Geriatric-8 (G8) screening tool. If the G8 indicated frailty (G8 ≤ 14), patients were referred for a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Postoperative outcomes and changes in treatment based on frailty screening and CGA were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients were included, of whom 74 (43.5%) screened positive for frailty (G8 ≤ 14). Based on the CGA, the initially proposed treatment plan was altered to a less intensive regimen in five (8.9%) patients, and to a more intensive regimen in one (1.8%) patient. Surgery was performed in 87.8% of patients with G8 ≤ 14 and 96.9% of patients with G8 > 14 (p = 0.03). Overall postoperative complications were similar between patients with G8 ≤ 14 and G8 > 14 (46.2% vs. 47.3%, p = 0.89). Postoperative delirium was observed in 7.7% of patients with G8 ≤ 14 and 1.1% of patients with G8 > 14 (p = 0.08). No differences in 30-day mortality (1.1% vs. 1.5%, p > 0.99) or one-year and two-year survival rates were observed (log rank, p = 0.26). DISCUSSION: Although patients screened positive for frailty underwent CRC surgery less often, those considered eligible for surgery can safely undergo CRC resection within current clinical care pathways, without increased morbidity and mortality. Efforts to optimise perioperative care and minimise the risk of postoperative complications, in particular delirium, seem warranted. A multidisciplinary onco-geriatric pathway may support tailored decision-making in patients at risk of frailty.

Health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness analysis of gum chewing in patients undergoing colorectal surgery: results of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative ileus (POI) and anastomotic leakage (AL) following colorectal surgery severely increase healthcare costs and decrease quality of life. This study evaluates the effects of reducing POI and AL via perioperative gum chewing compared to placebo (control) on in-hospital costs, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and assesses cost-effectiveness. METHODS: In patients undergoing elective, open colorectal surgery, changes in HRQoL were assessed using EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaires and costs were estimated from a hospital perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. RESULTS: In 112 patients, mean costs for ward stay were significantly lower in the gum chewing group when compared to control (€3522 (95% CI €3034-€4010) versus €4893 (95% CI €3843-€5942), respectively, p = .020). No differences were observed in mean overall in-hospital costs, or in mean change in any of the HRQoL scores or utilities. Gum chewing was dominant (less costly and more effective) compared to the control in more than 50% of the simulations for both POI and AL. CONCLUSION: Reducing POI and AL via gum chewing reduced costs for ward stay, but did not affect overall in-hospital costs, HRQoL, or mapped utilities. More studies with adequate sample sizes using validated questionnaires at standardized time points are needed.

The sexual health care needs after colorectal cancer: the view of patients, partners, and health care professionals.

PURPOSE: Sexual dysfunction among patients with colorectal cancer is frequently reported. Studies examining patients' sexual health care needs are rare. We examined the sexual health care needs after colorectal cancer treatment according to patients, partners, and health care professionals (HCPs). Factors that impede or facilitate the quality of this care were identified. METHOD: Participants were recruited from three Dutch hospitals: St. Elisabeth, TweeSteden, and Catharina hospitals. Patients (n = 21), partners (n = 9), and 10 HCPs participated in eight focus groups. RESULTS: It is important to regularly evaluate and manage sexual issues. This does not always occur. Almost all participants reported a lack of knowledge and feelings of embarrassment or inappropriateness as barriers to discuss sexuality. HCPs reported stereotypical assumptions regarding the need for care based on age, sex, and partner status. The HCPs debated on whose responsibility it is that sexuality is discussed with patients. Factors within the organization, such as insufficient re-discussion of sexuality during (long-term) follow-up and unsatisfactory (knowledge of the) referral system impeded sexual health care. The HCPs could facilitate adequate sexual health care by providing patient-tailored information and permission to discuss sex, normalizing sexual issues, and establishing an adequate referral system. It is up to the patients and partners to demarcate the extent of sexual health care needed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate the need for patient-tailored sexual health care and the complexity of providing/receiving this care. An adequate referral system and training are needed to help HCPs engage in providing satisfactory sexual health care.

The hospital standardized mortality ratio fallacy: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Outcome measures, like hospital standardized mortality ratios (HSMRs), are increasingly used to assess quality of care. The validity of HSMRs and their accuracy to reflect quality of care is heavily contested. OBJECTIVE: We explored apparent and potential shortcomings and adverse effects of the HSMR in the assessment of quality of care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: For this narrative review, relevant articles were collected from Medline databases using the following search terms: "hospital standardized mortality ratio," "standardized mortality ratio," "HSMR," "quality of care," and "in-hospital mortality." In addition, other important articles were subtracted from the reference lists of the primary articles. RESULTS: The current literature exhibits important shortcomings of the HSMR that in particular affect hospitals providing specialized care of a certain level of complexity. Because of the lack or insufficiency of data concerning case-mix, coding variation between hospitals, disease severity, referral bias, end-of-life care, and place of death, the current HSMR model is not able to adjust adequately for these aspects. This leads to incomparability of HSMRs between hospitals. Instead of separate aspects of continuity of care, all factors contributing to quality of care should be considered. CONCLUSIONS: Given the several shortcomings, use of the HSMR as an indicator of quality of care can be considered as a fallacy. Publication of the HSMR is not likely to lead to improvement of quality of care and might harm both hospitals and patients.