Outcomes reported in randomised trials of surgical prehabilitation: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity of reported outcomes can impact the certainty of evidence for prehabilitation. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically map outcomes and assessment tools used in trials of surgical prehabilitation. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched in February 2023. Randomised controlled trials of unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions (nutrition, exercise, psychological support) lasting at least 7 days in adults undergoing elective surgery were included. Reported outcomes were classified according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research framework. RESULTS: We included 76 trials, mostly focused on abdominal or orthopaedic surgeries. A total of 50 different outcomes were identified, measured using 184 outcome assessment tools. Observer-reported outcomes were collected in 86% of trials (n=65), with hospital length of stay being most common. Performance outcomes were reported in 80% of trials (n=61), most commonly as exercise capacity assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Clinician-reported outcomes were included in 78% (n=59) of trials and most frequently included postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo classification. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in 76% (n=58) of trials, with health-related quality of life using the 36- or 12-Item Short Form Survey being most prevalent. Biomarker outcomes were reported in 16% of trials (n=12) most commonly using inflammatory markers assessed with C-reactive protein. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial heterogeneity in the reporting of outcomes and assessment tools across surgical prehabilitation trials. Identification of meaningful outcomes, and agreement on appropriate assessment tools, could inform the development of a prehabilitation core outcomes set to harmonise outcome reporting and facilitate meta-analyses.

Demystifying Malnutrition to Improve Nutrition Screening and Assessment in Oncology.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with cancer and malnutrition are more likely to experience poor treatment tolerance, prolonged length of hospital stay, and decreased quality of life. Early and sustained nutrition risk screening is the first step to tackling this patient and health care burden. Yet, malnutrition remains largely overlooked and undertreated. Malnutrition mismanagement could be indicative of a systemic misunderstanding. With this narrative review, we aimed to (1) define malnutrition, (2) address common malnutrition misconceptions, and (3) summarize nutrition recommendations for patients with cancer. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and international clinical practice guidelines. CONCLUSION: Malnutrition represents an unbalanced nutritional state that alters body composition and diminishes function. Malnutrition is not always physically obvious, and albumin is not a reliable marker of nutritional status; therefore, systematically screening all patients with a validated nutrition risk screening tool at time of cancer diagnosis, and periodically throughout treatment, is necessary to provide optimal, equitable care. Nutrition risk screening takes less than 1 minute to complete and can be completed by any health care professional. Patients that screen positive for nutrition risk should be referred to a registered nutritionist or dietitian for comprehensive nutritional assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: All health care professionals can and should be responsible for preventing and treating malnutrition. Registered nurses can actively participate in improving patient outcomes by screening patients for nutrition risk, weighing patients at every visit, referring patients to dietitians for nutrition treatment, and providing supportive medical management of nutrition impact symptoms such as nausea.

Physical and Psychological Health Behavior Changes During the COVID-19 Pandemic that May Inform Surgical Prehabilitation: a Narrative Review.

Purpose of Review: Multimodal prehabilitation aims to improve preoperative health in ways that reduce surgical complications and expedite post-operative recovery. However, the extent to which preoperative health has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic is unclear and evidence for the mitigating effects of prehabilitation in this context has not been elucidated. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a rapid reorganization of perioperative pathways. Delayed diagnosis and surgery have caused a backlog of cases awaiting surgery increasing the risk of more complex procedures due to disease progression. Poor fitness and preoperative deconditioning are predictive of surgical complications and may be compounded by pandemic-related restrictions to accessing supportive services. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a rapid reorganization of perioperative pathways. This narrative review aims to summarize the understanding of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on preoperative health and related behaviors and their implication for the need and delivery for prehabilitation to engender improved surgical outcomes. A literature search of Medline was conducted for articles related to preoperative health, prehabilitation, and surgical outcomes published between December 1, 2020 and January 31, 2021. Additional hand searches for relevant publications within the included literature were also conducted through October 15, 2021. Recent Findings: The COVID-19 pandemic, and measures designed to reduce the spread of the virus, have resulted in physical deconditioning, deleterious dietary changes, substance misuse, and heightened anxiety prior to surgery. Due to the adverse health changes prior to surgery, and often protracted waiting time for surgery, there is likely an elevated risk of peri- and post-operative complications. A small number of prehabilitation services and research programmes have been rapidly adapted or implemented to address these needs. Summary: During the COVID-19 pandemic to date, people undergoing surgery have faced a triple threat posed by extended wait times for surgery, reduced access to supportive services, and an elevated risk of poor outcomes. It is imperative that healthcare providers find ways to employ evidence-based prehabilitation strategies that are accessible and safe to mitigate the negative impact of the pandemic on surgical outcomes. Attention should be paid to cohorts most affected by established health inequities and further exacerbated by the pandemic.

Is current preoperative frailty assessment adequate?

SUMMARY: Preoperative frailty predicts adverse postoperative outcomes. Recommendations for preoperative assessment of elderly patients include performing a frailty assessment. Despite the advantages of incorporating frailty assessment into surgical settings, there is limited research on surgical health care professionals' perception and use of frailty assessment for perioperative care. We surveyed local health care employees to assess their attitudes toward and practices for frail patients. Nurses and allied health professionals were more likely than surgeons to agree frailty should play a role in planning a patient's care. Lack of knowledge about frailty issues was a prominent barrier to the use of frailty assessments in practice, despite clinicians understanding that frailty affects their patients' outcomes. Results of this survey suggest further training in frailty issues and the use of frailty assessment instruments is necessary and could improve the uptake of such tools for perioperative care planning.

Surgical frailty assessment: a missed opportunity.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative frailty predicts adverse postoperative outcomes. Despite the advantages of incorporating frailty assessment into surgical settings, there is limited research on surgical healthcare professionals' use of frailty assessment for perioperative care. METHODS: Healthcare professionals caring for patients enrolled at a Canadian teaching hospital were surveyed to assess their perceptions of frailty, as well as attitudes towards and practices for frail patients. The survey contained open-ended and 5-point Likert scale questions. Responses were compared across professions using independent sample t-tests and correlations between survey items were analyzed. RESULTS: Nurses and allied health professionals were more likely than surgeons to think frailty should play a role in planning a patient's care (nurses vs. surgeons p = 0.008, allied health vs. surgeons p = 0.014). Very few respondents (17.5%) reported that they 'always used' a frailty assessment tool. Results from qualitative data analysis identified four main barriers to frailty assessment: institutional, healthcare system, professional knowledge, and patient/family barriers. CONCLUSION: Across all disciplines, the lack of knowledge about frailty issues was a prominent barrier to the use of frailty assessments in practice, despite clinicians' understanding that frailty affects their patients' outcomes. Confidence in frailty assessment tool use through education and addressing barriers to implementation may increase use and improve patient care. Healthcare professionals agree that frailty assessments should play a role in perioperative care. However, few perform them in practice. Lack of knowledge about frailty is a key barrier in the use of frailty assessments and the majority of respondents agreed that they would benefit from further training.