Determining the Association Between Insurance Type and Myofascial Release in Large Ventral Hernias.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) utilizes advanced myofascial releases to perform complex ventral hernia repair (VHR). The relationship between the performance of AWR and disparities in insurance type is unknown. METHODS: The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative was queried for adults who had undergone an elective VHR between 2013 and 2020 with a hernia size ≥10 cm. Patients with missing insurance data were excluded. Comparison groups were divided by insurance type: favorable (private, Medicare, Veteran's Administration, Tricare) or unfavorable (Medicaid and self-pay). Propensity score matching compared the cumulative incidence of AWR between the favorable and unfavorable insurance comparison groups. RESULTS: In total, 26,447 subjects met inclusion criteria. The majority (89%, n = 23,617) had favorable insurance, while (11%, n = 2830) had unfavorable insurance. After propensity score matching, 2821 patients with unfavorable insurance were matched to 7875 patients with favorable insurance. The rate of AWR with external oblique release or transversus abdominis release was significantly higher (23%, n = 655) among the unfavorable insurance group compared to those with favorable insurance (21%, n = 1651; P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that patients with unfavorable insurance may undergo AWR with external oblique or transversus abdominis release at a greater rate than similar patients with favorable insurance. Understanding the mechanisms contributing to this difference and evaluating the financial implications of these trends represent important directions for future research in elective VHR.

The role of religion and spirituality in cancer care: An umbrella review of the literature.

Although some studies have suggested a strong relationship between religion and spirituality (R&S) and patient outcomes in cancer care, other data have been mixed or even noted adverse effects associated with R&S in the healthcare setting. We sought to perform an umbrella review to systematically appraise and synthesize the current body of literature on the role of patient R&S in cancer care. A systematic search of the literature was conducted that focused on "cancer" (neoplasm, malignant neoplasm, malignancy), "spirituality" (beliefs, divine), and "religion" (specific practices like Christianity, faith, faith healing, prayer, Theology). A total of 41 review articles published from 1995 to 2019 were included: 8 systematic reviews, 6 meta-analyses, 4 systematic reviews and meta-analysis, and 23 other general reviews. The number of studies included in each review ranged from 7 to 148, while 10 studies did not indicate sample size. Most articles did not focus on a specific cancer diagnosis (n = 36), stage of cancer (n = 32), or patient population (n = 34). Many articles noted that R&S had a positive impact on cancer care, yet some reviews reported inconclusive or negative results. Marked variation in methodological approaches to studying R&S among cancer patients, including operational definitions and measurement, were identified. Resolving these issues will be an important step to understanding how patients seek to have R&S integrated into their patient-centered cancer care experience.

Provision of supportive spiritual care for hepatopancreatic cancer patients: an unmet need?

BACKGROUND: Among patients with a serious cancer diagnosis, like hepatopancreatic (HP) cancer, spiritual distress needs to be addressed, as these psychosocial-spiritual symptoms are often more burdensome than some physical symptoms. The objective of the current study was to characterize supportive spiritual care utilization among patients with HP cancers. METHODS: Patients with HP cancer were identified from the electronic medical record at a large comprehensive cancer center; data on patients with breast/prostate cancer (non-HP) were collected for comparison. Associations between patient characteristics and receipt of supportive spiritual care were evaluated within the overall sample and end-of-life subsample. RESULTS: Among 8,961 individuals (nHP=1,419, nnon-HP =7,542), 51.7% of HP patients utilized supportive spiritual care versus 19.8% of non-HP patients (p<0.001). Younger age and religious identity were associated with receiving spiritual care (p<0.001). HP patients had higher odds of receiving spiritual care versus non-HP patients (OR 2.41, 95%CI: 2.10, 2.78). Within the end-of-life subsample, HP patients more frequently received spiritual care to "accept their illness" (39.5% vs. 22.5%, p<0.001), while non-HP patients needed support to "define their purpose in life" (13.1% vs. 4.5%, p=0.001). DISCUSSION: Supportive spiritual care was important to a large subset of HP patients and should be integrated into their care.

The religious/spiritual beliefs and needs of cancer survivors who underwent cancer-directed surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize patients' preferences for the role of religious and spiritual (R&S) beliefs and practices during cancer treatment and describe the R&S resources desired by patients during the perioperative period. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey was administered to individuals who underwent cancer-directed surgery. Data on demographics and R&S beliefs/preferences were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Among 236 participants, average age was 58.8 (SD = 12.10) years; the majority were female (76.2%), white (94.1%), had a significant other or spouse (60.2%), and were breast cancer survivors (43.6%). Overall, more than one-half (55.9%) of individuals identified themselves as being religious, while others identified as only spiritual (27.9%) or neither (16.2%). Patients who identified as religious wanted R&S integrated into their care more often than patients who were only spiritual or neither (p < 0.001). Nearly half of participants (49.6%) wanted R&S resources when admitted to the hospital including the opportunity to speak with an R&S leader (e.g., rabbi; 72.1%), R&S texts (64.0%), and journaling materials (54.1%). Irrespective of R&S identification, 68.0% of patients did not want their physician to engage with them about R&S topics. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Access to R&S resources is important during cancer treatment, and incorporating R&S into cancer care may be especially important to patients that identify as religious. R&S needs should be addressed as part of the cancer care plan.

Do Religious/Spiritual Preferences and Needs of Cancer Patients Vary Based on Clinical- and Treatment-Level Factors?

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to characterize the religion and spiritual (R&S) needs of patients who undergo cancer-directed surgery. In addition, we seek to examine how R&S needs vary based on R&S identity and clinical and surgical treatment characteristics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to potential participants who were recruited through outpatient clinics and online. Respondent desires for R&S resources and engagement with the healthcare team  around R&S topics were assessed. RESULTS: Among 383 potential participants who were identified, 236 respondents were included in the analytic cohort. Mean age was 58.8 (SD 12.10) years, and most participants were female (75.8%) and White/Caucasian (94.1%). The majority (78.4%) identified as currently cancer free. Commonly treated malignancies included breast (43.2%), male reproductive (8.9%), skin (8.5%), and gastrointestinal (GI) (7.2%). Two-thirds of the respondents indicated a desire to have R&S incorporated into their cancer treatment (63.3%). Patients who identified as highly/moderately religious reported wanting R&S more often (highly religious: 95.2% versus moderately religious: 71.4% vs. nonreligious but spiritual: 4.5%). On multivariable analysis, patients who believed their health would improve in the future were more likely to report wanting R&S service (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-4.7) as well as wanting to engage their healthcare providers on R&S topics (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.7). In contrast, perception of current or future health status was not associated with patient desire for the actual surgeon/doctor him/herself to be involved in R&S activities (OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.97-3.45). CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of patients undergoing cancer-directed surgery expressed a desire to have R&S incorporated into their cancer treatment. Incorporating R&S into cancer treatment can help a subset of patients throughout their cancer experience.

The beliefs of cancer care providers regarding the role of religion and spirituality within the clinical encounter.

PURPOSE: To characterize cancer care provider perceptions of the role of religion and spirituality (R&S) within the clinical encounter. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to healthcare professionals (defined as someone who is authorized to diagnose and/or treat physical or mental health disorders) currently employed at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Beliefs around the role of R&S within the clinical encounter were assessed using four adapted subscales/dimensions (D1-D4) from the Religion and Spirituality in Medicine: Physicians' Perspectives measure: God actively intervenes in patient health (D1), R&S is beneficial for patient mental health (D2), provider inquires about (D3) and discusses (D4) R&S in the clinical encounter. Logistic (D1) and linear (D2-D4) regression were performed using SAS v9.4 to determine the relationship between provider type and each subscale while controlling for gender, race, relationship status, education, and R&S identity. RESULTS: Among 340 participants, most participants were female (82.1%) or Caucasian (82.6%) and the median age was 35 years (IQR 31-48). Providers included physicians (17.9%), nurses (64.7%), and "other" (17.4%). Most participants identified as religious (57.5%), followed by spiritual (30.2%) and neither religious nor spiritual (12.3%). Nurses and other providers were more likely than physicians to believe that God intervenes in patient health (physician 41.7% vs. nurse 61.8% vs. other 60.3%; p = 0.02). All providers were equally as likely to believe that R&S is beneficial for patient mental health and to discuss R&S with patients within the clinical encounter (both p > 0.05). In contrast, nurses more frequently reported inquiring about R&S (median 1.7; IQR 0.9-2.0) compared with physicians (median 1.0; IQR 0.9-2.0) or other providers (median 1.4; IQR 1.0-2.1) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There were differences between providers in beliefs regarding the role of R&S in the clinical cancer encounter. Of note, nurses and other provider types were more likely than physicians to inquire about R&S with patients. Understanding variations in these beliefs will help determine how to best incorporate R&S support for patients during their cancer care.

A mixed-methods approach to comparing perceptions of cancer patients' and cancer care providers' religious and spiritual beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the perceptions of cancer patients' and cancer care providers' religious and spiritual (R&S) beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes. METHODS: A concurrent, nested, quantitative dominant, mixed-methods design was utilised. Data were collected from patient and provider groups via online survey. Analyses include chi-square tests of independence and independent t-tests for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data. RESULTS: The final analytic cohort for the study included 576 participants (npatients  = 236, nproviders  = 340) with an average age of 47.4 years (SD = 15.0). Over half of participants were partnered (n = 386, 70.1%), female (n = 317, 57.3%) and had an advanced degree (n = 284, 51.2%). The most common diagnosis for patients was breast cancer (n = 103, 43.2%). The most common provider role was nurse (n = 220; 64.7%), while a smaller subset included physicians (n = 61; 17.9%) and "other" providers (n = 59; 17.4%). There was no difference between patients and providers in relation to R&S identity (p = 0.49) or behaviour (p = 0.28). Providers more frequently indicated that patients should receive R&S resources in the hospital (n = 281, 89.7% vs. n = 111, 49.6%, p < 0.001). For resource type, patients most frequently endorsed written resources (n = 93, 83.8%) while providers endorsed relational resources (n = 281, 97.9%). CONCLUSION: Aligning patient and provider expectations of spiritual care will contribute to provision of optimal patient-centred cancer care.

Perioperative Morbidity of Gastrectomy During CRS-HIPEC: An ACS-NSQIP Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Formal gastrectomy is occasionally required to achieve complete cytoreduction for patients with peritoneal surface malignancies. In addition, the role of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for patients with gastric cancer is increasingly being explored. Nevertheless, data on the safety of gastrectomy at the time of CRS-HIPEC are limited. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program databases from 2005 to 2016 were used to identify patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC. Demographic, clinical, and perioperative outcomes were compared between patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC with and without gastrectomy. RESULTS: Among 1168 patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC, 43 (4%) underwent partial (n = 20) or total (n = 23) gastrectomy. Patients who underwent gastrectomy at the time of CRS-HIPEC had a longer operative time (529.3 versus 457.6 min, P = 0.004), were more likely to need an intraoperative transfusion (32.6% versus 14.3%, P = 0.001), experienced a longer length of stay (19.0 versus 11.3 d, P < 0.001), and had a significantly greater complication rate (60.5% versus 27.9%, P < 0.001), whereas postoperative mortality was not statistically significantly different (4.7% versus 1.4%, P = 0.09). On multivariate logistic regression, gastrectomy (odds ratio [OR] 3.52, P < 0.001) was the strongest predictor of postoperative morbidity, in addition to American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4 (OR 2.82, P = 0.001), malnutrition (OR 1.63, P = 0.01), liver resection (OR 1.88, P = 0.01), and colectomy (OR 2.04, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing gastrectomy at the time of CRS-HIPEC experience a substantial postoperative complication rate (60%) and extended length of stay (mean 19 d). These findings highlight the need for cautious patient selection and preoperative counseling before performing concomitant gastrectomy and CRS-HIPEC.

Predictors of Readmission After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for hospital readmission after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are poorly understood. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program databases from 2011 to 2016 were used to identify all patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC. Demographic, clinical, and perioperative variables were examined using logistic regression to identify factors associated with 30-d postoperative readmission. RESULTS: Among 618 patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC, 96 (15.5%) required hospital readmission within 30 d of surgery. The incidence of readmission decreased over the study period (18.3% in 2011 to 4.8% in 2016). Among the 59 patients who were readmitted and had complete data available, readmission occurred on mean postoperative day 18.5 ± 5.5; the most common reasons for readmission were digestive complications (39.0%), postoperative infections (25.4%), uncontrolled pain (8.5%), and venous thromboembolism (5.1%). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, increasing age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.05), number of operative procedures (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00-1.25), perioperative complication (OR 7.06, 95% CI 3.96-12.59), need for reoperation (OR 10.21, 95% CI 3.50-29.83), and length of stay (OR 0.93, 0.90-0.97) were associated with hospital readmission. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based analysis of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC, older age, perioperative complications, need for reoperation, and extent of cytoreduction were associated with hospital readmission. The American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database is a powerful research tool that can be used to identify opportunities to improve the perioperative care of surgical patients.