Ostomy Information on the Internet-Is It Good Enough?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine which internet search engines and keywords patients with ostomies utilize, to identify the common websites using these terms, to determine what aspects of information they wanted, and to perform a quality and readability assessment for these websites. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of persons with ostomies to identify search engines and terms, followed by a structured assessment of the quality and readability of the identified web pages. SUBJECT AND SETTINGS: The sample comprised 20 hospitalized patients with ostomies cared for on a colorectal surgical ward of a tertiary care hospital located in Melbourne, Australia. There were 15 (75%) adult males and 5 (25%) adult females; their mean age was 52.2 years. Participants were surveyed between August and December 2020. METHODS: Patients with newly formed ostomies were surveyed about which search engines and keywords they would use to look for information and for which questions regarding ostomies they wanted answers. In addition, 2 researchers then performed independent searches using the search terms identified by patient participants. These searches were conducted in August 2021, with the geographical location set to Australia. The quality of the websites was graded using the DISCERN, Ensuring Quality Information for Patients, and Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool scoring assessments, and their readability was graded using the Flesch Reading Ease Score tool. RESULTS: Participants used Google as their primary search engine. Four keywords/phrases were identified: stoma for bowel surgery, ileostomy, colostomy, and caring for stoma. Multiple web pages were identified, 8 (21%) originated from Australia, 7 (18%) were from the United Kingdom, and 23 (61%) were from the United States. Most web pages lacked recent updates; only 18% had been undated within the last 12 months. The overall quality of the online information on ostomies was moderate with an average level of readability, deemed suitable for patient educational purposes. CONCLUSIONS: Information for persons living with an ostomy can be obtained from multiple web pages, and many sites have reasonable quality and are written at a suitable level. Unfortunately, these websites are rarely up-to-date and may contain advice that may not be applicable to individual patients.

Implementation of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for radical cystectomy patients: A single centre experience.

PURPOSE: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for radical cystectomy aims to facilitate postoperative recovery and hasten a return to normal daily activities. This study aims to report on the perioperative outcomes of implementation of an ERAS protocol at a single Australian institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 73 patients with pT1-T4 bladder cancer who underwent open radical cystectomy at Western Health, Victoria between June 2016 and August 2021. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed. Perioperative outcomes included length of hospital stay, nasogastric tube requirement and duration of postoperative ileus. RESULTS: The median age was 74 years (interquartile range [IQR] 66-78) for the ERAS group and 70 years (IQR 65-78) for the pre-ERAS group patients. All patients in each group underwent ileal conduit formation. The median length of hospital stay was 7.0 days (IQR 7.0-9.3) for the ERAS group and 12.0 days (IQR 8.0-16.0) for the pre-ERAS group (p=0.003). Within the ERAS group, 25.0% had a postoperative ileus, and 25.0% had a nasogastric tube inserted, compared with 64.9% (p=0.001) and 45.9% (p=0.063) respectively within pre-ERAS group. The median bowel function recovery time, defined as duration from surgery to first bowel action, was 5.0 days (IQR 4.0-7.0) in the ERAS group and 7.5 days (IQR 5.0-8.5) in the pre-ERAS group (p=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ERAS protocol is associated with a reduction in hospital length of stay, postoperative ileus and bowel function recovery time.