Social and clinical vulnerability in stroke and STEMI management during the COVID-19 pandemic: a registry-based study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate whether the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a deterioration in the quality of care for socially and/or clinically vulnerable stroke and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. DESIGN: Two cohorts of STEMI and stroke patients in the Aquitaine neurocardiovascular registry. SETTING: Six emergency medical services, 30 emergency units, 14 hospitalisation units and 11 catheterisation laboratories in the Aquitaine region in France. PARTICIPANTS: This study involved 9218 patients (6436 stroke and 2782 STEMI patients) in the neurocardiovascular registry from January 2019 to August 2020. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Care management times in both cohorts: first medical contact-to-procedure time for the STEMI cohort and emergency unit admission-to-imaging time for the stroke cohort. Associations between social (deprivation index) and clinical (age >65 years, neurocardiovascular history) vulnerabilities and care management times were analysed using multivariate linear mixed models, with an interaction on the time period (pre-wave, per-wave and post-first COVID-19 wave). RESULTS: The first medical contact procedure time was longer for elderly (p<0.001) and 'very socially disadvantaged' (p=0.003) STEMI patients, with no interaction regarding the COVID-19 period (age, p=0.54; neurocardiovascular history, p=0.70; deprivation, p=0.64). We found no significant association between vulnerabilities and the admission imaging time for stroke patients, and no interaction with respect to the COVID-19 period (age, p=0.81; neurocardiovascular history, p=0.34; deprivation, p=0.95). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed pre-existing inequalities in care management times for vulnerable STEMI and stroke patients; however, these inequalities were neither accentuated nor reduced during the first COVID-19 wave. Measures implemented during the crisis did not alter the structured emergency pathway for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04979208.

Standardized technique for ejaculation preservation during prostatic endoscopic ablative surgery.

PURPOSE: Ejaculatory dysfunction is the most common side effect of benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery. Modified techniques have emerged with the aim of preserving antegrade ejaculation without compromising obstruction relief. None are standardized or validated. The PARTURP study is a randomized study investigating partial versus complete prostate resection. We conducted an investigator consensus meeting to define the ideal surgical technique to achieve both correct obstruction relief with ejaculation preservation. METHODS: An expert consensus meeting involving all investigators of the PARTURP study took place to define a common technique using the nominal group methodology. The objectives were to define the areas to be resected and the areas to be preserved; to define the criteria for proper obstruction relief; to define the criteria for proper ejaculation preservation. RESULTS: All investigators (n = 15) attended the consensus meeting, and agreement between all the participants was obtained. The anatomical landmarks to be preserved are located around the verumontanum and along the posterior part of the prostatic urethra. These structures must be preserved up to 2 cm from the verumontanum. The participants agreed on the need to preserve the urethral mucosa in all the areas to be preserved and to reach the enucleation plane in the areas of resection. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomical landmarks for ejaculation-sparing surgery have been defined by the investigators of the PARTURP randomized study. These landmarks will be used during the study, and the clinical outcomes of this ejaculation-sparing technique will be compared with complete resection with up to 3 years follow-up.

Structured Pre-Consultation Interview at the First Call of Caregiver Regarding Memory Consultation: Effects on Caregiver Burden, Expectations, and Quality of Life.

Introduction: Case managers can guide caregivers during their search for care for relatives with neurocognitive disorders. The present study aimed to evaluate the effects of this procedure on caregiver burden and quality of life. Methods: Family caregivers searching for care at a memory clinic before the first consultation were provided written information and they provided verbal consent to participate in this pre-post intervention study. Intervention was a structured pre-consultation phone call interview given by the case manager to inform and organize individualize pathway of care. The mini-Zarit Burden Interview and the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire quality of life scores were recorded by an independent assessor before the intervention and 1 month thereafter. An expectation questionnaire was also completed during the assessments. The pre and post scores were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: In total, 45 participants were enrolled and 35 were assessed twice. There was no significant change in the total mini-Zarit Burden Interview score; however, the levels of stress due to caring and meeting familial responsibilities (p = 0.025), and the fear of what the future holds for the participants' relative (p = 0.01) was lower at 1 month. The need for information about the pathways of care decreased, but no change in support satisfaction was observed. Quality of life was good and did not change. Conclusions: During the pre-consultation intervention, the case manager may fulfill several needs of caregivers, particularly to obtain personalized information, which should be implemented in memory clinics.

Post-stroke follow-up: Time to organize.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: General practitioners (GPs) are pivotal in the organization of the entire post-stroke management system. This study aimed to examine the sequelae of chronic post-stroke patients and to assess whether the medical follow-up organized by GPs is truly in accordance with current recommendations and patients' clinical needs. METHODS: This was an observational study including chronic post-stroke patients after a first stroke. Their post-stroke follow-ups (visits to GPs and specialist doctors) were compared with guidelines and with clinical needs as evaluated through a number of questionnaires. RESULTS: Overall, 53.2% of patients visited a neurologist as recommended and, although 49.4% had neuropsychiatric consequences, only 6.3% visited a psychiatrist. Similarly, while 34.2% had significant post-stroke disability, only 6.3% saw a rehabilitation physician. CONCLUSION: Taking into account not only cardiovascular prevention, but all post-stroke consequences, medical follow-ups as organized by GPs were not in accordance with recommendations and failed to take advantage of the currently available multidisciplinary resources required to improve patients' needs.

Benchmarking trial between France and Australia comparing management of primary rectal cancer beyond TME and locally recurrent rectal cancer (PelviCare Trial): rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with rectal cancer, 5-10% have a primary rectal cancer beyond the total mesorectal excision plane (PRC-bTME) and 10% recur locally following primary surgery (LRRC). In both cases, patients 'care remains challenging with a significant worldwide variation in practice regarding overall management and criteria for operative intervention. These variations in practice can be explained by structural and organizational differences, as well as cultural dissimilarities. However, surgical resection of PRC-bTME and LRRC provides the best chance of long-term survival after complete resection (R0). With regards to the organization of the healthcare system and the operative criteria for these patients, France and Australia seem to be highly different. A benchmarking-type analysis between French and Australian clinical practice, with regards to the care and management of PRC-bTME and LRRC, would allow understanding of patients' care and management structures as well as individual and collective mechanisms of operative decision-making in order to ensure equitable practice and improve survival for these patients. METHODS/DESIGN: The current study is an international Benchmarking trial comparing two cohorts of 120 consecutive patients with non-metastatic PRC-bTME and LRRC. Patients with curative and palliative treatment intent are included. The study design has three main parts: (1) French and Australian cohorts including clinical, radiological and surgical data, quality of life (MOS SF36, FACT-C) and distress level (Distress thermometer) at the inclusion, 6 and 12 months; (2) experimental analyses consisting of a blinded inter-country reading of pelvic MRI to assess operatory decisions; (3) qualitative analyses based on MDT meeting observation, semi-structured interviews and focus groups of health professional attendees and conducted by a research psychologist in both countries using the same guides. The primary endpoint will be the clinical resection rate. Secondary end points will be concordance rate between French and Australian operative decisions based on the inter-country reading MRI, post-operative mortality and morbidity rates, oncological outcomes based on resection status and one-year overall and disease-free survival, patients' quality of life and distress level. Qualitative analysis will compare obstacles and facilitators of operative decision-making between both countries. DISCUSSION: Benchmarking can be defined as a comparison and learning process which will allow, in the context of PRC-bTME and LRRC, to understand and to share the whole process management of these patientsbetween Farnce and Australia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02551471 . (date of registration: 09/14/2015).

Patient Experience Shows Little Relationship with Hospital Quality Management Strategies.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported experience measures are increasingly being used to routinely monitor the quality of care. With the increasing attention on such measures, hospital managers seek ways to systematically improve patient experience across hospital departments, in particular where outcomes are used for public reporting or reimbursement. However, it is currently unclear whether hospitals with more mature quality management systems or stronger focus on patient involvement and patient-centered care strategies perform better on patient-reported experience. We assessed the effect of such strategies on a range of patient-reported experience measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We employed a cross-sectional, multi-level study design randomly recruiting hospitals from the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey between May 2011 and January 2012. Each hospital contributed patient level data for four conditions/pathways: acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries. The outcome variables in this study were a set of patient-reported experience measures including a generic 6-item measure of patient experience (NORPEQ), a 3-item measure of patient-perceived discharge preparation (Health Care Transition Measure) and two single item measures of perceived involvement in care and hospital recommendation. Predictor variables included three hospital management strategies: maturity of the hospital quality management system, patient involvement in quality management functions and patient-centered care strategies. We used directed acyclic graphs to detail and guide the modeling of the complex relationships between predictor variables and outcome variables, and fitted multivariable linear mixed models with random intercept by hospital, and adjusted for fixed effects at the country level, hospital level and patient level. RESULTS: Overall, 74 hospitals and 276 hospital departments contributed data on 6,536 patients to this study (acute myocardial infarction n = 1,379, hip fracture n = 1,503, deliveries n = 2,088, stroke n = 1,566). Patients admitted for hip fracture and stroke had the lowest scores across the four patient-reported experience measures throughout. Patients admitted after acute myocardial infarction reported highest scores on patient experience and hospital recommendation; women after delivery reported highest scores for patient involvement and health care transition. We found no substantial associations between hospital-wide quality management strategies, patient involvement in quality management, or patient-centered care strategies with any of the patient-reported experience measures. CONCLUSION: This is the largest study so far to assess the complex relationship between quality management strategies and patient experience with care. Our findings suggest absence of and wide variations in the institutionalization of strategies to engage patients in quality management, or implement strategies to improve patient-centeredness of care. Seemingly counterintuitive inverse associations could be capturing a scenario where hospitals with poorer quality management were beginning to improve their patient experience. The former suggests that patient-centered care is not yet sufficiently integrated in quality management, while the latter warrants a nuanced assessment of the motivation and impact of involving patients in the design and assessment of services.

Diagnosis accuracy of a new challenger for thrombosis exclusion, the Stratus CS DDMR.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic accuracy of a new Point of Care, rapid and quantitative D-dimer assay (Stratus CS DDMR from Dade Behring) was evaluated. METHODS: Vidas test from bioMerieux was used as reference method in 279 patients recruited from a management study in progress in our institution. RESULTS: Both assays show comparable reproducibility (2.9% with the Stratus CS DDMR and 4.4% with the D-dimer Vidas in the cut-off range) and good correlation (R(2)=0.9057). The overall test performance as assessed by the area under the curve of the ROC curves is 0.801 for the Stratus CS DDMR assay and 0.798 for the D-dimer Vidas assay. By using assay regression curves, likelihood ratios or test agreement approaches, a 440-450 ng/ml value is evidenced as the threshold value for the Stratus CS DDMR, which nears at best the performances of the D-dimer Vidas 500 or 550 ng/ml threshold value. This proposed exclusion value ensures a 95% sensitivity and a 45% specificity. The few false negative results using the two assays only evidenced sub-popliteal thromboses, that would not have been considered as having thrombosis if an above-the-knee test had been performed. In these conditions, sensitivity would have been 100%. CONCLUSIONS: A new quantitative D-dimer assay, the Stratus CS DDMR, demonstrated performances comparable with those of the DD Vidas test.