[COVID-19 and change to home nursing care: Prospective study on 100 patients followed in CLCC]. / COVID-19 et modification des aides à domicile : étude prospective auprès de 100 patients suivis en CLCC.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 epidemic, the lockdown measures were associated with professional guidelines to care for patients. We noticed that the home nursing care of some patients monitored in supportive care wards were interrupted. The aim of this study is to determine the impact of lockdown on the home nursing care of patients monitored in supportive care wards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This observational, descriptive, monocentric, and prospective study was conducted in the supportive care wards from the 04.20 to the 05.15.2020 among 100 patients. They were asked about their home nursing care and their frequency before and after lockdown. Our study received a favorable ruling from the ethics committee of the Hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg. RESULTS: About two thirds of patients had experienced a change with their home nursing care. A complete interruption was observed for 40% of them and a reduction of frequency for 10% of them. Some populations were more deeply affected: patients with a performance status 3-4, women, patients living alone or patients with motor disability. The interruption of a task usually performed by a professional was observed for 49% of patients, with the task becoming incumbent on the patient or family caregivers. CONCLUSION: Our study shows a strong impact of the lockdown on the home nursing care of our patients in spite of the professional guidelines encouraging continuity of care. Our study underlines the great importance of protecting the access to care of the most vulnerable patients.

Evolution of Physical Status From Diagnosis to the End of First-Line Treatment in Breast, Lung, and Colorectal Cancer Patients: The PROTECT-01 Cohort Study Protocol.

Background: Cancer cachexia and exacerbated fatigue represent two hallmarks in cancer patients, negatively impacting their exercise tolerance and ultimately their quality of life. However, the characterization of patients' physical status and exercise tolerance and, most importantly, their evolution throughout cancer treatment may represent the first step in efficiently counteracting their development with prescribed and tailored exercise training. In this context, the aim of the PROTECT-01 study will be to investigate the evolution of physical status, from diagnosis to the end of first-line treatment, of patients with one of the three most common cancers (i.e., lung, breast, and colorectal). Methods: The PROTECT-01 cohort study will include 300 patients equally divided between lung, breast and colorectal cancer. Patients will perform a series of assessments at three visits throughout the treatment: (1) between the date of diagnosis and the start of treatment, (2) 8 weeks after the start of treatment, and (3) after the completion of first-line treatment or at the 6-months mark, whichever occurs first. For each of the three visits, subjective and objective fatigue, maximal voluntary force, body composition, cachexia, physical activity level, quality of life, respiratory function, overall physical performance, and exercise tolerance will be assessed. Discussion: The present study is aimed at identifying the nature and severity of maladaptation related to exercise intolerance in the three most common cancers. Therefore, our results should contribute to the delineation of the needs of each group of patients and to the determination of the most valuable exercise interventions in order to counteract these maladaptations. This descriptive and comprehensive approach is a prerequisite in order to elaborate, through future interventional research projects, tailored exercise strategies to counteract specific symptoms that are potentially cancer type-dependent and, in fine, to improve the health and quality of life of cancer patients. Moreover, our concomitant focus on fatigue and cachexia will provide insightful information about two factors that may have substantial interaction but require further investigation. Trial registration: This prospective study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03956641), May, 2019.

Quality assurance and gastrointestinal endoscopy: an audit of 500 colonoscopic procedures.

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to assess the quality of colonoscopic procedures in our endoscopy unit with the goal of improving performance. METHODS: We prospectively audited 500 consecutive colonoscopic procedures and assessed sixty-two process or outcome indicators for each procedure. RESULTS: Most of the measured indicators were within standard limits: cecal intubation rate (92%), inadequate bowel preparations (24%), inappropriate procedures (9.7%), normal procedures (54%), yield for neoplasia (32%), morbidity (0.4%), and overall patient satisfaction (95.8%). Some indicators were outside standard limits suggesting our practices should be modified: endoscopy withdrawal time less than 6 minutes (78%), forceps removal of polyps (31%), resected polyps not recovered for pathological examination (12%), adenomas with villous elements (22%), patients unsatisfied because of time spent waiting for the procedure (19%), patients unsatisfied because of inadequate explanations (10%). There was no standard for a few indicators: patient discomfort (6.9%), diagnostic success (89%), therapeutic success (92%). Three new indicators were proposed: proportion of patients aged<50 years, number of normal colonoscopic procedures to perform to detect one advanced adenoma or cancer, and proportion of colonoscopic procedures causing discomfort. The diagnostic yield of colonoscopy was dependent on age, gender, indication and appropriateness of indication but not on the prescriber. CONCLUSION: This audit allowed us to evaluate our endoscopic practices and to detect certain shortcomings and deviations from standards. It enabled us to change some of our practices with the goal of improving the quality of our colonoscopic procedures.