ABSTRACT
The improved survival of liver transplant recipients (LTRs) has been accompanied by a concomitant rise in long-term liver transplantation complications, including skin cancer. A recent study found that the prevalence of skin cancer among LTRs is 13.5%, a rate equivalent to that observed among kidney transplant recipients. Given the morbidity associated with skin cancer in LTRs, an individualized, multidisciplinary approach to skin cancer prevention that incorporates patient education, encourages consistent use of primary prevention methods, and ensures routine dermatologic screening should be universally adopted in this population. Chemopreventative measures should be considered in LTRs with a high skin cancer burden. Furthermore, additional studies should be performed in order to systematize these recommendations.
Subject(s)
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects , Kidney Transplantation/adverse effects , Liver Transplantation/adverse effects , Skin Neoplasms/etiology , Skin Neoplasms/prevention & control , Transplant Recipients/psychology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Perioperative care has been identified as an area of wide variability in quality, with conflicting models, and involving multiple specialties. In 2014, the Loma Linda University Departments of Anesthesiology and Urology implemented a perioperative hospitalist service (PHS), consisting of anesthesiology-trained physicians, to co-manage patients for the entirety of their perioperative period. We hypothesized that implementation of this PHS model would result in an improvement in patient recovery. METHODS: As a quality improvement (QI) initiative, the PHS service was formed of selected anesthesiologists who received training on the core competencies for hospitalist medicine. The service was implemented following a co-management agreement to medically manage patients undergoing major urologic procedures (prostatectomy, cystectomy, and nephrectomy). Impact was assessed by comparisons to data from the year prior to PHS service implementation. Data was compared with and without propensity matching. Primary outcome marker was a reduction in length of stay. Secondary outcome markers included complication rate, return of bowel function, number of consultations, reduction in total direct patient costs, and bed days saved. RESULTS: Significant reductions in length of stay (p < 0.05) were demonstrated for all surgical procedures with propensity matching and were demonstrated for cystectomy and nephrectomy cases without. Significant reductions in complication rates and ileus were also observed for all surgical procedures post-PHS implementation. Additionally, reductions in total direct patient costs and frequency of consultations were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiologists can safely function as perioperative hospitalists, providing appropriate medical management, and significantly improving both patient recovery and throughput.
ABSTRACT
A case in which the intraoperative administration of propofol was strongly associated with an acute episode of diabetes insipidus is presented.