Associations of preoperative anaemia with healthcare resource use and outcomes after colorectal surgery: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anaemia is common in patient undergoing colorectal surgery. Understanding the population-level costs of preoperative anaemia will inform development and evaluation of anaemia management at health system levels. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study using linked, routinely collected data, including residents from Ontario, Canada, aged ≥18 yr who underwent an elective colorectal resection between 2012 and 2022. Primary exposure was preoperative anaemia (haemoglobin <130 g L-1 in males; <120 g L-1 in females). Primary outcome was 30-day costs in 2022 Canadian dollars (CAD), from the perspective of a publicly funded healthcare system. Secondary outcomes included red blood cell transfusion, major adverse events (MAEs), length of stay (LOS), days alive at home (DAH), and readmissions. RESULTS: We included 54,286 patients, with mean 65.3 (range 18-102) years of age and 49.0% females, among which 21 264 (39.2%) had preoperative anaemia. There was an absolute adjusted cost increase of $2671 per person at 30 days after surgery attributable to preoperative anaemia (ratio of means [RoM] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.06). Compared with the control group, 30-day risks of transfusion (odds ratio [OR] 4.34, 95% CI 4.04-4.66), MAEs (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.27), LOS (RoM 1.08, 95% CI 1.07-1.10), and readmissions (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.24) were higher in the anaemia group, with reduced DAH (RoM 0.95, 95% CI 0.95-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately $2671 CAD per person in 30-day health system costs are attributable to preoperative anaemia after colorectal surgery in Ontario, Canada.

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative patient-centred outcome measures are essential to capture the patient's experience after surgery. Although a large number of pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies (i.e. opioid alternatives) are used for patients undergoing surgery, it remains unclear which strategies are most promising in terms of patient-centred outcome improvements. This scoping review had two main objectives: (1) to map and describe evidence from clinical trials assessing the patient-centred effectiveness of pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients, and (2) to identify promising pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception to February 2023. We included trials investigating the use of opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients and reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. Study screening and data extraction were conducted independently by at least two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 24,842 citations screened for eligibility, 2803 trials assessed the effectiveness of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies. Of these, 457 trials (67,060 participants) met eligibility criteria, reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. In the 107 trials that included a patient-centred primary outcome, patient wellbeing was the most frequently used domain (55 trials). Based on aggregate findings, dexmedetomidine, systemic lidocaine, and COX-2 inhibitors were promising strategies, while paracetamol, ketamine, and gabapentinoids were less promising. Almost half of the trials (253 trials) did not report a protocol or registration number. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should prioritise and include patient-centred outcomes in the assessment of opioid minimisation strategy effectiveness. We identified three potentially promising pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies that should be further assessed through systematic reviews and multicentre trials. Findings from our scoping review may be influenced by selective outcome reporting bias. STUDY REGISTRATION: OSF - https://osf.io/7kea3.

Effectiveness of dexmedetomidine during surgery under general anaesthesia on patient-centred outcomes: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Dexmedetomidine is a promising pharmaceutical strategy to minimise opioid use during surgery. Despite its growing use, it is uncertain whether dexmedetomidine can improve patient-centred outcomes such as quality of recovery and pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL approximately in October 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the impact of systemic intraoperative dexmedetomidine on patient-centred outcomes. Patient-centred outcome definition will be based on the consensus definition established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC). Our primary outcome will be the quality of recovery after surgery. Our secondary outcomes will be patient well-being, function, health-related quality of life, life impact, multidimensional assessment of postoperative acute pain, chronic pain, persistent postoperative opioid use, opioid-related adverse events, hospital length of stay and adverse events. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify trials and extract data. We will evaluate the risk of bias of trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2.0). We will synthesise data using a random effects Bayesian model framework, estimating the probability of achieving a benefit and its clinical significance. We will assess statistical heterogeneity with the tau-squared and explore sources of heterogeneity with meta-regression. We have involved patient partners, clinicians, methodologists, and key partner organisations in the development of this protocol, and we plan to continue this collaboration throughout all phases of this systematic review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our systematic review does not require research ethics approval. It will help inform current clinical practice guidelines and guide development of future randomised controlled trials. The results will be disseminated in open-access peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences and shared among collaborators and networks. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023439896.

Comparison of BioLIFT versus LIFT for the treatment of trans-sphincteric anal fistula: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying the optimal treatment for anal fistula has been challenging. Since first reported in 2007, the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure has reported healing rates between 40% and 95% and is being increasingly adopted. The BioLIFT is an augmentation of the LIFT with an intersphincteric bioprosthetic mesh and has reported healing rates between 69% and 94%. Despite increased costs and potential complications associated with mesh, the evidence comparing healing rates between BioLIFT and LIFT is unknown. This study details the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of BioLIFT and LIFT to compare outcomes associated with each procedure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database will be searched from inception using a search strategy designed by an information specialist. Randomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, consecutive series, cross-sectional studies and case series with more than five patients will be included. Both comparative and single group studies will be included. The eligible population will be adult patients undergoing BioLIFT or LIFT for trans-sphincteric anal fistula. The primary outcome will be primary healing rate. Secondary outcomes will capture secondary healing rate and complications. Abstract, full text and data extraction will be completed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study risk of bias will be assessed using Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions and the Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) tool. Quality of evidence for outcomes will be evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria. A meta-analysis will be performed using a random-effects inverse variance model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be explored in relation to complex fistula characteristics and patients who have undergone previous LIFT. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require research ethics board approval. This study will be completed in September 2022. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international conferences and journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020127996.

Mapping a shared care model in complex gastrointestinal surgery: A qualitative study of queues and stakeholders within a Canadian general surgery practice.

Shared Care Models (SCMs), in which a team of clinicians share in patient care and resource utilization, represent an opportunity for surgeon-level system change. We aimed to identify the queues and stakeholders within a complex gastrointestinal surgical care pathway to demonstrate the implications of a SCM on system efficiency. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons and care navigators working in SCMs were asked to develop a patient encounter map through consensus to illustrate relevant queues and stakeholders within a SCM. Fifteen surgeon-related queues were identified, each representing a point of potential delay to care in the patient's journey that could be addressed by shared care. A final patient encounter map was created, and advantages and challenges of SCMs were also described from multidisciplinary group discussions. The numerous queues identified in this map ultimately reflected opportunities for more efficient care navigation under a SCM through increased surgeon availability and shared resource utilization.

Video Capsule Endoscopy can Identify Occult Luminal Crohn's Disease in Patients with Isolated Perianal Fistulas.

BACKGROUND: Accurate tools to distinguish Crohn's disease [CD] from cryptoglandular disease in patients with perianal fistulas without detectable luminal inflammation on ileocolonoscopy and abdominal enterography (isolated perianal fistulas [IPF]) are lacking. We assessed the ability of video capsule endoscopy [VCE] to detect luminal inflammation in patients with IPF. METHODS: We studied consecutive adults [>17 years] with IPF who were evaluated by VCE after a negative ileocolonoscopy and abdominal enterography between 2013 and 2022. We defined luminal CD by VCE as diffuse erythema, three or more aphthous ulcers, or a Lewis score greater than 135. We compared rates of intestinal inflammation in this cohort with age- and sex-matched controls without perianal fistulas, who underwent VCE for other indications. We excluded persons with pre-existing inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] and exposure to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or immunosuppressive treatments. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients with IPF underwent VCE without complications. Twelve patients [26%] met our definition of luminal CD. Luminal CD was more common in patients with IPF than in controls [26% vs 3%; p <0.01]. Among patients with IPF, male sex (OR [odds ratio], 9.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.1-79.4]), smoking (OR, 4.5; 95% CI [0.9-21.2]), abscess (OR, 6.3; 95% CI [1.5-26.8]), rectal enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] (OR, 9.0; 95% CI [0.8-99.3]), and positive antimicrobial serology (OR, 7.1; 95% CI, [0.7-70.0]) were more common in those with a positive VCE study. CONCLUSIONS: VCE detected small intestinal inflammation suggestive of luminal CD in approximately one-quarter of patients with IPF. Larger studies are required to validate these findings.

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: For close to a century opioid administration has been a standard of care to complement anaesthesia during surgery. Considering the worldwide opioid epidemic, this practice is now being challenged and there is a growing use of systemic pharmacological opioid minimising strategies. Our aim is to conduct a scoping review that will examine clinical trials that have evaluated the impact of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes and identify promising strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our scoping review will follow the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL from their inception approximately in March 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials, assessing the impact of systemic intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes. We define an opioid minimisation strategy as any non-opioid drug with antinociceptive properties administered during the intraoperative period. Patient-centred outcomes will be defined and classified based on the consensus definitions established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC group) and informed by knowledge users and patient partners. We will use a coproduction approach involving interested parties. Our multidisciplinary team includes knowledge users, patient partners, methodologists and knowledge user organisations. Knowledge users will provide input on methods, outcomes, clinical significance of findings, implementation and feasibility. Patient partners will participate in assessing the relevance of our design, methods and outcomes and help to facilitate evidence translation. We will provide a thorough description of available clinical trials, compare their reported patient-centred outcome measures with established recommendations and identify promising strategies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for the review. Our scoping review will inform future research including clinical trials and systematic reviews through identification of important intraoperative interventions. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, presentation at conferences and through our network of knowledge user collaborators. REGISTRATION: Open Science Foundation (currently embargoed).

Measuring the Predictive Accuracy of Preoperative Clinical Frailty Instruments Applied to Electronic Health Data in Older Patients Having Emergency General Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare predictive accuracy of frailty instruments operationalizable in electronic data for prognosticating outcomes among older adults undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS). BACKGROUND: Older patients undergoing EGS are at higher risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Preoperative frailty is a common and strong perioperative risk factor in this population. Despite this, existing barriers preclude routine preoperative frailty assessment. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults above 65 undergoing EGS from 2012 to 2018 using Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) provincial healthcare data in Ontario, Canada. We compared 4 frailty instruments: Frailty Index (FI), Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), Risk Analysis Index-Administrative (RAI), ACG Frailty-defining diagnoses indicator (ACG). We compared predictive accuracy beyond baseline risk models (age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists' score, procedural risk). Predictive performance was measured using discrimination, calibration, explained variance, net reclassification index and Brier score (binary outcomes); using explained variance, root mean squared error and mean absolute prediction error (continuous outcomes). Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 365-day mortality, nonhome discharge, days alive at home, length of stay, and 30-day and 365-day health systems cost. RESULTS: A total of 121,095 EGS patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 11,422 (9.4%) experienced death 30 days postoperatively. Addition of FI, HFRS, and RAI to the baseline model led to improved discrimination, net reclassification index, and R2 ; RAI demonstrated the largest improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Adding 4 frailty instruments to typically assessed preoperative risk factors demonstrated strong predictive performance in accurately prognosticating perioperative outcomes. These findings can be considered in developing automated risk stratification systems among older EGS patients.

Pan-Canadian colorectal cancer surgery data: an opportunity for reflection and improvement.

Variation in data provides an opportunity for health care providers to assess how patient care can be improved. Pan-Canadian colorectal cancer data show that, although long-term survival is similar among provinces, differences exist in other important aspects of care: length of stay, minimally invasive approach, readmission, and short-term mortality. Examining variation among stakeholders involved with colorectal cancer allows the opportunity to reflect on and optimize care.

Implementation, results and face validity of the Consultation and Relational Empathy measure in a Canadian department of surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure, a validated questionnaire designed to assess patients' perceptions of their physician's communication skills and empathy, has been used to assess empathy in medical specialties but has seldom been applied to surgery. We assessed empathy and communication skills among a group of surgeons within a single academic institution. METHODS: All surgeons within our department of surgery were invited to participate. Patients seen in clinics of participating surgeons were recruited prospectively from July 2018 to February 2019. At the end of each clinical encounter, they were asked to complete a CARE survey. Surveys were analyzed according to previously validated inclusion and exclusion criteria. We calculated mean scores for each surgeon and surgical division. About 6 months after study completion, surgeons were provided with their individual score and de-identified division scores, and were asked to complete a follow-up survey assessing their attitudes toward the CARE Measure. RESULTS: Of the 82 surgeons invited, 51 (62%) agreed to participate; 7 had fewer than 25 completed surveys and were excluded from analysis. A total of 1801 surveys for 44 surgeons (33 male and 11 female) were included in the final analysis. The average CARE score across the department was 46.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.6-47.1). Female surgeons received significantly higher scores than male surgeons (mean 47.6 [95% CI 47.1-48.0] v. 46.7 [95% CI 46.4-48.0]). Of the 35 surgeons who responded to the follow-up survey, 31 (89%) felt that the questions in the CARE Measure applied to their practice, and half of these reported that they intended to make changes in response to the feedback. CONCLUSION: We found high communication and empathy scores among surgeons in the outpatient setting, with enough variability to encourage continued improvement. The CARE Measure appears to have face validity among surgeons, and the vast majority found it relevant to their practice. Further study is needed to formally assess the relevance, performance, reliability and construct validity of this measure.

Efficacy and safety of extended duration to perioperative thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin on disease-free survival after surgical resection of colorectal cancer (PERIOP-01): multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of extended duration perioperative thromboprophylaxis by low molecular weight heparin when assessing disease-free survival in patients undergoing resection for colorectal cancer. DESIGN: Multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTINGS: 12 hospitals in Quebec and Ontario, Canada, between 25 October 2011 and 31 December 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 614 adults (age ≥18 years) were eligible with pathologically confirmed invasive adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum, no evidence of metastatic disease, a haemoglobin concentration of ≥8 g/dL, and were scheduled to undergo surgical resection. INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment to extended duration thromboprophylaxis using daily subcutaneous tinzaparin at 4500 IU, beginning at decision to operate and continuing for 56 days postoperatively, compared with in-patient postoperative thromboprophylaxis only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was disease-free survival at three years, defined as survival without locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, second primary (same cancer), second primary (other cancer), or death. Secondary outcomes included venous thromboembolism, postoperative major bleeding complications, and five year overall survival. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: The trial stopped recruitment prematurely after the interim analysis for futility. The primary outcome occurred in 235 (77%) of 307 patients in the extended duration group and in 243 (79%) of 307 patients in the in-hospital thromboprophylaxis group (hazard ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.33; P=0.4). Postoperative venous thromboembolism occurred in five patients (2%) in the extended duration group and in four patients (1%) in the in-hospital thromboprophylaxis group (P=0.8). Major surgery related bleeding in the first postoperative week was reported in one person (<1%) in the extended duration and in six people (2%) in the in-hospital thromboprophylaxis group (P=0.1). No difference was noted for overall survival at five years in 272 (89%) patients in the extended duration group and 280 (91%) patients in the in-hospital thromboprophylaxis group (hazard ratio 1.12; 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.76; P=0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Extended duration to perioperative anticoagulation with tinzaparin did not improve disease-free survival or overall survival in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing surgical resection compared with in-patient postoperative thromboprophylaxis alone. The incidences of venous thromboembolism and postoperative major bleeding were low and similar between groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01455831.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to routine preoperative frailty assessment: a qualitative interview study.

PURPOSE: Preoperative frailty assessment is recommended by multiple practice guidelines and may improve outcomes, but it is not routinely performed. The barriers and facilitators of routine preoperative frailty assessment have not been formally assessed. Our objective was to perform a theory-guided evaluation of barriers and facilitators to preoperative frailty assessment. METHODS: This was a research ethics board-approved qualitative study involving physicians who perform preoperative assessment (consultant and resident anesthesiologists and consultant surgeons). Semistructured interviews were conducted by a trained research assistant informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and facilitators to frailty assessment. Interview transcripts were independently coded by two research assistants to identify specific beliefs relevant to each theoretical domain. RESULTS: We interviewed 28 clinicians (nine consultant anesthesiologists, nine consultant surgeons, and ten anesthesiology residents). Six domains (Knowledge [100%], Social Influences [96%], Social Professional Role and Identity [96%], Beliefs about Capabilities [93%], Goals [93%], and Intentions [93%]) were identified by > 90% of respondents. The most common barriers identified were prioritization of other aspects of assessment (e.g., cardio/respiratory) and a lack of awareness of evidence and guidelines supporting frailty assessment. The most common facilitators were a high degree of familiarity with frailty, recognition of the importance of frailty assessment, and strong intentions to perform frailty assessment. CONCLUSION: Barriers and facilitators to preoperative frailty assessment are multidimensional, but generally consistent across different types of perioperative physicians. Knowledge of barriers and facilitators can guide development of evidence-based strategies to increase frailty assessment.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'évaluation préopératoire de la fragilité est recommandée par plusieurs lignes directrices de pratique et pourrait améliorer les devenirs, mais elle n'est pas systématiquement réalisée. Les obstacles et les facilitateurs de l'évaluation de routine de la fragilité préopératoire n'ont pas été officiellement évalués. Notre objectif était de mener une évaluation théorique des obstacles et des facilitateurs de l'évaluation préopératoire de la fragilité. MéTHODE: Il s'agissait d'une étude qualitative approuvée par le comité d'éthique de la recherche impliquant des médecins menant des évaluations préopératoires (anesthésiologistes, résidents en anesthésiologie et chirurgiens). Des entrevues semi-structurées ont été réalisées par un assistant de recherche formé en se fondant sur le Cadre des domaines théoriques afin d'identifier les obstacles et les facilitateurs à l'évaluation de la fragilité. Les transcriptions des entrevues ont été codées de manière indépendante par deux assistants de recherche afin d'identifier les croyances spécifiques pertinentes à chaque domaine théorique. RéSULTATS: Nous avons interrogé 28 cliniciens (neuf anesthésiologistes, neuf chirurgiens et dix résidents en anesthésiologie). Six domaines (Connaissances [100 %], Influences sociales [96 %], Rôle et identité socio-professionnels [96 %], Croyances concernant les capacités [93 %], Objectifs [93 %] et Intentions [93 %]) ont été identifiés par > 90 % des répondants. Les obstacles les plus fréquemment cités étaient la priorisation accordée à d'autres aspects de l'évaluation (p. ex., cardio/respiratoire) et le manque de connaissances des données probantes et des lignes directrices à l'appui de l'évaluation de la fragilité. Les facilitateurs les plus courants étaient un degré élevé de familiarité avec la fragilité, la reconnaissance de l'importance de l'évaluation de la fragilité et de fortes intentions de réaliser une évaluation de la fragilité. CONCLUSION: Les obstacles et les facilitateurs de l'évaluation préopératoire de la fragilité sont multidimensionnels, mais généralement uniformes parmi les différents types de médecins périopératoires. La connaissance des obstacles et des facilitateurs peut guider l'élaboration de stratégies fondées sur des données probantes pour augmenter l'évaluation de la fragilité.

Comparing the predictive accuracy of frailty instruments applied to preoperative electronic health data for adults undergoing noncardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative frailty is associated with increased risk of postoperative mortality and complications. Routine preoperative frailty assessment is underperformed. Automation of preoperative frailty assessment using electronic health data could improve adherence to guideline-based care if an accurate instrument is identified. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults >65 yr undergoing elective noncardiac surgery between 2012 and 2018. Four frailty instruments were compared: Frailty Index, Hospital Frailty Risk Score, Risk Analysis Index-Administrative, and Adjusted Clinical Groups frailty-defining diagnoses indicator. We compared the predictive performance of each instrument added to a baseline model (age, sex, ASA physical status, and procedural risk) using discrimination, calibration, explained variance, net reclassification, and Brier score (binary outcomes); and explained variance, root mean squared error, and mean absolute prediction error (continuous outcomes). Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 365-day mortality, length of stay, non-home discharge, days alive at home, and 365-day costs. RESULTS: For this study, 171 576 patients met the inclusion criteria; 1370 (0.8%) died within 30 days. Compared with the baseline model predicting 30-day mortality (area under the curve [AUC] 0.85; R2 0.08), the addition of Hospital Frailty Risk Score led to the greatest improvement in discrimination (AUC 0.87), explained variance (R2 0.09), and net reclassification (Net Reclassification Index 0.65). Brier and calibration scores were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: All four frailty instruments significantly improved discrimination and risk reclassification when added to typically assessed preoperative risk factors. Accurate identification of the presence or absence of preoperative frailty using electronic frailty instruments may improve perioperative risk stratification. Future research should evaluate the impact of automated frailty assessment in guiding surgical planning and patient-centred optimisation amongst older surgical patients.

Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Elective Bowel Resection Before and After Implementation of an Anemia Screening and Treatment Program.

BACKGROUND: Patients with anemia undergoing elective colorectal cancer surgery are known to have significantly higher rates of postoperative complications and worse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to improve rates of anemia screening and treatment in patients undergoing elective colon and rectal resections through a quality improvement initiative. DESIGN: We compared a historical cohort of patients before implementation of our anemia screening and treatment quality improvement program to a prospective cohort after implementation. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: This study included all adult patients with a new diagnosis of colon or rectal cancer without evidence of metastatic disease between 2017 and 2019. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions include the anemia screening and treatment quality improvement program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was hospital cost per admission. RESULTS: This study includes a total of 84 patients who underwent elective colon or rectal resection before implementation of our anemia quality improvement project and 88 patients who underwent surgery after. In the preimplementation cohort 44 of 84 patients (55.9%) were anemic compared to 47 of 99 patients (54.7%) in the postimplementation cohort. Rates of screening (25%-86.4%) and treatment (27.8%- 63.8%) were significantly increased in the postimplementation cohort. Mean total cost per admission was significantly decreased in the postimplementation cohort (mean cost $16,827 vs $25,796; p = 0.004); this significant reduction was observed even after adjusting for relevant confounding factors (ratio of means: 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85). The mechanistic link between treatment of anemia and reductions in cost remains unknown. No significant difference was found in rates of blood transfusion, complications, or mortality between the groups. LIMITATIONS: The study limitation includes before-after design subjected to selection and temporal biases. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the successful implementation of an anemia screening and treatment program. This program was associated with significantly reduced cost per admission. This work demonstrates possible value and benefits of implementation of an anemia screening and treatment program. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C15 .RESULTADOS DE LOS PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A RESECCIÓN INTESTINAL ELECTIVA ANTES Y DESPUÉS DE LA IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE UN PROGRAMA DE DETECCIÓN Y TRATAMIENTO DE ANEMIA. ANTECEDENTES: Se sabe que los pacientes anémicos que se someten a una cirugía electiva de cáncer colorrectal tienen tasas significativamente más altas de complicaciones posoperatorias y peores resultados. OBJETIVO: Mejorar las tasas de detección y tratamiento de la anemia en pacientes sometidos a resecciones electivas de colon y recto a través de una iniciativa de mejora de calidad. DISEO: Comparamos una cohorte histórica de pacientes antes de la implementación de nuestro programa de detección de anemia y mejora de la calidad del tratamiento con una cohorte prospectiva después de la implementación. ENTORNO CLINICO: Hospital de atención terciaria. PACIENTES: Todos los pacientes adultos con un nuevo diagnóstico de cáncer de colon o recto sin evidencia de enfermedad metastásica entre 2017 y 2019. INTERVENCIONES: Detección de anemia y programa de mejora de la calidad del tratamiento. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El resultado primario fue el costo hospitalario por ingreso. RESULTADOS: Un total de 84 pacientes se sometieron a resección electiva de colon o recto antes de la implementación de nuestro proyecto de mejora de calidad de la anemia y 88 pacientes se sometieron a cirugía después. En la cohorte previa a la implementación, 44/84 (55,9 %) presentaban anemia en comparación con 47/99 (54,7 %) en la cohorte posterior a la implementación. Las tasas de detección (25 % a 86,4 %) y tratamiento (27,8 % a 63,8 %) aumentaron significativamente en la cohorte posterior a la implementación. El costo total medio por admisión se redujo significativamente en la cohorte posterior a la implementación (costo medio $16 827 vs. $25 796, p = 0,004); esta reducción significativa se observó incluso después de ajustar los factores de confusión relevantes (proporción de medias: 0,74, IC del 95 %: 0,65 a 0,85). El vínculo mecánico entre el tratamiento de la anemia y la reducción de costos sigue siendo desconocido. No hubo diferencias significativas en las tasas de transfusión de sangre, complicaciones o mortalidad entre los grupos. LIMITACIONES: El diseño de antes y después está sujeto a sesgos temporales y de selección. CONCLUSIONES: Demostramos la implementación exitosa de un programa de detección y tratamiento de anemia. Este programa se asoció con un costo por admisión significativamente reducido. Este trabajo demuestra el valor y los beneficios posibles de la implementación de un programa de detección y tratamiento de la anemia. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C15 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Integration of planetary health in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Despite climate change being recognised as the greatest health threat of the 21st century, current medical education curricula do not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis. Preparing for climate-related health repercussions requires educational institutions to disseminate planetary health knowledge in a systematic way. We sought to evaluate the extent of the literature on the inclusion of planetary health in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education to guide curricular development. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review is being undertaken with a search strategy developed with a health sciences librarian. The search strategy was run on the following databases from inception to 22 June 2021: Medline, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Health, Scopus. This scoping review is being conducted as per methodology that has been previously outlined. Studies that discuss the implementation of planetary health education within undergraduate and postgraduate medical education will be included, whether they discuss formal inclusion or supplemental courses. To supplement our database search, data from the Health and Environment Adaptive Task Force's National Report on Planetary Health Education, the Planetary Health Report Card and the Association for Medical Education in Europe Consensus Statement on Planetary Health and Education for Sustainable Healthcare will be included. As we anticipate varying methodologies, the data analysis will consist of both a quantitative and a qualitative component. Outcomes will be categorised within the domains of the Planetary Health Education Framework, which incorporates concepts of systems thinking, social justice and interconnection within nature as they apply to education for planetary health. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As no intervention or patient recruitment will be required, research ethics board approval is not applicable. We plan to disseminate our results via publication in a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/7M6GZ).

Video-based interviewing in medicine: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus 2019 pandemic necessitated a rapid uptake of video-based interviewing within the personnel selection process in healthcare. While video-based interviews have been evaluated previously, we identified a gap in the literature on the implementation of video-based interviews and how they compare to their face-to-face counterparts. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to consolidate the available literature on the benefits and limitations of video-based interviews and to understand the perceived barriers associated with transitioning away from face-to-face interviews. A search strategy, developed in concert with an academic health sciences librarian, was run on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Central. The search was performed on March 31, 2020, and updated on February 21, 2021. Studies that implemented and evaluated the impact of video-based interviewing in healthcare were included in our study. Review articles and editorials were excluded. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were included in our scoping review, of which 17 were conference abstracts and 26 were peer-reviewed manuscripts. The risk of bias was moderate or high in most studies, with only four studies having a low risk of bias. Both financial costs and opportunity costs associated with the selection process were reported to be improved with video-based interviewing, while no studies explored the impact on environmental costs. Technical limitations, which were not prevalent, were easily managed during the interview process. Overall, video-based interviews were well received by both applicants and interviewers, although most participants still reported a preference for face-to-face interviews. CONCLUSIONS: While video-based interviewing has become necessary during the Coronavirus 2019 era, there are benefits from a financial, opportunistic, and environmental point of view that argue for its continued use even after the pandemic. Despite its successful implementation with minimal technical issues, a preference still remains for face-to-face interviews. Reasons for this preference are not clear from the available literature. Future studies on the role of nonverbal communication during the video-based interview process are important to better understand how video-based interviewing can be optimized. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This scoping review was registered with Open Science Framework.