Assessing patient satisfaction with telephone-based consultations before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain / Evaluación de la satisfacción de los pacientes con las consultas telefónicas antes, durante y después de la pandemia de COVID-19 en España

Objective: To validate a questionnaire to analyze the perception of users of primary care (PC) with telephone consultation (TC), and to study the satisfaction with TC by users of PC services. Design: A two-phase study was conducted. Firstly, a questionnaire on satisfaction with telemedicine services was validated. Secondly, a cross-sectional study on satisfaction with TC was conducted. Setting: PC. Participants: 405 users of PC services in Zaragoza (Spain). Main outcome measure: Our main outcome was the satisfaction with telemedicine services PC services. Factor analysis was carried out using the exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation. The reliability of the dimensions obtained was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha. The inferential analysis was conducted using parametric tests. Results: The questionnaire was a valid and reliable tool (α>0.9) to assess the satisfaction of PC service users with telemedicine services. Before COVID-19, the satisfaction of the users with PC was adequate (mean=6111/10). However, during the COVID-19 the attention in PC centers became mostly telephone-based and satisfaction lowered as disappointing (mean=3555/10). Regarding the future of telemedicine, users considered it as unsatisfactory (mean=2977/10). Being a woman, being unemployed and belonging to an area of low vulnerability led to a worse perception of telemedicine. Conclusion: This questionnaire was a valid and reliable tool to assess the satisfaction of PC service users with telemedicine services. Perceptions of patient satisfaction decreased during COVID-19. Thus, TC seems to be a good option when the patients consider it to be a complementary rather than a substitute tool to follow-up their conditions.(AU)

Objetivo: Validar un cuestionario para analizar la percepción de los usuarios de atención primaria (AP) con la consulta telefónica (CT) y estudiar la satisfacción de la CT por parte de estos. Diseño: Estudio en dos fases. Se validó un cuestionario sobre satisfacción con los servicios de telemedicina. Después, se realizó un estudio transversal sobre la satisfacción con la CT. Emplazamiento: AP. Participantes: Un total de 405 usuarios de servicios de AP en Zaragoza (España). Medición principal: Satisfacción con los servicios de telemedicina de AP. El análisis factorial se realizó a través del exploratorio con rotación Varimax. La fiabilidad de las dimensiones se analizó con el alfa de Cronbach. El inferencial se efectuó mediante pruebas paramétricas. Resultados: El cuestionario resultó válido y fiable (α>0,9) para evaluar la satisfacción de los usuarios con la telemedicina. Antes de la COVID-19, esta era adecuada (media=6,111/10) con la AP. Durante la pandemia la atención en AP pasó a ser mayoritariamente telefónica y la satisfacción disminuyó (media=3,555/10). Con respecto al futuro de la telemedicina, los usuarios lo consideraron insatisfactorio (media=2,977/10). Ser mujer, estar en paro y pertenecer a una zona de baja vulnerabilidad conllevó una peor percepción de la telemedicina. Conclusiones: Nuestro cuestionario fue un instrumento válido y fiable para evaluar la satisfacción de los usuarios de servicios de AP con la telemedicina, la cual disminuyó durante la COVID-19. La CT es una buena opción cuando los pacientes la consideran una herramienta complementaria y no sustitutiva para el seguimiento de sus dolencias.(AU)

Assessing patient satisfaction with telephone-based consultations before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To validate a questionnaire to analyze the perception of users of primary care (PC) with telephone consultation (TC), and to study the satisfaction with TC by users of PC services. DESIGN: A two-phase study was conducted. Firstly, a questionnaire on satisfaction with telemedicine services was validated. Secondly, a cross-sectional study on satisfaction with TC was conducted. SETTING: PC. PARTICIPANTS: 405 users of PC services in Zaragoza (Spain). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Our main outcome was the satisfaction with telemedicine services PC services. Factor analysis was carried out using the exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation. The reliability of the dimensions obtained was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha. The inferential analysis was conducted using parametric tests. RESULTS: The questionnaire was a valid and reliable tool (α>0.9) to assess the satisfaction of PC service users with telemedicine services. Before COVID-19, the satisfaction of the users with PC was adequate (mean=6111/10). However, during the COVID-19 the attention in PC centers became mostly telephone-based and satisfaction lowered as disappointing (mean=3555/10). Regarding the future of telemedicine, users considered it as unsatisfactory (mean=2977/10). Being a woman, being unemployed and belonging to an area of low vulnerability led to a worse perception of telemedicine. CONCLUSION: This questionnaire was a valid and reliable tool to assess the satisfaction of PC service users with telemedicine services. Perceptions of patient satisfaction decreased during COVID-19. Thus, TC seems to be a good option when the patients consider it to be a complementary rather than a substitute tool to follow-up their conditions.

Specialist intervention is associated with improved patient outcomes in patients with decompensated heart failure: evaluation of the impact of a multidisciplinary inpatient heart failure team.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate the impact of a multidisciplinary inpatient heart failure team (HFT) on treatment, hospital readmissions and mortality of patients with decompensated heart failure (HF). METHODS: A retrospective service evaluation was undertaken in a UK tertiary centre university hospital comparing 196 patients admitted with HF in the 6 months prior to the introduction of the HFT (pre-HFT) with all 211 patients seen by the HFT (post-HFT) during its first operational year. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patient baseline characteristics between the groups. Inpatient mortality (22% pre-HFT vs 6% post-HFT; p<0.0001) and 1-year mortality (43% pre-HFT vs 27% post-HFT; p=0.001) were significantly lower in the post-HFT cohort. Post-HFT patients were significantly more likely to be discharged on loop diuretics (84% vs 98%; p=<0.0001), ACE inhibitors (65% vs 76%; p=0.02), ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers (83% vs 91%; p=0.02), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (44% vs 68%; p<0.0001) pre-HFT versus post-HFT, respectively. There was no difference in discharge prescription rates of beta-blockers (59% pre-HFT vs 63% post-HFT; p=0.45). The mean length of stay (17±19 days pre-HFT vs 19±18 days post-HFT; p=0.06), 1-year all-cause readmission rates (46% pre-HFT vs 47% post-HFT; p=0.82) and HF readmission rates (28% pre-HFT vs 20% post-HFT; p=0.09) were not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a specialist inpatient HFT was associated with improved patient outcome. Inpatient and 1-year mortality were significantly reduced. Improved use of evidence-based drug therapies, more intensive diuretic use and multidisciplinary care may contribute to these differences in outcome.

Cetuximab given every 2 weeks plus irinotecan is an active and safe option for previously treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: We gathered data from multiple institutions on the cetuximab regimen of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: 126 patients from 19 centers were included from July 2006 to July 2007 in this prospective non-controlled study. Irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients with Karnofsky >or=70 received cetuximab 500 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks (q2w) in combination with irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) q2w until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was the progression-free rate at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Median age was 65 years; 65.9% male; colon/rectum 64.3/34.1%; Karnofsky status or=90% in 45.3/54.7% of the patients. The progression-free rate was 42.7 (95% CI 32.8-52.6) and 22.4% (95% CI 14.2-30.7) at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively. The main grade 3 or 4 toxicities were: diarrhea 13.5% and acne-like rash 10.3%. No grade 3 or 4 infusional or allergic reactions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The progression-free rates confirm that cetuximab q2w in combination with irinotecan is an option, and is as active and safe as the standard weekly regimen.

Phase II study of irinotecan (CPT-11) administered every 2 weeks as treatment for patients with colorectal cancer resistant to previous treatment with 5-fluorouracil-based therapies: comparison of two different dose schedules (250 and 200 mg/m2) according to toxicity prognostic factors.

Our objective was to assess the antitumoral activity and toxicity of irinotecan (CPT-11) 60-min i.v. infusion every 2 weeks as second-line monotherapy of advanced colorectal cancer. Two doses were studied (250 and 200 mg/m) according to the risk of developing toxicity. Two groups of patients were studied: high-risk group (HR, 200 mg/m, n = 45; Karnofsky score 60-80% and/or the record of prior pelvic irradiation) and low-risk-group (LR, 250 mg/m, n = 51; Karnofsky score >80% and without prior pelvic irradiation). The mean number of cycles per patient was 7: 6.6 (HR group) and 8.3 (LR group). Median RDI was 0.96. The overall response rate was 8.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5-21.2%; HR group] and 15.7% (95% CI 7.0-28.5%; LR group), respectively. The LR group showed two complete responses and a higher percentage of stable disease (56.9 versus 33.3% in HR group). The median survival was 7.1 months (95% CI 5.2-8.9 months, HR group) and 11.7 months (95% CI 8.4-15.1 months, LR group). The median time to disease progression was 3.2 months (95% CI 1.0-5.4 months, HR group) and 5.3 months (95% CI 3.8-6.7 months, LR group). Both CPT-11 treatments were well tolerated. Grade 3/4 toxicity incidence was low, e.g. granulocytopenia (7% of patients in HR group and 9% in LR group) and delayed diarrhea (18% of patients in HR group and 14% in LR group). We conclude that the treatment of patients with the adjusted dose of CPT-11 according to prognostic factors for toxicity resulted in the improved toxicity profile, but showed poorer efficacy outcome. Therefore, the dose reduction in patients with low performance and treated with radiotherapy needs further investigation to provide some new insights on the benefit:risk ratio of such treatment.

Hemangiopericitoma óseo de localización humeral / Bone hemangiopericytoma located in the humerus

Planteamiento: El hemangiopericitoma es un tumor vascular maligno infrecuente de los pericitos de Zimmerman que están rodeando los espacios vasculares. Representa el 0,1 por ciento de los tumores malignos óseos y únicamente el 0,08 por ciento de los tumores primarios óseos. Material y método: Nosotros describimos un caso hemangiopericitoma óseo del húmero en una mujer de 69 años, diagnosticado con la ayuda del material citológico obtenido de la punción aspiración con aguja fina, y posteriormente de la biopsia ósea. Resultados: El material citológico el obtenido del bloque celular fue de gran utilidad, permitió descartar algunos de los procesos neoplásicos óseos primarios y metastásicos más frecuentes de origen desconocido, tal como el pulmonar y el renal. La inmunohistoquímica realizada sobre cortes histológicos nos afianzó el diagnóstico de hemangiopericitoma. Conclusiones: El diagnóstico diferencial citológico e histológico del hemangiopericitoma óseo se tiene que hacer con los tumores fusocelulares primarios óseos y metastásicos, fundamentalmente con el condrosarcoma mesenquimal, el osteosarcoma de células pequeñas, el histiocitoma fibroso maligno y el sarcoma sinovial; y con las metástasis óseas del leiomiosarcoma y el melanoma. Antes de confirmar un hemangiopericitoma óseo como primario hay que descartar un probable origen metastásico. Los hemangioperictomas primarios óseos tienen un pronóstico incierto, por lo tanto los debemos de considerar biológicamente malignos (AU)