Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
BMJ Open ; 12(4): e057693, 2022 04 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1779377

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) has emerged as a potential avenue for optimising the management of symptoms in patients undergoing chemotherapy. However, RPM is a complex, multilevel intervention with technology, workflow, contextual and patient experience components. The purpose of this pilot study is to determine the feasibility of RPM protocol implementation with respect to decentralised recruitment, patient retention, adherence to reporting recommendations, RPM platform usability and patient experience in ambulatory cancer patients at high risk for chemotherapy-related symptoms. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes a single-arm decentralised feasibility pilot study of technology-enhanced outpatient symptom management system in patients with gastrointestinal and thoracic cancer receiving chemotherapy and cancer care at a single site (MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston Texas). An anticipated total of 25 patients will be recruited prior to the initiation of chemotherapy and provided with a set of validated questionnaires at enrollment and after our 1-month feasibility pilot trial period. Our intervention entails the self-reporting of symptoms and vital signs via a HIPAA-compliant, secure tablet interface that also enables (1) the provision of self-care materials to patients, (2) generation of threshold alerts to a dedicated call-centre and (3) videoconferencing. Vital sign information (heart rate, blood pressure, pulse, oxygen saturation, weight and temperature) will be captured via Bluetooth-enabled biometric monitoring devices which are integrated with the tablet interface. Protocolised triage and management of symptoms will occur in response to the alerts. Feasibility and acceptability metrics will characterise our recruitment process, protocol adherence, patient retention and usability of the RPM platform. We will also document the perceived effectiveness of our intervention by patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been granted approval by the institutional review board of MD Anderson Cancer Center. We anticipate dissemination of our pilot and subsequent effectiveness trial results via presentations at national conferences and peer-reviewed publications in the relevant medical journals. Our results will also be made available to cancer survivors, their caregivers and hospital administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCI202107464.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Watchful Waiting , Electronics , Feasibility Studies , Humans , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Pilot Projects , Vital Signs
3.
Ann Surg Oncol ; 28(13): 8046-8053, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1388869

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of patients with cancer diagnoses and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection will require surgical treatment. The objective of this study was to determine whether a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of adverse postoperative events following surgery in patients with cancer. METHODS: This was a propensity-matched cohort study from April 6, 2020 to October 31, 2020 at the UT MD Anderson Cancer Center. Cancer patients were identified who underwent elective surgery after recovering from SARS-CoV-2 infection and matched to controls based on patient, disease, and surgical factors. Primary study outcome was a composite of the following adverse postoperative events that occurred within 30 days of surgery: death, unplanned readmission, pneumonia, cardiac injury, or thromboembolic event. RESULTS: A total of 5682 patients were included for study, and 114 (2.0%) had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The average time from infection to surgery was 52 (range 20-202) days. Compared with matched controls, there was no difference in the rate of adverse postoperative outcome (14.3% vs. 13.4%, p = 1.0). Patients with a SARS-CoV-2-related inpatient admission before surgery had increased odds of postoperative complication (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.4 [1.6-34.3], p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A minimal wait time of 20 days after recovering from minimally symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to be safe for cancer patients undergoing low-risk elective surgery. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections requiring inpatient treatment were at increased risk for adverse events after surgery. Additional wait time may be required in those with more severe infections.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Cohort Studies , Elective Surgical Procedures , Humans , Neoplasms/surgery , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
4.
J Surg Res ; 264: 469-473, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174400

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Stop the Bleed (STB) campaign was developed in part to educate the lay public about hemorrhage control techniques aimed at reducing preventable trauma deaths. Studies have shown this training increases bystanders' confidence and willingness to provide aid. One high-risk group might be better solicited to take the course: individuals who have been a victim of previous trauma, as high rates of recidivism after trauma are well-established. Given this group's risk for recurrent injury, we evaluated their attitudes toward STB concepts. METHODS: We surveyed trauma patients admitted to 3 urban trauma centers in Baltimore from January 8, 2020 to March 14, 2020. The survey was terminated prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Trauma patients hospitalized on any inpatient unit were invited to complete the survey via an electronic tablet. The survey asked about demographics, prior exposure to life-threatening hemorrhage and first aid training, and willingness to help a person with major bleeding. The Johns Hopkins IRB approved waiver of consent for this study. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients completed the survey. The majority of respondents had been hospitalized before (92.9%) and had witnessed severe bleeding (60.7%). The majority had never taken a first aid course (60.7%) nor heard of STB (83.9%). Most respondents would be willing to help someone with severe bleeding form a car crash (98.2%) or gunshot wound (94.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients admitted for trauma had not heard about Stop the Bleed, but stated willingness to respond to someone injured with major bleeding. Focusing STB education on individuals at high-risk for trauma recidivism may be particularly effective in spreading the message and skills of STB.


Subject(s)
First Aid/methods , Health Education/methods , Hemorrhage/therapy , Hemostatic Techniques , Wounds and Injuries/therapy , Accidents, Traffic , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Baltimore , Cohort Studies , Female , Firearms , Health Education/statistics & numerical data , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Hemorrhage/diagnosis , Hemorrhage/etiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Severity of Illness Index , Surveys and Questionnaires/statistics & numerical data , Wounds and Injuries/complications , Wounds and Injuries/diagnosis , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL