Leaving the hospital on time: hospital bed utilization and reasons for discharge delay in the Netherlands.

Inappropriate bed occupancy due to delayed hospital discharge affects both physical and psychological well-being in patients and can disrupt patient flow. The Dutch healthcare system is facing ongoing pressure, especially during the current coronavirus disease pandemic, intensifying the need for optimal use of hospital beds. The aim of this study was to quantify inappropriate patient stays and describe the underlying reasons for the delays in discharge. The Day of Care Survey (DoCS) is a validated tool used to gain information about appropriate and inappropriate bed occupancy in hospitals. Between February 2019 and January 2021, the DoCS was performed five times in three different hospitals within the region of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. All inpatients were screened, using standardized criteria, for their need for in-hospital care at the time of survey and reasons for discharge delay. A total of 782 inpatients were surveyed. Of these patients, 94 (12%) were planned for definite discharge that day. Of all other patients, 145 (21%, ranging from 14% to 35%) were without the need for acute in-hospital care. In 74% (107/145) of patients, the reason for discharge delay was due to issues outside the hospital; most frequently due to a shortage of available places in care homes (26%, 37/145). The most frequent reason for discharge delay inside the hospital was patients awaiting a decision or review by the treating physician (14%, 20/145). Patients who did not meet the criteria for hospital stay were, in general, older [median 75, interquartile range (IQR) 65-84 years, and 67, IQR 55-75 years, respectively, P < .001] and had spent more days in hospital (7, IQR 5-14 days, and 3, IQR 1-8 days respectively, P < .001). Approximately one in five admitted patients occupying hospital beds did not meet the criteria for acute in-hospital stay or care at the time of the survey. Most delays were related to issues outside the immediate control of the hospital. Improvement programmes working with stakeholders focusing on the transfer from hospital to outside areas of care need to be further developed and may offer potential for the greatest gain. The DoCS can be a tool to periodically monitor changes and improvements in patient flow.

Help-seeking behaviour in women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Identifying what prompts or hinders women's help-seeking behaviour is essential to ensure timely diagnosis and management of gynaecological cancers. AIM: To understand the factors that influence the help- seeking behaviour of women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of studies from high-income settings worldwide. METHOD: Five databases were searched for studies, of any design, that presented factors related to the help-seeking behaviour of women diagnosed with a gynaecological cancer. Data from the articles were extracted and presented using narrative synthesis, which was both inductive and deductive. The COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour) model of behaviour change was used as a framework. RESULTS: In total, 21 studies were included in the review. Inductive synthesis presented three main themes of factors related to the help-seeking behaviour of women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer: patient factors, such as knowledge of symptoms; emotional factors, including previous healthcare experience, embarrassment, and trust; and practical factors, including time and resources. Deductive synthesis demonstrated that capability (namely, symptom knowledge), opportunity (having the required time and overcoming the cultural taboos surrounding gynaecological symptoms), and motivation (believing that seeking help is beneficial) are all required to initiate help-seeking behaviour. CONCLUSION: Although it is a journey of defined steps, the help- seeking behaviour of women with symptoms diagnosed with gynaecological cancer is influenced by personal and societal factors. Interventions to improve help seeking will need to address the specific identified factors, as well as capability, opportunity, and motivation.

Recurrent granulosa cell tumor of the retroperitoneum during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Extraovarian granulosa cell tumors are rare with very few cases of isolated retroperitoneal granulosa cell tumors reported in the literature. Granulosa cell tumors are notorious for late recurrences and patients should have long term oncologic follow up. We describe a case of recurrent granulosa cell tumor of the retroperitoneum that originally presented as a renal mass, which has not been described before in the literature. Her management was delayed in part due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Oncologists must be vigilant regarding the consequences of postponed care during this difficult time.

The Effect of Delay in Care among Patients Requiring Intravitreal Injections.

PURPOSE: To examine the effect of delay in care on visual acuity (VA) in patients requiring intravitreal injections (IVIs). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 18 years of age or older with diabetic macular edema (DME), proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), or both; neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD); or retinal vein occlusion (RVO) scheduled to see a retina specialist during the mandated lockdown period (March 14 - May 4, 2020 [the coronavirus disease 2019 period]) and who had received an IVI in the 12 weeks prior. METHODS: Chart review was performed and demographics, diagnoses, procedures, and VA were recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: VA in patients who completed, canceled, and no-showed for the scheduled visit. RESULTS: Of the 1041 total patients, 620 (60%) completed the scheduled visit, whereas 376 (36%) canceled and 45 (4%) no-showed. In patients who missed the visit, the average delay in care was 5.34 weeks. In those who missed a visit, VA was assessed at the subsequent visit. Patients who canceled a visit were older, and patients who no-showed had lower baseline vision (mean Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters ± standard error [SE]: no-show, 53.27 ± 3.21 letters; canceled, 60.79 ± 1.11 letters; and completed, 62.81 ± 0.84 letters; P = 0.0101) and were more likely to have DME, PDR, or both (no-show, 13 patients [29%]; canceled, 56 patients [16%]; completed, 81 patients [13%]; P = 0.0456). Patients who missed a visit lost vision as compared with the patients who completed one (no-show, -5.024 ± 1.88 letters; canceled, -1.633 ± 0.65 letters; completed, 0.373 ± 0.50 letters; P = 0.0028). Patients with DME, PDR, or both (-3.48 ± 1.95 letters vs. 2.71 ± 1.75 letters; P = 0.0203), with RVO (-3.22 ± 1.41 letters vs. 0.95 ± 1.23 letters; P = 0.0230), and, to lesser degree, with nAMD (-1.23 ± 0.70 letters vs. -0.24 ± 0.56 letters; P = 0.2679) lost vision compared with patients with same diagnoses who completed the scheduled visit. CONCLUSIONS: In patients requiring IVIs, a delay in care of 5.34 weeks resulted in vision loss. It was seen in all patients, but was more prominent in patients with DME, PDR or both and RVO. Further studies are necessary to examine whether these vision changes persist over a longer duration.