Documentation of Infertility Risk Discussion in Cancer Patients Receiving Cancer-Directed Therapy: The UC Davis Cancer Center Experience.

Purpose: A complication of cancer-directed therapy that often goes undiscussed is infertility. Although guidelines recommend addressing the possibility of infertility and fertility preservation approaches before initiating treatment, an internal review at our institution showed only 49% of female patients had infertility risk counseling documented. As a result, a fertility assessment communication was added into all oncology treatment plans to improve rates of fertility discussion and documentation. Methods: This retrospective observational study included newly diagnosed patients of childbearing potential who initiated cancer-directed therapy between January 1, 2020, and October 31, 2021. Patients who were no longer of childbearing potential due to age or surgery were excluded. Patients were divided into pre- and post-implementation groups to assess the impact of the fertility assessment communication implemented on November 1, 2020. Results: A total of 152 patients met inclusion criteria, with 80 patients in the pre-implementation group and 72 patients in the post-implementation group. The primary outcome of documentation of infertility risk discussion was 47.5% in the pre-implementation group and 86.1% in the post-implementation group (p < 0.0001). Discussion of fertility preservation options was documented in 28.7% of the pre-implementation group and 43.1% in the post-implementation group (p = 0.13). In the pre-implementation group, 5% underwent fertility preservation versus 27.8% in the post-implementation group (p = 0.0001). Of the 27 patients who received fertility preservation, 13 received hormonal therapy, 11 sperm banking, and 3 egg harvesting. Conclusion: This intervention significantly increased rates of infertility risk discussion and fertility preservation approaches received. There are opportunities to help patients receive fertility preservation, especially sperm banking and egg harvesting.

Sensory Symptoms and Signs of Hyperarousal in Individuals with Fragile X Syndrome: Findings from the FORWARD Registry and Database Multisite Study.

This study was designed to increase our understanding about characteristics and the impact of sensory symptoms (SS) and signs of hyperarousal (HA) in individuals with fragile X syndrome (FXS) from childhood through early adulthood and by gender. Data derived from the Fragile X Online Registry With Accessible Research Database (FORWARD), a natural history study of FXS, were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariate linear and logistic regression models to examine SS and signs of HA, their impact on behavioral regulation and limitations on the subject/family. The sample (N = 933) consisted of 720 males and 213 females. More males were affected with SS (87% vs. 68%) and signs of HA (92% vs. 79%). Subjects who were endorsed as having a strong sensory response had more comorbidities, including behavioral problems. The predominant SS was difficulty with eye gaze that increased with age in both genders. As individuals age, there was less use of non-medication therapies, such as occupational therapy (OT)/physical therapy (PT), but there was more use of psychopharmacological medications and investigational drugs for behaviors. Multiple regression models suggested that endorsing SS and signs of HA was associated with statistically significantly increased ABC-C-I subscale scores and limited participation in everyday activities. This study improves our understanding of SS and signs of HA as well as their impact in FXS. It supports the need for more research regarding these clinical symptoms, especially to understand how they contribute to well-known behavioral concerns.

Planning for post-pandemic cancer care delivery: Recovery or opportunity for redesign?

The delivery of cancer care has never changed as rapidly and dramatically as we have seen with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. During the early phase of the pandemic, recommendations for the management of oncology patients issued by various professional societies and government agencies did not recognize the significant regional differences in the impact of the pandemic. California initially experienced lower than expected numbers of cases, and the health care system did not experience the same degree of the burden that had been the case in other parts of the country. In light of promising trends in COVID-19 infections and mortality in California, by late April 2020, discussions were initiated for a phased recovery of full-scale cancer services. However, by July 2020, a surge of cases was reported across the nation, including in California. In this review, the authors share the response and recovery planning experience of the University of California (UC) Cancer Consortium in an effort to provide guidance to oncology practices. The UC Cancer Consortium was established in 2017 to bring together 5 UC Comprehensive Cancer Centers: UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Irvine Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, and the UC San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. The interventions implemented in each of these cancer centers are highlighted, with a focus on opportunities for a redesign in care delivery models. The authors propose that their experiences gained during this pandemic will enhance pre-pandemic cancer care delivery.

Interhospital Variability in Quality Outcomes of Pancreatic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of optimal patient outcomes from health care delivery is critical for success amidst current reform. We developed a composite index of quality for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and compared high and low performers nationwide. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 17,220 patients undergoing elective PD between October 2010 and June 2014 using the Vizient database. A quality index score (QIS) was developed from five variables associated with optimal outcomes: postoperative complication rate, length of stay, 30-d readmission rate, mortality rate, and hospital volume. Value was defined as hospital-based QIS divided by mean hospital charges. High-value centers (top quintile) were compared to low-value centers (bottom quintile). RESULTS: The majority of high-value centers (79%) achieved top performer status in 1-2 of five quality categories though only 11% were low performer in at least one category. Conversely, 41% of low-value centers were top performers in at least one category, although rarely more than one (8%); 63% of low-value centers were low performers in two or more categories. There was no significant association between QIS and hospital charges (-570, 95% CI -1308 to 168, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: High-value centers infrequently provided high quality surgical care across all five metrics but instead excelled in a few quality metrics while avoiding low performance in any quality metric. Although low-value centers could achieve excellence in one quality metric, they were frequently low performers in two or more outcomes. Improvements in value of PD can be achieved by a consistent effort across all quality metrics rather than efforts at constraining financial expenditures of health care delivery.

Cervical ectropion: What you need to know

Cervical ectropion is a condition where cells from inside the cervix form a red, inflamed patch on the outside the cervix. What causes cervical ectropion, and does it require treatment?

Pediatric surgical readmissions: Are they truly preventable?

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Reimbursement penalties for excess hospital readmissions have begun for the pediatric population. Therefore, research determining incidence and predictors is critical. METHODS: A retrospective review of University HealthSystem Consortium database (N=258 hospitals; 2,723,621 patients) for pediatric patients (age 0-17years) hospitalized from 9/2011 to 3/2015 was performed. Outcome measures were 7-, 14-, and 30-day readmission rates. Hospital and patient characteristics were evaluated to identify predictors of readmission. RESULTS: Readmission rates at 7, 14, and 30days were 2.1%, 3.1%, and 4.4%. For pediatric surgery patients (N=260,042), neither index hospitalization length of stay (LOS) nor presence of a complication predicted higher readmissions. Appendectomy was the most common procedure leading to readmission. Evaluating institutional data (N=5785), patients admitted for spine surgery, neurosurgery, transplant, or surgical oncology had higher readmission rates. Readmission diagnoses were most commonly infectious (37.2%) or for nausea/vomiting/dehydration (51.1%). Patients with chronic medical conditions comprised 55.8% of patients readmitted within 7days. 92.0% of patients requiring multiple rehospitalizations had comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission rates for pediatric patients are significantly lower than adults. Risk factors for adult readmissions do not predict pediatric readmissions. Readmission may be a misnomer for the pediatric surgical population, as most are related to chronic medical conditions and other nonmodifiable risk factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Hospital readmissions: necessary evil or preventable target for quality improvement.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate readmission rates and associated factors to identify potentially preventable readmissions. BACKGROUND: The decision to penalize hospitals for readmissions is compelling health care systems to develop processes to minimize readmissions. Research to identify preventable readmissions is critical to achieve these goals. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of University HealthSystem Consortium database for cancer patients hospitalized from January 2010 to September 2013. Outcome measures were 7-, 14-, and 30-day readmission rates and readmission diagnoses. Hospital and disease characteristics were evaluated to evaluate relationships with readmission. RESULTS: A total of 2,517,886 patients were hospitalized for cancer treatment. Readmission rates at 7, 14, and 30 days were 2.2%, 3.7%, and 5.6%, respectively. Despite concern that premature hospital discharge may be associated with increased readmissions, a shorter initial length of stay predicted lower readmission rates. Furthermore, high-volume centers and designated cancer centers had higher readmission rates. Evaluating institutional data (N = 2517 patients) demonstrated that factors associated with higher readmission rates include discharge from a medical service, site of malignancy, and emergency primary admission. When examining readmission within 7 days for surgical services, the most common readmission diagnoses were infectious causes (46.3%), nausea/vomiting/dehydration (26.8%), and pain (6.1%). CONCLUSIONS: A minority of patients after hospitalization for cancer-related therapy are readmitted with potentially preventable conditions such as nausea, vomiting, dehydration, and pain. However, most factors associated with readmission cannot be modified. In addition, high-volume centers and designated cancer centers have higher readmission rates, which may indicate that readmission rates may not be an appropriate marker for quality improvement.