Prioritizing cervical cancer screening services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Response of an academic medical center and a public safety net hospital in California.

The expeditious diagnosis and treatment of high-grade cervical precancers are fundamental to cervical cancer prevention. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic healthcare systems have at times restricted in-person visits to those deemed urgent. Professional societies provided some guidance to clinicians regarding ways in which traditional cervical cancer screening might be modified, but many gaps remained. To address these gaps, leaders of screening programs at an academic medical center and an urban safety net hospital in California formed a rapid-action committee to provide guidance to its practitioners. Patients were divided into 6 categories corresponding to various stages in the screening process and ranked by risk of underlying high-grade cervical precancer and cancer. Tiers corresponding to the intensity of the local pandemic were constructed, and clinical delays were lengthened for the lowest-risk patients as tiers escalated. The final product was a management grid designed to escalate and de-escalate with changes in the local epidemiology of the COVID-19 pandemic. While this effort resulted in substantial delays in clinical screening services as mandated by the healthcare systems, the population effects of delaying on both cervical cancer outcomes as well as the beneficial effects related to decreasing transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 have yet to be elucidated.

Ensuring Equitable Implementation of Telemedicine in Perinatal Care.

The use of telemedicine in U.S. perinatal care has drastically increased during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and will likely continue given the national focus on high-value, patient-centered care. If implemented in an equitable manner, telemedicine has the potential to reduce disparities in care access and related outcomes that stem from systemic racism, implicit biases and other forms of discrimination within our health care system. In this commentary, we address implementation factors that should be considered to ensure that disparities are not widened as telemedicine becomes more integrated into care delivery.

Minilaparotomy vs. laparoscopic hysterectomy: comparison of length of hospital stay.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare length of hospital stay for minilaparotomy vs laparoscopic hysterectomy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large integrated health care delivery system. PATIENTS: Women >18 years of age undergoing laparoscopic or minilaparotomy hysterectomy because of benign indications from June 2009 through January 2010. INTERVENTION: Hysterectomy via minilaparotomy or laparoscopy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Medical records were reviewed for outcomes of interest including length of stay and surgical and demographic data. Parametric and non-parametric analyses were used to compare the 2 groups. The study was powered to detect a difference of 8 hours in length of stay. Two hundred sixty-three cases were identified as hysterectomy via minilaparotomy (n = 100) or laparoscopy (n = 163). The laparoscopy group demonstrated a significantly shorter mean (SD) length of stay (19 [14] hours vs. 42 [20] hours; p < .001) and less blood loss (126 [140] mL vs. 241 [238] mL; p < .001). The minilaparotomy group experienced a shorter procedure time (113 [47] minutes vs. 197 [124] minutes; p < .001). There was no difference between the groups insofar as patient morbidity including intraoperative and postoperative complications, emergency visits, readmissions, or repeat operations. CONCLUSION: Compared with minilaparotomy, laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with shorter length of hospital stay, longer operating time, and no increased patient morbidity.

Same-day discharge after laparoscopic hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate readmission rates and emergency care use by patients discharged home the same day after laparoscopic hysterectomy. METHODS: This was a retrospective case series of patients discharged home the same-day after total or supracervical laparoscopic hysterectomy in a managed care setting. Chart reviews were performed for outcomes of interest which included readmission rates, emergency visits, and surgical and demographic characteristics. The two hysterectomy groups were compared using χ² tests for categorical variables and t tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuously measured variables. RESULTS: One-thousand fifteen laparoscopic hysterectomies were performed during the 3-year study period. Fifty-two percent (n=527) of the patients were discharged home the same-day; of those, 46% (n=240) had total laparoscopic hysterectomies and 54% (n=287) had supracervical. Cumulative readmission rates were 0.6%, 3.6%, and 4.0% at 48 hours, 3 months, and 12 months, respectively. The most common readmission diagnoses included abdominal incision infection, cuff dehiscence, and vaginal bleeding. Less than 4% of patients presented for emergency care within 48 or 72 hours, most commonly for nausea or vomiting, pain, and urinary retention. Median uterine weight was 155 g, median blood loss was 70 mL, and median surgical time was 150 minutes. There was no difference in readmission rates or emergency visits for the total compared with the supracervical laparoscopic hysterectomy group. CONCLUSION: Same-day discharge after laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with low readmission rates and minimal emergency visits in the immediate postoperative period. Same-day discharge may be a safe option for healthy patients undergoing uncomplicated laparoscopic hysterectomy.