The benefits of index telephone consultations in patients referred on the two-week wait colorectal cancer pathway.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to hospitals in the UK substituting face-to-face (FtF) clinics with virtual clinic (VC) appointments. We evaluated the use of virtual two-week wait (2-ww) lower gastrointestinal (LGI) clinic appointments, conducted using telephone calls at a district general hospital in England. METHODS: Patients undergoing index outpatient 2-ww LGI clinic assessment between 1 June 2019 and 31 October 2019 (FtF group) and 1 June 2020 and 31 October 2020 (VC group) were identified. Relevant data were obtained using electronic patient records. Compliance with national cancer waiting time targets was assessed. Environmental and financial impact analyses were performed. RESULTS: In total, 1,531 patients were analysed (median age=70, male=852, 55.6%). Of these, 757 (49.4%) were assessed virtually via telephone; the remainder were seen FtF (n=774, 50.6%). Ninety-two (6%, VC=44, FtF=48) patients had malignant pathology and 64 (4.2%) had colorectal cancer (CRC); of these, 46 (71.9%, VC=26, FtF=20) underwent treatment with curative intent. The median waiting times to index appointment, investigation and diagnosis were significantly lower following VC assessment (p<0.001). The cancer detection rates (p=0.749), treatments received (p=0.785) and median time to index treatment for CRC patients (p=0.156) were similar. A significantly higher proportion of patients were seen within two weeks of referral in the VC group (p<0.001). VC appointments saved patients a total of 9,288 miles, 0.7 metric tonnes of CO2 emissions and £7,482.97. Taxpayers saved £80,242.00 from VCs. No formal complaints were received from patients or staff in the VC group. CONCLUSION: Virtual 2-ww LGI clinics were effective, safe and were associated with tangible environmental and financial benefits.

Study protocol for a multicenter prospective cohort study on esophagogastric anastomoses and anastomotic leak (the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit/OGAA).

Esophagectomy is a mainstay in curative treatment for esophageal cancer; however, the reported techniques and outcomes can vary greatly. Thirty-day mortality of patients with an intact anastomosis is 2-3% as compared to 17-35% in patients who have an anastomotic leak. The subsequent management of leaks postesophagectomy has great global variability with little consensus on a gold standard of practice. The aim of this multicentre prospective audit is to analyze current techniques of esophagogastric anastomosis to determine the effect on the anastomotic leak rate. Leak rates and leak management will be assessed to determine their impact on patient outcomes. A 12-month international multicentre prospective audit started in April 2018 and is coordinated by a team from the West Midlands Research Collaborative. This will include patients undergoing esophagectomy over 9 months and encompassing a 90-day follow-up period. A pilot data collection period occurred at four UK centers in 2017 to trial the data collection form. The audit standards will include anastomotic leak and the conduit necrosis rate should be less than 13% and major postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo Grade III or more) should be less than 35%. The 30-day mortality rate should be less than 5% and the 90-day mortality rate should be less than 8%. This will be a trainee-led international audit of esophagectomy practice. Key support will be given by consultant colleagues and anesthetists. Individualized unit data will be distributed to the respective contributing sites. An overall anonymized report will be made available to contributing units. Results of the audit will be published in peer-reviewed journals with all collaborators fully acknowledged. The key information and results from the audit will be disseminated at relevant scientific meetings.

The most frequent cause of 90-day unplanned hospital readmission following colorectal cancer resection is chemotherapy complications.

AIM: NHS England deems 90-day readmission rates as a marker of quality of care. The causes of readmission have not been previously reported in the UK. The aim of this study was to examine the factors associated with 90-day readmission following colorectal cancer surgery at a hospital trust with a catchment population 1.2 million. METHOD: A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing resection for colorectal cancer between January 2012 and December 2013. Unplanned readmission was defined as an emergency admission to the trust for any cause within 90 days of surgery. Readmission analyses were restricted to patients discharged from hospital within 28 days of resection. RESULTS: A total of 570 patients underwent surgery, of whom 522 were discharged within 28 days and are included for readmission analysis. The readmission rate was 24.3% (127 patients with a total of 163 episodes of hospital readmissions) within 90 days following surgery. The most frequent cause for readmission was complications related to adjuvant chemotherapy (18.4%) followed by wound-related complications (14.1%). Most patients presenting with wound-related complications were admitted within 60 days and patients with chemotherapy-related complications after 61 days; 13/127 (10.2%) patients who were readmitted underwent emergency surgery, and one patient died following readmission. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that comorbidity was the only independent risk factor. CONCLUSION: Ninety-day readmissions include a high number of readmissions secondary to chemotherapy-related complications, whereas most surgical-related readmission present within 60 days.