Documenting patients' and providers' preferences when proposing a randomized controlled trial: a qualitative exploration.

BACKGROUND: With advances in cancer diagnosis and treatment, women with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) are living longer, increasing the number of patients receiving post-treatment follow-up care. Best-practice survivorship models recommend transitioning ESBC patients from oncology-provider (OP) care to community-based care. While developing materials for a future randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the feasibility of a nurse-led Telephone Survivorship Clinic (TSC) for a smooth transition of ESBC survivors to follow-up care, we explored patients' and OPs' reactions to several of our proposed methods. METHODS: We used a qualitative study design with thematic analysis and a two-pronged approach. We interviewed OPs, seeking feedback on ways to recruit their ESBC patients for the trial, and ESBC patients, seeking input on a questionnaire package assessing outcomes and processes in the trial. RESULTS: OPs identified facilitators and barriers and offered suggestions for study design and recruitment process improvement. Facilitators included the novelty and utility of the study and simplicity of methods; barriers included lack of coordination between treating and discharging clinicians, time constraints, language barriers, motivation, and using a paper-based referral letter. OPs suggested using a combination of electronic and paper referral letters and supporting clinicians to help with recruitment. Patient advisors reported satisfaction with the content and length of the assessment package. However, they questioned the relevance of some questions (childhood trauma) while adding questions about trust in physicians and proximity to primary-care providers. CONCLUSIONS: OPs and patient advisors rated our methods for the proposed trial highly for their simplicity and relevance then suggested changes. These findings document processes that could be effective for cancer-patient recruitment in survivorship clinical trials.

"Answers in hours": A prospective clinical study using nanopore sequencing for bile duct cultures.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection is a major source of morbidity in patients undergoing pancreatic head resection and is often from organisms in intraoperative bile duct cultures. As such, many institutions use prolonged prophylactic antibiotics and tailor based on bile duct cultures. However, standard cultures take days, leaving many patients unnecessarily on prolonged antibiotics. Nanopore sequencing can provide data in hours and, thus, has the potential to improve antibiotic stewardship. The present study investigates the feasibility of nanopore sequencing in intraoperative bile samples. METHODS: Patients undergoing pancreatic head resection were included. Intra-operative bile microbial profiles were determined with standard cultures and nanopore sequencing. Antibiotic recommendations were generated, and time-to-results determined for both methods. Organism yields, resistance patterns, antibiotic recommendations, and costs were compared. RESULTS: Out of 42 patients, 22 (52%) had samples resulting in positive standard cultures. All positive standard cultures had microbes detected using nanopore sequencing. All 20 patients with negative standard cultures had negative nanopore sequencing. Nanopore sequencing detected more bacterial species compared to standard cultures (10.5 vs 4.4, p < 0.05) and more resistance genotypes (10.3 vs 2.7, p < 0.05). Antimicrobial recommendations based on nanopore sequencing provided coverage for standard cultures in 27 out of 44 (61%) samples, with broader coverage recommended by nanopore sequencing in 13 out of 27 (48%) of these samples. Nanopore sequencing results were faster (8 vs 98 hours) than standard cultures but had higher associated costs ($165 vs $38.49). CONCLUSION: Rapid microbial profiling with nanopore sequencing is feasible with broader organism and resistance profiling compared to standard cultures. Nanopore sequencing has perfect negative predictive value and can potentially improve antibiotic stewardship; thus, a randomized control trial is under development.

Medications and Patient Factors Associated With Increased Readmission for Alcohol-Related Diagnoses.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate medication factors and patient characteristics associated with readmissions following alcohol-related hospitalizations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients admitted from September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2019, who had an alcohol-related hospitalization were identified through electronic health records. Patient characteristics and medications of interest administered during hospitalization or prescribed at discharge were identified. Medications of interest included US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for alcohol use disorder, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, gabapentin, opioids, and muscle relaxants. The primary outcome was to identify medications and patient factors associated with 30-day alcohol-related readmission. Secondary outcomes included medications and patient characteristics associated with multiple alcohol-related readmissions within a year from the index admission (ie, two or more readmissions) and factors associated with 30-day all-cause readmission. RESULTS: Characteristics of the 932 patients included in this study associated with a 30-day alcohol-related readmission included younger age, severity of alcohol withdrawal, history of psychiatric disorder, marital status, and the number of prior alcohol-related admission in the previous year. Benzodiazepine or barbiturate use during hospitalization or upon discharge was associated with 30-day alcohol-related readmission (P=.006). Gabapentin administration during hospitalization or upon discharge was not associated with 30-day alcohol-related readmission (P=.079). CONCLUSION: The findings reinforce current literature identifying patient-specific factors associated with 30-day readmissions. Gabapentin use was not associated with readmissions; however, there was an association with benzodiazepine/barbiturate use.

Intraoperative bile duct cultures in patients undergoing pancreatic head resection: Prospective comparison of bile duct swab versus bile duct aspiration.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative surgical site infection is a major source of morbidity after pancreatic head resections, and data suggest bacterobilia as a leading cause. Some centers use intraoperative bile duct cultures to guide postoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis. This prospective study evaluates culture differences between traditional bile duct swab versus bile duct aspiration intraoperative samples. METHODS: Prospective patients undergoing pancreatic head resection with both bile duct swab and bile duct aspiration were included. Cultures were reviewed for organism characteristics. Any growth of organisms was considered a positive culture. Bile duct swab yield and characteristics were compared with bile duct aspiration. Postoperative surgical site infection complications were compared to bile duct culture results. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included. Bile duct aspiration resulted in a significantly higher median number of organisms compared to bile duct swab (6 vs 3; P < .001). There were no differences in the number of patients (37 vs 33) having positive bile duct aspiration and bile duct swab cultures (P = .385). Anaerobic cultures (not possible with bile duct swab) were positive in 21 patients with bile duct aspiration. A total of 37 (74%) patients had preoperative biliary stenting, which highly associated (P < .001) with positive cultures. Bile duct culture organisms correlated with postoperative surgical site infection in 12/17 (71%) patients. CONCLUSION: Use of bile duct aspiration improves intraoperative bile duct culture organism yield over bile duct swab and may improve tailoring of antibiotics in patients undergoing pancreatic head resection.

Symptom assessment in ambulatory oncology: initial validation of the nurse-developed Modified Ambulatory Care Flow Sheet (MACFS).

PURPOSE: This paper reports relationships between symptoms assessed using a newly developed instrument for assessing patient-reported symptoms, the Modified Ambulatory Care Flow Sheet (MACFS), and other symptom assessment measures. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, patients on active treatment for colorectal cancer were recruited in an ambulatory setting of a tertiary care cancer center in western Canada. Participants completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire--Cancer 30, the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist Modified, Linear analog scales for pain and coping, and the MACFS, all at a single time point. RESULTS: We found moderate to strong correlations between the MACFS scores and scores on the other symptom measures used. The correlations were not as strong when using the MACFS symptom change scores, as when using the MACFS scores for the presence or absence of a particular symptom. CONCLUSIONS: The MACFS reflects the symptom experience of colorectal cancer patients. Further evaluation in more diverse populations and of the relationship between MACFS symptom scores and quality of life will improve our understanding of the MACFS and of the cancer patient treatment experience.