A Decision Aid to Help Patients Make Informed Choices Between the Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass or Sleeve Gastrectomy.

PURPOSE: In the Netherlands, patients can often choose between the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) as primary bariatric surgery. Yet, patients confronted with medical options may experience decisional conflict when their stakes are high and outcomes uncertain. This study aimed to assess if a decision aid helps patients make informed choices between two bariatric procedures by lowering the level of decisional conflict. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a single-center comparative cohort of patients who accessed a web-based decision aid (intervention group) and those who did not use the decision aid (control group) to help choose between two bariatric procedures additional to the standard provided care. The primary outcome was the level of decisional conflict in these patients using the decisional conflict scale (DCS). Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction with the provided information (BODY-QTM-satisfaction with information), preference of involvement in procedure selection, level of shared decision-making (SDM-Q-9 questionnaire), and patient knowledge. RESULTS: The level of decisional conflict assessed with the decisional conflict scale (DCS) showed a significantly lower mean total DCS of 25.5 ± 11.5 for the intervention group vs. 29.1 ± 12.4 in the control group (p = 0.022). Both groups did not significantly differ in satisfaction regarding provided information, involvement in the selection procedure, shared decision-making, and patient knowledge. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the additional use of a decision aid significantly lowers the level of decisional conflict in patients awaiting bariatric surgery. However, the added value should be further investigated.

Clinical characteristics and risk factors of preventable hospital readmissions within 30 days.

Knowledge regarding preventable hospital readmissions is scarce. Our aim was to compare the clinical characteristics of potentially preventable readmissions (PPRs) with non-PPRs. Additionally, we aimed to identify risk factors for PPRs. Our study included readmissions within 30 days after discharge from 1 of 7 hospital departments. Preventability was assessed by multidisciplinary meetings. Characteristics of the readmissions were collected and 23 risk factors were analyzed. Of the 1120 readmissions, 125 (11%) were PPRs. PPRs occurred equally among different departments (p = 0.21). 29.6% of PPRs were readmitted by a practitioner of a different medical specialty than the initial admission (IA) specialist. The PPR group had more readmissions within 7 days (PPR 54% vs. non-PPR 44%, p = 0.03). The median LOS was 1 day longer for PPRs (p = 0.16). Factors associated with PPR were higher age (p = 0.004), higher socio-economic status (p = 0.049), fewer prior hospital admissions (p = 0.004), and no outpatient visit prior to readmission (p = 0.025). This study found that PPRs can occur at any department in the hospital. There is not a single type of patient that can easily be pinpointed to be at risk of a PPR, probably due to the multifactorial nature of PPRs.

Optimizing orthopedic trauma care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. A closed-loop audit of implementing a virtual fracture clinic and fast-track pathway in a Dutch level 2 trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines concerning outpatient management of patients during the coronavirus pandemic required minimized face-to-face follow-up and increased remote care. In response, we established a virtual fracture clinic (VFC) review for emergency department (ED) patients with musculoskeletal injuries, meaning patients are reviewed 'virtually' the next workday by a multidisciplinary team, instead of routine referral for face-to-face fracture clinic review. Patients wait at home and are contacted afterwards to discuss treatment. Based on VFC review, patients with minor injuries are discharged, while for other patients an extensive treatment plan is documented using injury-specific care pathways. Additionally, we established an ED orthopedic trauma fast-track to reduce waiting time. This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which our workflow supported adherence to national coronavirus-related guidelines and effects on ED waiting time. METHODS: A closed-loop audit was performed during two 4-week periods using predefined standards: (1) all eligible ED orthopedic trauma patients are referred for VFC review; (2) reached afterwards; and follow-up is (3) patient initiated, or (4) performed remotely, whenever possible. Total ED waiting time, time to review, time for review, and time after review were assessed during both audit periods and compared with previous measurements. RESULTS: During both audits, the majority of eligible ED patients were referred for VFC review (1st: n=162 (88.0%); 2nd: n=302 (98.4%)), and reached afterwards (1st: 98.1%; 2nd: 99.0%). Of all referred patients, 17.9% and 13.6% were discharged 'virtually' during first and second audits, respectively, while 45.0% and 41.1% of scheduled follow-up appointments were remote. Median total ED waiting time was reduced (1st: -36 minutes (p<0.001); 2nd: -33 minutes (p<0.001)). During the second audit, median ED time to review was reduced by -13 minutes (p<0.001), as well as time for review: -10 minutes (p=0.019). DISCUSSION: In line with national guidelines, our VFC review allowed time-effective review and triage of the majority of ED orthopedic trauma patients, supporting patient-initiated and remote follow-up, whenever possible. ED waiting time was reduced after implementing the VFC review and orthopedic trauma fast-track. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Phyllodes tumors of the breast: a retrospective analysis of 57 cases.

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines for the treatment of phyllodes tumors recommend wide local excision for all histopathological subtypes. However, it is unknown which subtypes have tendency to recur after marginal or incomplete excision. This may lead to over-treatment by re-excision surgery for tumors with little or no potential to recur. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with benign, borderline or malignant phyllode tumors presenting at our institution between 2000 and 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients could be included, of which 39 tumors were benign (60%), three were borderline (5%), and seven were malignant phyllodes tumors (12%). There were also eight phyllodes-like fibroadenomas (14%). Fifty-two patients (91%) underwent local excision as primary treatment, resulting in tumor-positive or close-resection margins in 32 patients (61.5%) of whom five patients (15.6%) had re-excision surgery. During a median follow-up of 5 years, local recurrence occurred in four patients (7.0%) with a median time-to-recurrence of 12 months. Borderline and malignant subtypes were associated with a significantly higher recurrence rate compared to other subtypes (p = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Although an adequate tumor-negative resection margin should be obtained for borderline and malignant phyllodes tumors, this study confirms that wide local excision is the appropriate primary treatment for all histopathological subtypes. However, if tumor-negative margins were not obtained at first excision, a wait-and-see approach is justified for benign phyllodes tumors.