Explore the vast range of titles available.

The incidence of colorectal cancer is rising in adults <50 years of age. As a primarily unscreened population, they may have clinically important delays to diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to review the literature on delay intervals in patients <50 years with colorectal cancer (CRC), and explore associations between longer intervals and outcomes. MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS were searched until December 2, 2021. We included studies published after 1990 reporting any delay interval in adults <50 with CRC. Interval measures and associations with stage at presentation or survival were synthesized and described in a narrative fashion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Institute of Health Economics Case Series Quality Appraisal Checklist, and the Aarhus Checklist for cancer delay studies. 55 studies representing 188,530 younger CRC patients were included. Most studies used primary data collection (64%), and 47% reported a single center. Sixteen unique intervals were measured. The most common interval was symptom onset to diagnosis (21 studies; N = 2,107). By sample size, diagnosis to treatment start was the most reported interval (12 studies; N = 170,463). Four studies examined symptoms onset to treatment start (total interval). The shortest was a mean of 99.5 days and the longest was a median of 217 days. There was substantial heterogeneity in the measurement of intervals, and quality of reporting. Higher-quality studies were more likely to use cancer registries, and be population-based. In four studies reporting the relationship between intervals and cancer stage or survival, there were no clear associations between longer intervals and adverse outcomes. Adults <50 with CRC may have intervals between symptom onset to treatment start greater than 6 months. Studies reporting intervals among younger patients are limited by inconsistent results and heterogeneous reporting. There is insufficient evidence to determine if longer intervals are associated with advanced stage or worse survival. This study's protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42020179707).

It is necessary to identify appropriate areas of de-escalation in breast cancer treatment to minimize morbidity and maximize patients’ quality of life. Less radical treatment modalities, or even no treatment, have been reconsidered if they offer the same oncologic outcomes as standard therapies. Identifying which patients benefit from de-escalation requires particular care, as standard therapies will continue to offer adequate cancer outcomes. We provide an overview of the literature on the de-escalation of treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), local treatment of breast cancer, and surgery after neoadjuvant systemic therapy. De-escalation of breast cancer treatment is a key area of investigation that will continue to remain a priority. Improvements in understanding the natural history and biology of breast cancer, imaging modalities, and adjuvant treatments will expand this even further. Future efforts will continue to challenge us to consider the true role of various treatment modalities.

Health care provider burnout worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. This qualitative study described general surgery residents' perceptions of burnout and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and their attitudes toward wellness initiatives. General surgery residents at a large training program in Canada completed a 21-item survey focused on self-reported burnout, mental health, perceptions of wellness resources, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Free-text responses were extracted for qualitative thematic content analysis. A coding framework was established, and emergent themes were identified. A total of 62% (51/82) of the residents completed the survey. Most respondents were senior residents (21/51, 41%) and identified as male (32/51, 63%). In total, 65% (33/51) of the residents met the criteria for burnout. Three themes were identified: (1) the culture of general surgery does not promote wellness, (2) the COVID-19 pandemic worsened existing access to vacation days and rest, and (3) wellness education in general surgery is ineffective and onerous to complete. General surgery residents emphasized the rigid lifestyle and culture of the specialty. Residents said that the idea of wellness was poorly executed. COVID-19 protocols increased the acceptance of taking sick days, but this was offset by staff shortages during the pandemic. Finally, residents emphasized the inefficacy of wellness education. They felt that they did not lack knowledge on reaching wellness but simply lacked the adequate time and resources to improve their well-being. There are persistent concerns within the culture of general surgery that were further impacted by workload and stress during the pandemic. These results may inform future programmatic efforts to decrease resident burnout.

BackgroundReducing length of stay (LOS) is a major healthcare initiative. While LOS is closely linked to the diagnosis and procedure in elective surgery, many additional factors influence LOS on a trauma service. We hypothesized that more standardized patient management would lead to decreased LOS.MethodsRetrospective analysis of Trauma Registry data compared LOS before (PRE) and after (POST) implementation of standardized processes on a trauma service. Patients were subdivided by age (over and under 65 years). Data were compared using unpaired t-test, χ2 test and analysis of variance tests, where appropriate.Results1613 PRE and 1590 POST patients were compared. Although age and Injury Severity Score were similar, median LOS decreased by 1 day for the group overall (p<0.0001), and for subgroups over and under the age of 65 years (p<0.0001). Older patients were discharged home 13% more often in POST, compared with 4% more for younger patients.ConclusionsImproved standardization of processes on a trauma service reduced LOS in patients of all ages. A prospective study may identify specific factors associated with prolonged LOS, to allow further improvement.Level of evidenceIII.Study typeTherapeutic/Care management.

Objective In response to COVID-19, the fall prevention program (FPP) at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre was modified to be delivered virtually. We compared patient populations assessed for the FPP virtually versus in-person to explore equitable accessibility. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed. All patients assessed virtually from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic until the end of abstraction (April 25, 2022) were compared to a historic sample of patients assessed in-person beginning in January 2019. Demographics, measures of frailty, co-morbidity, and cognition were abstracted. Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests and Fisher's Exact tests were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Results Thirty patients were assessed virtually and compared to 30 in-person historic controls. Median age was 80 years (interquartile range 75–85), 82% were female, 70% were university educated, the median Clinical Frailty Score was 5 out of 9, and 87% used >5 medications. Once normalized, frailty scores showed no difference (p  =  0.446). The virtual cohort showed significantly higher outdoor walking aid use (p  =  0.015), reduced accuracy with clock drawing (p  =  0.020), and nonsignificant trends toward using >10 medications, requiring assistance with >3 instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), and higher treatment attendance. No significant differences were seen for time-to-treat (p  =  0.423). Conclusion Patients assessed virtually were similarly frail as the in-person controls but had increased use of walking aids, medications, IADL assistance, and cognitive impairment. In a Canadian context, frail and high socioeconomic status older adults continued to access treatment through virtual FPP assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighting both the benefits of virtual care and potential inequity.

Key summary points Aim To describe a cohort of older trauma patients treated for injuries related to intentional injury over 20 years. Findings Intentional injury among older patients is rare, but differences are evident when comparing older and younger survivors of suicide attempts. Differences with mortality method of self-inflicted injury, discharge to home and injury severity between genders were identified. Message Although older patients are not the typical suicide attempt patient presenting at hospitals, their management and discharge planning are often complex and challenging due to undiagnosed mental health conditions, pre-existing comorbidities and difficulties with mental health resource options for this age group. Purpose Older patients (Older) have complex health management needs often requiring additional resources. Mental health disorders are common among trauma patients, yet minimal information on older suicidal related injury and outcomes exists. A review of trauma patients with intentional self-inflicted injury at one trauma center was done to describe and identify unique elements of this cohort of patients. Methods Trauma registry data from 2000 to 2019 were reviewed for intentional injury and data abstracted included demographics, injury severity, diagnoses, comorbidities and outcomes. Cohorts by age were compared: Older (65 +) vs Younger (< 65). Values considered significant at p  ≤ 0.05. Results 557 suicide attempts were identified with 9% among Older patients. Most patients were male with median age of 75 years for Older and 35 years for Younger cohort, with similar length of stay (LOS) and injury severity scores (ISS). Penetrating injury was more common among Older patients with firearm used most often, 34% vs 14% for Younger. Differences were evident between male and female Older patients with ISS 16.7 vs 5, p  < 0.01 and mortality, p  = 0.03. The outcome of discharge to home was significantly different between Older and Younger, 6% vs 20% ( p  < 0.05). A difference in mortality was evident, Older 38% vs Younger 18% ( p  < 0.05). Conclusion With the growing aging population, it is important to acknowledge the resultant increase in concomitant mental health issues and suicidality among older patients, where depression may be undiagnosed and untreated. Providing care within this cohort may reduce future attempts and lessen the burden on the health care system.

IntroductionThe patient experience is a critical dimension of colonoscopy quality. Sedative and analgesic drugs are commonly used to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy, with predominant regimens being deep sedation, typically achieved with propofol, and moderate sedation, typically achieved with an opioid and a benzodiazepine. However, non-pharmacological interventions exist that may be used to improve patient experience. Furthermore, by identifying non-pharmacological interventions to increase the quality of patient experience under moderate sedation, jurisdictions facing rising use of deep sedation for colonoscopy and its significant associated costs may be better able to encourage patients and clinicians to adopt moderate sedation. Advancing either of these aims requires synthesising the evidence and raising awareness around these non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be conducted that searches multiple electronic databases from inception until 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating what, if any, non-pharmacological interventions are effective compared with placebo or usual care for improving the patient experience of routine colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation. Two reviewers will independently perform a three-stage screening process and extract all study data using piloted forms. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2.0. Where multiple studies evaluate a single intervention, evidence will be quantitatively synthesised using pairwise meta-analysis, otherwise narrative syntheses will be undertaken.Ethics and disseminationThis is a review of existing literature not requiring ethics approval. The review findings will be included in future efforts to develop an implementation strategy to reduce the use of deep sedation for routine colonoscopy. They will also be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and contribute to a doctoral thesis.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020173906.

ObjectivesThe opioid crisis has forced an examination of opioid prescribing and usage patterns. Multimodal pain management and limited, procedure-specific prescribing guidelines have been proposed in general surgery but are less well studied in trauma, where multisystem injuries and multispecialty caregivers are the norm. We hypothesized that opioid requirements would differ by primary type of injury and by age, and we sought to identify factors affecting opioid prescribing at discharge (DC).MethodsRetrospective analysis of pain management at a level II trauma center for January–November 2018. Consecutive patients with exploratory laparotomy (LAP); 3 or more rib fractures (fxs) (RIB); or pelvic (PEL), femoral (FEM), or tibial (TIB) fxs were included, and assigned to cohorts based on the predominant injury. Patients who died or had head Abbreviated Injury Scale >2 and Glasgow Coma Scale <15 were excluded. All pain medications were recorded daily; doses were converted to oral morphine equivalents (OMEs). The primary outcomes of interest were OMEs administered over the final 72 hours of hospitalization (OME72) and prescribed at DC (OMEDC). Multimodal pain therapy defined as 3 or more drugs used. Categorical variables and continuous variables were analyzed with appropriate statistical analyses.Results208 patients were included: 17 LAP, 106 RIB, 31 PEL, 26 FEM, and 28 TIB. 74% were male and 8% were using opiates prior to admission. Injury cohorts varied by age but not Injury Severity Score (ISS) or length of stay (LOS). 64% of patients received multimodal pain therapy. There was an overall difference in OME72 between the five injury groups (p<0.0001) and OME72 was lower for RIB compared with all other cohorts. Compared with younger (age <65) patients, older (≥65 years) patients had similar ISS and LOS, but lower OME72 (45 vs 135*) and OMEDC. Median OME72 differed significantly between older and younger patients with PEL (p=0.02) and RIB (p=0.01) injuries. No relationship existed between OMEDC across injury groups, by sex or injury severity. Patients were discharged almost exclusively by trauma service advanced practice clinicians (APCs). There was no difference among APCs in number of pills or OMEs prescribed. 81% of patients received opioids at DC, of whom 69% were prescribed an opioid/acetaminophen combination drug; and only 13% were prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 19% acetaminophen, and 31% gabapentin.ConclusionsOpioid usage varied among patients with different injury types. Opioid DC prescribing appears rote and does not correlate with actual opioid usage during the 72 hours prior to DC. Paradoxically, OMEDC tends to be higher among females, patients with ISS <16, and those with rib fxs, despite a tendency toward lower OME72 usage among these groups. There was apparent underutilization of non-opioid agents. These findings highlight opportunities for improvement and further study.Level of evidenceIV.

BackgroundClinical delays may be important contributors to outcomes among younger adults (<50 years) with colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to describe delay intervals for younger adults with CRC using health administrative data to understand drivers of delay in this population.MethodsThis was a population-based study of adults <50 diagnosed with CRC in Ontario, Canada from 2003 to 2018. Using administrative code-based algorithms (including billing codes), we identified four time points along the pathway to treatment—first presentation with a CRC-related symptom, first investigation, diagnosis date and treatment start. Intervals between these time points were calculated. Multivariable quantile regression was performed to explore associations between patient and disease factors with the median length of each interval.Results6853 patients aged 15–49 were diagnosed with CRC and met the inclusion criteria. Males comprised 52% of the cohort, the median age was 45 years (IQR 40–47), and 25% had stage IV disease. The median time from presentation to treatment start (overall interval) was 109 days (IQR 55–218). Time between presentation and first investigation was short (median 5 days), as was time between diagnosis and treatment start (median 23 days). The greatest component of delay occurred between first investigation and diagnosis (median 78 days). Women, patients with distal tumours, and patients with earlier stage disease had significantly longer overall intervals.ConclusionsSome younger CRC patients experience prolonged times from presentation to treatment, and time between first investigation to diagnosis was an important contributor. Access to endoscopy may be a target for intervention.

Background and aimsNon-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically.ResultsWe screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed.ConclusionResearch on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured.PROSPERO registration number42020173906.