Explore the vast range of titles available.

Fodor's Dublin 25 Best is a great travel companion for travelers who want a light, easy-to-pack guidebook to one of Europe's most exciting cities.

Since a national lockdown was introduced across the UK in March, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention. In this study, we estimated the impact of delays in diagnosis on cancer survival outcomes in four major tumour types. In this national population-based modelling study, we used linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15–84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2010, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2012, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2015. We use a routes-to-diagnosis framework to estimate the impact of diagnostic delays over a 12-month period from the commencement of physical distancing measures, on March 16, 2020, up to 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis. To model the subsequent impact of diagnostic delays on survival, we reallocated patients who were on screening and routine referral pathways to urgent and emergency pathways that are associated with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis. We considered three reallocation scenarios representing the best to worst case scenarios and reflect actual changes in the diagnostic pathway being seen in the NHS, as of March 16, 2020, and estimated the impact on net survival at 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis to calculate the additional deaths that can be attributed to cancer, and the total years of life lost (YLLs) compared with pre-pandemic data. We collected data for 32 583 patients with breast cancer, 24 975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29 305 with lung cancer. Across the three different scenarios, compared with pre-pandemic figures, we estimate a 7·9–9·6% increase in the number of deaths due to breast cancer up to year 5 after diagnosis, corresponding to between 281 (95% CI 266–295) and 344 (329–358) additional deaths. For colorectal cancer, we estimate 1445 (1392–1591) to 1563 (1534–1592) additional deaths, a 15·3–16·6% increase; for lung cancer, 1235 (1220–1254) to 1372 (1343–1401) additional deaths, a 4·8–5·3% increase; and for oesophageal cancer, 330 (324–335) to 342 (336–348) additional deaths, 5·8–6·0% increase up to 5 years after diagnosis. For these four tumour types, these data correspond with 3291–3621 additional deaths across the scenarios within 5 years. The total additional YLLs across these cancers is estimated to be 59 204–63 229 years. Substantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Urgent policy interventions are necessary, particularly the need to manage the backlog within routine diagnostic services to mitigate the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer. UK Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council.

Health literacy is a determinant of health. Few studies characterize its association with surgical outcomes. Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery 2015–2020. Health literacy assessed using Brief Health Literacy Screening Tool. Outcomes were postoperative complications, LOS, readmissions, mortality. Of 552 patients, 46 (8.3%) had limited health literacy, 506 (91.7%) non-limited. Median age 57.7 years, 305 (55.1%) patients were female, 148 (26.8%) were Black. Limited patients had higher rates of overall complications (43.5% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.004), especially surgical site infections (21.7% vs. 11.3%, p = 0.04). Limited patients had longer LOS (5 vs 3.5 days, p = 0.006). Readmissions and mortality did not differ. On multivariable analysis, limited health literacy was independently associated with increased risk of complications (OR 2.03, p = 0.046), not LOS (IRR 1.05, p = 0.67). Limited health literacy is associated with increased likelihood of complications after colorectal surgery. Opportunities exist for health literate surgical care to improve outcomes for limited health literacy patients. •Limited health literacy patients have 2x higher odds of postoperative complications.•Limited health literacy patients are at the highest risk for surgical site infections.•Opportunities exist for more health literate care to optimize surgical outcomes.

Survival from colorectal cancer has been shown to be lower in Denmark and England than in comparable high-income countries. We used data from national colorectal cancer registries to assess whether differences in the proportion of patients receiving resectional surgery could contribute to international differences in colorectal cancer survival. In this population-based study, we collected data from all patients aged 18–99 years diagnosed with primary, invasive, colorectal adenocarcinoma from Jan 1, 2010, to Dec 31, 2012, in Denmark, England, Norway, and Sweden, from national colorectal cancer registries. We estimated age-standardised net survival using multivariable modelling, and we compared the proportion of patients receiving resectional surgery by stage and age. We used logistic regression to predict the resectional surgery status patients would have had if they had been treated as in the best performing country, given their individual characteristics. We extracted registry data for 139 457 adult patients with invasive colorectal adenocarcinoma: 12 958 patients in Denmark, 97 466 in England, 11 450 in Norway, and 17 583 in Sweden. 3-year colon cancer survival was lower in England (63·9%, 95% CI 63·5–64·3) and Denmark (65·7%, 64·7–66·8) than in Norway (69·5%, 68·4–70·5) and Sweden (72·1%, 71·2–73·0). Rectal cancer survival was lower in England (69·7%, 69·1–70·3) than in the other three countries (Denmark 72·5%, 71·1–74·0; Sweden 74·1%, 72·7–75·4; and Norway 75·0%, 73·1–76·8). We found no significant differences in survival for patients with stage I disease in any of the four countries. 3-year survival after stage II or III rectal cancer and stage IV colon cancer was consistently lower in England (stage II rectal cancer 86·4%, 95% CI 85·0–87·6; stage III rectal cancer 75·5%, 74·2–76·7; and stage IV colon cancer 20·5%, 19·9–21·1) than in Norway (94·1%, 91·5–96·0; 83·4%, 80·1–86·1; and 33·0%, 31·0–35·1) and Sweden (92·9%, 90·8–94·6; 80·6%, 78·2–82·7; and 23·7%, 22·0–25·3). 3-year survival after stage II rectal cancer and stage IV colon cancer was also lower in England than in Denmark (stage II rectal cancer 91·2%, 88·8–93·1; and stage IV colon cancer 23·5%, 21·9–25·1). The total proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery ranged from 47 803 (68·4%) of 69 867 patients in England to 9582 (81·3%) of 11 786 in Sweden for colon cancer, and from 16 544 (59·9%) of 27 599 in England to 4106 (70·8%) of 5797 in Sweden for rectal cancer. This range was widest for patients older than 75 years (colon cancer 19 078 [59·7%] of 31 946 patients in England to 4429 [80·9%] of 5474 in Sweden; rectal cancer 4663 [45·7%] of 10 195 in England to 1342 [61·9%] of 2169 in Sweden), and the proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery was consistently lowest in England. The age gradient of the decline in the proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery was steeper in England than in the other three countries in all stage categories. In the hypothetical scenario where all patients were treated as in Sweden, given their age, sex, and disease stage, the largest increase in resectional surgery would be for patients with stage III rectal cancer in England (increasing from 70·3% to 88·2%). Survival from colon cancer and rectal cancer in England and colon cancer in Denmark was lower than in Norway and Sweden. Survival paralleled the relative provision of resectional surgery in these countries. Differences in patient selection for surgery, especially in patients older than 75 years or individuals with advanced disease, might partly explain these differences in international colorectal cancer survival. Early Diagnosis Policy Research Grant from Cancer Research UK (C7923/A18348).

Disparities in health outcomes for Black, Indigenous and other children of color in Canada are arresting. It is insufficient for physicians and surgeons to merely acknowledge the harm caused by systemic racism. Pediatric surgeons must help transform health and social systems to prevent these harms. The practice of identifying and eliminating racism and its harms is called antiracism. Antiracism is an essential duty for all physicians. Here, Daodu et al discuss how pediatric surgeons can practice antiracism.

Cancer policy differences might help to explain international variation in cancer survival, but empirical evidence is scarce. We reviewed cancer policies in 20 International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership jurisdictions in seven countries and did exploratory analyses linking an index of cancer policy consistency over time, with monitoring and implementation mechanisms, to survival from seven cancers in a subset of ten jurisdictions from 1995 to 2014. All ten jurisdictions had structures in place to oversee or deliver cancer control policies and had published at least one major cancer plan. Few cancer plans had explicit budgets for implementation or mandated external evaluation. Cancer policy consistency was positively correlated with improvements in survival over time for six of the seven cancer sites. Jurisdictions that scored the highest on policy consistency had large improvements in survival for most sites. Our analysis provides an important first step to systematically capture and evaluate what are inherently complex policy processes. The findings can help guide policy makers seeking approaches and frameworks to improve cancer services and, ultimately, cancer outcomes.

Cancer Waiting Time targets have been integrated into successive cancer strategies as indicators of cancer care quality in England. These targets are reported in national statistics for all cancers combined, but there is mixed evidence of their benefits and it is unclear if meeting Cancer Waiting Time targets, as currently defined and published, is associated with improved survival for individual patients, and thus if survival is a good metric for judging the utility of the targets. We used individually-linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Dataset (CWT), the cancer registry and other routinely collected datasets. The study population consisted of all adult patients diagnosed in England (2009-2013) with colorectal (164,890), lung (171,208) or ovarian (24,545) cancer, of whom 82%, 76%, and 77%, respectively, had a CWT matching record. The main outcome was one-year net survival for all matched patients by target attainment ('met/not met'). The time to each type of treatment for the 31-day and 62-day targets was estimated using multivariable analyses, adjusting for age, sex, tumour stage and deprivation. The two-week wait (TWW) from GP referral to specialist consultation and 31-day target from decision to treat to start of treatment were met for more than 95% of patients, but the 62-day target from GP referral to start of treatment was missed more often. There was little evidence of an association between meeting the TWW target and one-year net survival, but for the 31-day and 62-day targets, survival was worse for those for whom the targets were met (e.g. colorectal cancer: survival 89.1% (95%CI 88.9-89.4) for patients with 31-day target met, 96.9% (95%CI 96.1-91.7) for patients for whom it was not met). Time-to-treatment analyses showed that treatments recorded as palliative were given earlier in time, than treatments with potentially curative intent. There are possible limitations in the accuracy of the categorisation of treatment variables which do not allow for fully distinguishing, for example, between curative and palliative intent; and it is difficult in these data to assess the appropriateness of treatment by stage. These limitations in the nature of the data do not affect the survival estimates found, but do mean that it is not possible to separate those patients for whom the times between referral, decision to treat and start of treatment could actually have an impact on the clinical outcomes. This means that the use of these survival measures to evaluate the targets would be misleading. Based on these individually-linked data, and for the cancers we looked at, we did not find that Cancer Waiting Time targets being met translates into improved one-year survival. Patients may benefit psychologically from limited waits which encourage timely treatment, but one-year survival is not a useful measure for evaluating Trust performance with regards to Cancer Waiting Time targets, which are not currently stratified by stage or treatment type. As such, the current composition of the data means target compliance needs further evaluation before being used for the assessment of clinical outcomes.

Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a targeted quality metric (Patient Safety Indicator 12), yet prevention of VTE remains challenging.1 Several risk assessment tools have been developed to guide preventative efforts in surgical patients, including the well-known Caprini Score for Venous Thromboembolism.2 This validated risk assessment tool uses multiple clinical risk factors including age, sex, weight, specific comorbidities, diagnosis, mobility, clotting disorders, and procedure type. Before discussing changes in clinical protocols, we suggest follow up studies: 1) Validation of the association between race and VTE in prospective cohorts that include robust VTE risk factors and measurement of VTE prophylaxis medication administration, 2) study of how social determinants of health, health behaviors, and health beliefs contribute to racial differences in VTE rates, 3) evaluation of how variation in clinical practices might explain these outcomes. With this enriched data, informed changes in clinical practice guidelines can be considered to promote equity in postoperative outcomes and ensure our quality metrics are actually measuring quality.Funding There was no financial support for this work.Declaration of competing interest None of the authors have any financial disclosures related to this work.

Despite hospital readmission being a targeted quality metric, few studies have focused on the surgical patient population. We performed a systematic review of transitional care interventions and their effect on hospital readmissions after surgery. PubMed was searched for studies evaluating transitional care interventions in surgical populations within the years 1995 to 2015. Of 3,527 abstracts identified, 3 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational cohort studies met inclusion criteria. Discharge planning programs reduced readmissions by 11.5% (P = .001), 12.5% (P = .04), and 23% (P = .26). Patient education interventions reduced readmissions by 14% (P = .28) and 23.5% (P < .05). Primary care follow-up reduced readmissions by 8.3% for patients after high-risk surgeries (P < .001). Home visits reduced readmissions by 7.69% (P = .023) and 4% (P = .161), respectively. Therefore, improving discharge planning, patient education, and follow-up communication may reduce readmissions. •A systematic review of transitional care interventions' effect on readmissions was performed.•Coordinated discharge planning, individualized education, and follow-up are examined.•Transitional care interventions may reduce hospital readmissions.