Postdischarge pain, nausea and patient satisfaction after diagnostic and breast-conserving ambulatory surgery for breast cancer: A cross-sectional study

French national survey on breast cancer care: caregiver and patient views

PURPOSE

To improve the quality of care for patients with breast cancer, an analysis of the health-care pathway, considering feedback from both health-care practitioners (HCPs) and patients, is needed.

METHODS

Between 2020 and 2022, we conducted a survey at French breast cancer centers and analyzed information from questionnaires completed by HCPs and patients. We collected information on center organization, diagnostic processes, treatment decisions and modalities, supportive care, patient advocacy groups, and work issues.

RESULTS

Twenty-three breast cancer centers were included and questionnaires completed by 247 HCPs and 249 patients were analyzed. The centers closely followed the legal French framework for cancer treatments, which includes formal diagnostic announcements, multidisciplinary tumor boards, personalized treatment summaries, and supportive care access. HCPs and patients were satisfied with the time to diagnosis (≤ 2 weeks as evaluated by 75% of patients), time to surgery (mean 61 days), time between surgery and chemotherapy (mean 47 days), and time between surgery and radiotherapy (mean 81 days). Fertility preservation counseling for women under 40 years of age was systematically offered by 67% of the HCPs. The majority (67%) of the patients indicated that they had received a personalized treatment summary; the topics discussed included treatments (92%), tumor characteristics (84%), care pathways (79%), supportive care (52%), and breast reconstruction (33%). Among HCPs, 44% stated that reconstructive surgery was offered to all eligible patients and 57% and 45% indicated coordination between centers and primary care physicians for adverse effects management and access to supportive care should be improved, for chemotherapy and radiotherapy, respectively. Regarding patient advocacy groups, 34% of HCPs did not know whether patients had contact and only 23% of patients declared that they had such contact. For one-third of working patients, work issues were not discussed. Twenty-eight percent of patients claimed that they had faced difficulties for supportive care access. Among HCPs, 13% stated that a formal personalized survivorship treatment program was administered to almost all patients and 37% almost never introduced the program to their patients. Compliance to oral treatments was considered very good for 75-100% of patients by 62% of HCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides an updated analysis of breast cancer care pathways in France. Overall, the initial processes of diagnosis, announcement, and treatment were swift and were in agreement with the best care standards. No barriers to accessing care were identified. Based on the study findings, we proposed several strategies to improve the quality of care for patients in supportive care, coordination with primary care physicians, reconstructive surgery, and fertility preservation access.

A study on the effect of clinical intervention of evidence-based nursing measures on complications in patients after breast-conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving surgery is an important treatment for breast cancer, which not only eradicates the disease, but also protects the integrity of the breast, however, postoperative nausea and vomiting often bother patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the effects of evidence-based nursing practices on nausea and vomiting in patients after breast-conserving surgery, with the aim of providing new perspectives for clinical nursing practice.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery from January 2023 to December 2023 in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center were enrolled. The patients were divided into an intervention group (evidence-based nursing group) and a control group (conventional nursing group) using the random number table method, both groups comprised 80 patients. The control group used conventional nursing methods, and the intervention group added evidence-based nursing intervention on this basis. Comparative analysis focused on the incidence of nausea and vomiting, quality of life metrics, and postoperative satisfaction.

RESULTS

In the intervention group, notably lower incidence rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting were observed compared to the control group within both the 0-24 hour and 24-48-hour postoperative periods (P< 0.05). Furthermore, the intervention group exhibited significantly higher scores across all five dimensions as well as the overall score of the FACT-B scale in comparison to the control group (P< 0.05), accompanied by heightened satisfaction with the nursing staff.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the positive clinical intervention effects of evidence-based nursing measures and emphasized their importance in improving postoperative nausea and vomiting and quality of life. Future studies are expected to incorporate evidence-based nursing practices into nursing care to improve patient recovery and overall quality of care.

Safety considerations with the current ambulatory trends: more complicated procedures and more complicated patients

In the last quarter of a century, the backdrop of appropriate ambulatory and office-based surgeries has changed dramatically. Procedures that were traditionally done in hospitals or patients being admitted after surgery are migrating to the outpatient setting and being discharged on the same day, respectively, at a remarkable rate. In the face of this exponential growth, anesthesiologists are constantly being challenged to maintain patient safety by understanding the appropriate patient selection, procedure, and surgical location. Recently published literature supports the trend of higher, more medically complex patients, and more complicated procedures shifting towards the outpatient arena. Several reasons that may account for this include cost incentives, advancement in anesthesia techniques, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, and increased patient satisfaction. Anesthesiologists must understand that there is a lack of standardized state regulations regarding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and office-based surgery (OBS) centers. Current and recently graduated anesthesiologists should be aware of the safety concerns related to the various non-hospital-based locations, the sustained growth and demand for anesthesia in the office, and the expansion of mobile anesthesia practices in the US in order to keep up and practice safely with the professional trends. Continuing procedural ambulatory shifts will require ongoing outcomes research, likely prospective in nature, on these novel outpatient procedures, in order to develop risk stratification and prediction models for the selection of the proper patient, procedure, and surgery location.

Palonosetron as prophylaxis for post-discharge nausea and vomiting: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in ambulatory surgery

BACKGROUND

Approximately 25% of ambulatory surgery patients experience post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV). We aimed to investigate whether palonosetron, a long-acting anti-emetic, decreases the incidence of PDNV in high-risk patients.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 170 male and female patients undergoing ambulatory surgery under general anaesthesia, with a high predicted risk for PDNV, were randomised to receive either palonosetron 75 μg i.v. (n=84) or normal saline (n=86) before discharge. During the first 3 postoperative days (PODs), we measured outcomes using a patient questionnaire. The primary outcome was the incidence of a complete response (no nausea, vomiting, or use of rescue medication) until POD 2. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PDNV each day until POD 3.

RESULTS

The incidence of a complete response until POD 2 was 48% (n=32) in the palonosetron group and 36% (n=25) in the placebo group (odds ratio 1.69 [95% confidence interval: 0.85-3.37]; P=0.131). No significant difference in the incidence of PDNV was observed between the two groups on the day of surgery (47% vs 56%; P=0.31). Significant differences in the incidence of PDNV were found on POD 1 (18% vs 34%; P=0.033) and POD 2 (9% vs 27%; P=0.007). No differences were observed on POD 3 (15% vs 13%; P=0.700).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, palonosetron did not reduce the overall incidence of PDNV up to POD 2. The lower incidence of PDNV on POD 1 and POD 2 in the palonosetron group requires further investigation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2015-003956-32.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting: risk factors, prediction tools, and algorithms

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PONV/PDNV) remain relevant issues in perioperative care. Especially in ambulatory surgery, PONV can prevent discharge or lead to unplanned readmission.

RECENT FINDINGS

The evidence for the management of PONV is now quite good but is still inadequately implemented. A universal, multimodal rather than risk-adapted approach for PONV prophylaxis is now recommended. The evidence on PDNV is insufficient.

SUMMARY

PDNV management is based primarily on consequent prophylaxis and therapy of PONV.

Pain treatment and prophylaxis on pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Also in ambulatory surgery, there will usually be a need for analgesic medication to deal with postoperative pain. Even so, a significant proportion of ambulatory surgery patients have unacceptable postoperative pain, and there is a need for better education in how to provide proper prophylaxis and treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Postoperative pain should be addressed both pre, intra- and postoperatively. The management should be with a multimodal nonopioid-based procedure specific guideline for the routine cases. In 10-20% of cases, there will be a need to adjust and supplement the basic guideline with extra analgesic measures. This may be because there are contraindications for a drug in the guideline, the procedure is more extensive than usual or the patient has extra risk factors for strong postoperative pain. Opioids should only be used when needed on top of multimodal nonopioid prophylaxis. Opioids should be with nondepot formulations, titrated to effect in the postoperative care unit and eventually continued only when needed for a few days at maximum.

SUMMARY

Multimodal analgesia should start pre or per-operatively and include paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), dexamethasone (or alternative glucocorticoid) and local anaesthetic wound infiltration, unless contraindicated in the individual case. Paracetamol and NSAID should be continued postoperatively, supplemented with opioid on top as needed. Extra analgesia may be considered when appropriate and needed. First-line options include nerve blocks or interfascial plane blocks and i.v. lidocaine infusion. In addition, gabapentinnoids, dexmedetomidine, ketamine infusion and clonidine may be used, but adverse effects of sedation, dizziness and hypotension must be carefully considered in the ambulatory setting.