Do patients with gastrointestinal cancer want to decide where they have tests and surgery? A questionnaire study of provider choice

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal and gastric cancer under the Chinese multi-site practice policy: admittance standards of competence are needed

Background

The multi-site practice (MSP) policy has been practiced in China over 10 years. This study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of performing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer (LSCRC) and gastric cancer (LSGC) under the Chinese MSP policy.

Methods

We collected and analysed the data from 1,081 patients who underwent LSCRC or LSGC performed by one gastrointestinal surgeon in his original hospital (n = 573) and his MSP institutions (n = 508) between January 2017 and December 2020. Baseline demographics, intraoperative outcomes, post-operative recovery, and pathological results were compared between the original hospital and MSP institutions, as well as between MSP institutions with and without specific competence (surgical skill, operative instrument, perioperative multi-discipline team).

Results

In our study, 690 patients underwent LSCRC and 391 patients underwent LSGC. The prevalence of post-operative complications was comparable for LSCRC (11.5% vs 11.1%, P = 0.89) or LSGC (15.2% vs 12.6%, P = 0.46) between the original hospital and MSP institutions. However, patients in MSP institutions without qualified surgical assistant(s) and adequate instruments experienced longer operative time and greater intraoperative blood loss. The proportion of patients with inadequate lymph-node yield was significantly higher in MSP institutions than in the original hospital for both LSCRC (11.5% vs 21.2%, P < 0.01) and LSGC (9.8% vs 20.5%, P < 0.01).

Conclusion

For an experienced gastrointestinal surgeon, performing LSCRC and LSGC outside his original hospital under the MSP policy is safe and feasible, but relies on the precondition that the MSP institutions are equipped with qualified surgical skills, adequate operative instruments, and complete perioperative management.

Validation of the size morphology site access score in endoscopic mucosal resection of large polyps in a district general hospital

BACKGROUND

Polyp assessment is multimodal and is vital prior to endoscopic mucosal resection. The size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score has been validated in specialist endoscopic institutions. this study investigated the ability of this score to predict incomplete endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps in a district general hospital.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection of large (≥ 20 mm) colorectal polyps at Worthing Hospital. Clinical, endoscopic and histological data were taken from prospective databases. The primary outcome of the study was to investigate the correlation of the SMSA score with incomplete endoscopic resection.

RESULTS

Between February 2015 and August 2018, 114 patients underwent colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. Of these, 67 (59%) were male. The median (interquartile range) age of the study population was 72 years (65-78 years). Some 17 lesions (15%) were pedunculated, 76 (67%) were sessile and 21 were (18%) flat; 84 polyps (77%) were located in the left colon/rectum, with the remainder in the right colon; 51 lesions (45%) were 20-30 mm, 27 (24%) were 30-40 mm and 36 (31%) were greater than 40 mm in diameter. When reclassified into the SMSA score, 9 of the polyps (8%) were level 2, 64 (56%) were level 3 and 41 (36%) were level 4. Incomplete resection was clinically diagnosed in 9/114 (8%). The SMSA score was positively correlated with incomplete endoscopic resection, but not with additional procedure usage, complications or advanced histology.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients with large polyps can be managed outside of specialist units. This study has validated that the SMSA score was associated with incomplete endoscopic mucosal resection for large polyps in a district general hospital setting.

Care for a Patient With Cancer As a Project: Management of Complex Task Interdependence in Cancer Care Delivery

Cancer care is highly complex and suffers from fragmentation and lack of coordination across provider specialties and clinical domains. As a result, patients often find that they must coordinate care on their own. Coordinated delivery teams may address these challenges and improve quality of cancer care. Task interdependence is a core principle of rigorous teamwork and is essential to addressing the complexity of cancer care, which is highly interdependent across specialties and modalities. We examined challenges faced by a patient with early-stage breast cancer that resulted from difficulties in understanding and managing task interdependence across clinical domains involved in this patient's care. We used team science supported by the project management discipline to discuss how various task interdependence aspects can be recognized, deliberately designed, and systematically managed to prevent care breakdowns. This case highlights how effective task interdependence management facilitated by project management methods could markedly improve the course of a patient's care. This work informs efforts of cancer centers and practices to redesign cancer care delivery through innovative, practical, and patient-centered approaches to management of task interdependence in cancer care. Future patient-reported outcomes research will help to determine optimal ways to engage patients, including those who are medically underserved, in managing task interdependence in their own care.