Sedation shared decision-making in ambulatory venous access device placement: Effects on patient choice, satisfaction and recovery time

Patient-Controlled Sedation in Port Implantation (PACSPI 1) - A feasibility trial

Background

Central venous access is essential for the administration of chemotherapy and frequent blood sampling in patients with cancer. The subcutaneous venous port is commonly used for this purpose. Subcutaneous venous port implantation is a minor surgical procedure; however, it can provoke pain and anxiety in these vulnerable patients. The aim of this study was, before a full-scale RCT, to determine the feasibility of patient-controlled sedation with propofol and alfentanil as an adjunct to local anaesthesia during SVP implantation.

Methods

We prospectively studied 40 patients scheduled for SVP implantation between 14 April 2021 and 15 October 2021 at a 500-bed secondary level hospital in Sweden. Anaesthesiologists performed subcutaneous venous port implantation with patient-controlled sedation using propofol and alfentanil. We determined pain perception (primary outcome), patient satisfaction, sedation score, and key safety measures.

Results

Of the 40 patients with cancer, 80% reported a pain score ≤3 on an 11-point numeric rating scale during subcutaneous venous port implantation. Overall satisfaction with pain management and operating conditions was graded as 10 of 10 on the numeric rating scale. Four patients (10%) had bradypnoea (<8 bpm) without oxygen desaturation to ≤90%. Rescue sedation was administered to one patient (2.5%).

Conclusion

Patient-controlled sedation with propofol and alfentanil during subcutaneous venous port implantation is feasible and well accepted. Ultimately the efficacy of patient-controlled sedation with propofol and alfentanil needs to be evaluated in an RCT to provide clinicians with evidence-based guidance for choosing the optimal perioperative strategy for subcutaneous venous port implantation.

Clinical trial registration

NCT04631393.

Guidelines in Practice: Moderate Sedation and Analgesia

Moderate sedation and analgesia (MSA) can help patients experience less anxiety and discomfort, tolerate procedures that do not require general anesthesia, and maintain the ability to respond to verbal commands. Nurses administer MSA in a variety of clinical areas, and facility leaders may have difficulty creating a single standard of care for this task. Completion of a presedation assessment that includes the patient in the decision-making process is an important aspect of care. When administering MSA, nurses should have immediate unrestricted patient access and no competing responsibilities that could distract them from monitoring and assessing the patient. Nurses should complete education and competency verification activities before administering MSA. AORN recently revised the "Guideline for care of the patient receiving moderate sedation/analgesia," and this article addresses the standard of care, the presedation assessment, patient monitoring, and competency; it also includes scenarios describing specific concerns in two patient care areas.

Impact of Informed Consent and Education on Care Engagement After Opioid Initiation in the Veterans Health Administration

Objective

To ensure all patients receiving long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) understand the risks, benefits and treatment alternatives, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) released a national policy in 2014 to standardize a signature informed consent (SIC) process. We evaluated the impact of this policy on medical follow-up after LTOT initiation, a guideline recommended practice.

Methods

Using VHA administrative data, we identified patients initiating LTOT between May 2013 and May 2016. We used an interrupted time series design to compare the monthly rates of medical follow-up within 30 days and primary care visits within 3 months after LTOT initiation across three periods: 12 months before the policy (Year 1); 12 months after policy release (Year 2); and 12-24 months after policy release, when the SIC process was mandatory (Year 3).

Results

Among the 409,895 patients who experienced 758,416 LTOT initiations, medical follow-up within 30 days and primary care engagement within 3 months increased by 4% between Year 1 and Year 3. Compared to Year 1, patients in Year 3 were 1.12 times more likely to have any medical follow-up (95% CI: 1.10, 1.13) and 1.13 times more likely to have a primary care visit (95% CI: 1.12, 1.15). Facilities with a greater proportion of patients receiving SIC had increased medical follow-up (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.07) and primary care engagement (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.10).

Conclusion

The VHA's SIC policy is associated with increased medical follow-up among patients initiating LTOT, which may result in improved patient safety and has implications for other healthcare settings.

Improving Lung Cancer Screening Access for Individuals With Serious Mental Illness

Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States across all races and ethnicities, but it does not affect everyone equally. Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI), including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, experience two to four times greater lung cancer mortality in part due to high rates of smoking, delays in cancer diagnosis, and inequities in cancer treatment. Additionally, adults with SMI experience patient, clinician, and health care system-level barriers to accessing cancer screening, such as cognitive deficits that impact understanding of cancer risk, higher rates of poverty and social isolation, patient-provider communication challenges, decreased access to tobacco cessation, and the fragmentation of primary care and mental health care. Despite the proven benefits and mandated coverage by public and private payers, lung cancer screening participation rates remain low among eligible patients, below 4% a year. Given disparities in other cancer screening modalities, these rates are likely to be even lower among individuals with SMI. This article provides a brief overview of current challenges in lung cancer screening and describes a pilot collaboration between radiology and psychiatry that has potential to improve access to lung cancer screening for individuals with serious mental illness.

Readability of online materials for Dupuytren's contracture

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive.

BACKGROUND

Dupuytren's contracture is a common disorder involving fibrosis of the palmar fascia. As patients are increasingly using online materials to gather health care information, it is imperative to assess the readability and appropriateness of this content. The recommended grade level for patient educational materials is seventh to eighth grade according to the National Institutes of Health. This study aims to assess the readability and content of online patient resources for Dupuytren's contracture.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Evaluate readability of online patient education materials for Dupuytren's contracture.

METHODS

The largest public search engine, Google, was queried using the term "Dupuytren's contracture surgery" on February 26, 2016. Location filters were disabled, and sponsored results were excluded to avoid any inadvertent search bias. The 10 most popular Web sites were identified, and all relevant patient-directed information within 1 click from the original site was downloaded and saved as plain text. Readability was analyzed using 6 established analyses (Readable.io, Added Bytes, Ltd, UK).

RESULTS

Analysis of 10 Web sites demonstrates an average grade level of at least 11th grade (Flesch-Kincaid grade level, 10.2; Gunning-Fog grade level, 13.1; Coleman-Liau grade level, 14.4; Simple Measure of Gobbledygook grade level, 10.0; automated readability grade level, 9.7; and average grade level, 11.5). Overall Flesch-Kincaid reading ease index was 46.4, which is difficult. No single article was at the recommended reading level.

CONCLUSIONS

Online materials available for treatment of Dupuytren's contracture are above recommended reading levels and do not include a comprehensive explanation of treatment options, which may negatively impact decision making in patients seeking treatment for this condition. Surgeons and hand therapists alike should be cognizant of available online patient materials and make efforts to develop and provide more appropriate materials.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

Patient Complaints in Image-Guided Interventions: Evaluation of Multifactorial Issues Using a Coding Taxonomy

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to classify complaints from patients undergoing image-guided interventions using a coding taxonomy and to test whether single-coded complaints were resolved satisfactorily compared with multifactorial (multiple codes) complaints.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, patients' complaint narratives between April 1999 and December 2012 were reviewed and categorized according to a three-level taxonomy into domains and codes. Resolutions were categorized as satisfactory or unsatisfactory to the patient and were classified as follows: clarification, apology, manager notification, change of provider, reimbursement, and quality review. Complaints were classified as single coded (only one code identified in the patients' description) and multifactorial (multiple codes identified). Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher test, with the significance level set at 0.05. A run chart with the distribution of complaints by domains (relationships, management, and clinical) by year was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 146 codes were extracted from 71 narratives (2.06 codes/complaint) and were classified into the following domains: clinical (52%; n = 76), management (24%; n = 35), and relationships (24%; n = 35). The most common codes included quality of care, safety, and communication breakdown issues. A run chart found a decline in absolute numbers of complaints over the years in the domains studied. The frequency of satisfactory resolution was 86% for multifactorial versus 81% for single-coded complaints with no statistically significant differences observed (p = 0.72). Over 50% of complaints were resolved by providing clarification to patients (n = 36).

CONCLUSION

There were no statistically significant differences between multifactorial and single-coded complaints. Clinical codes and communication breakdown were the most common reasons for patient-reported complaint, with most complaints successfully resolved with clarification.