12 research outputs found

    Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

    Get PDF
    Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p<0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p<0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p<0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP >5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification

    Colorectal Cancer Screening—Who, How, and When?

    No full text
    Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. It is amenable to screening as it occurs in premalignant, latent, early, and curable stages. PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and national and international CRC screening guidelines were searched for CRC screening methods, populations, and timing. CRC screening can use direct or indirect tests, delivered opportunistically or via organized programs. Most CRCs are diagnosed after 60 years of age; most screening programs apply to individuals 50–75 years of age. Screening may reduce disease-specific mortality by detecting CRC in earlier stages, and CRC incidence by detecting premalignant polyps, which can subsequently be removed. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBt) was found to reduce CRC mortality by 13%–33%. Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has no RCT data comparing it to no screening, but is superior to gFOBt. Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) trials demonstrated an 18% reduction in CRC incidence and a 28% reduction in CRC mortality. Currently, RCT evidence for colonoscopy screening is scarce. Although not yet corroborated by RCTs, it is likely that colonoscopy is the best screening modality for an individual. From a population perspective, organized programs are superior to opportunistic screening. However, no nation can offer organized population-wide colonoscopy screening. Thus, organized programs using cheaper modalities, such as FS/FIT, can be tailored to budget and capacity

    Patient derived measures of GI endoscopy: a narrative review of the literature.

    No full text
    Background and AimsGI endoscopy (GIE) is widely performed, with 1 in 3 people requiring an endoscopic procedure at some point. Patient experience of medical procedures is important, but, to date, experience measures of GIE are derived from clinician opinion rather than from patients themselves. In this meta-narrative review, the literature on methods of assessing patient experience in GIE is reported.MethodsScienceDirect, MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched to November 2013 using meta-narrative standards. Search terms included those related to endoscopic procedures, combined with those related to patient experience.ResultsA total of 3688 abstracts were identified and reviewed for relevance. A total of 3549 were excluded, leaving 139 for full-text review. We subsequently included 48 articles. Three sub-groups of studies were identified—those developing original measures of endoscopy-specific patient experience (27 articles), those modifying existing measures (10 articles), and those testing existing measures for reliability or validity (11 articles). Most measures focused on pain, discomfort, anxiety, and embarrassment. Three studies explored wider aspects of experience, including preparation, unit organization, and endoscopist preference. Likert scales, visual analog scale scores, and questionnaires were used most commonly. The Global Rating Scale was validated for use in 2 studies, confirming that those domains cover all aspects of endoscopy experience. Other measures were modified to assess endoscopic experience, such as the modified Group Health Association of America survey (mGHAA-9) (modified by 5 studies).ConclusionsNo patient-derived and validated endoscopy-specific experience measures were found. Patient-derived and validated experience measures should be developed and used to model optimal healthcare delivery

    Sustained colonoscopy quality improvement using a simple intervention bundle.

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: Unacceptable variation in colonoscopy quality exists. The Quality Improvement in Colonoscopy (QIC) study in 2011 improved quality by introducing an evidence-based "bundle" of measures into routine colonoscopy practice. The QIC bundle included: minimal cecal withdrawal time of ≥ 6 minutes; hyoscine butylbromide use; supine patient position for transverse colon examination; rectal retroflexion. Colonoscopy quality was measured by adenoma detection rate (ADR). The current study measured whether these effects led to a sustained change in practice 3 years following implementation. METHODS: This observational study collected data from eight hospital trusts (sites) in the United Kingdom for a 6-month period, 3 years following QIC bundle implementation. Use of the antispasmodic, hyoscine butylbromide, was measured as a marker of bundle uptake. Bundle effectiveness was measured by ADR change. Comparisons were made between data before and immediately after implementation of the bundle. RESULTS: 28 615 colonoscopies by 188 colonoscopists were studied. Hyoscine butylbromide use increased from 15.8 % pre-implementation to 47.4 % in the sustainability phase (P < 0.01) indicating sustained engagement with QIC measures. ADR was higher in the sustainability period compared with pre-intervention, but only reached statistical significance among the poorest-performing colonoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a simple, inexpensive, pragmatic intervention significantly changed practice over a sustained period, improving colonoscopy quality as measured by ADR, particularly in poorer performers. QIC demonstrates that an easy-to-implement quality improvement approach can deliver a sustained change in practice for many years post intervention

    Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators

    No full text
    Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standard

    Work Outcomes in Patients Who Stay at Work Despite Musculoskeletal Pain

    Get PDF
    Purpose: To assess self-reported work impacts and associations between psychosocial risk factors and work impairment amongst workers seeking care for musculoskeletal pain while continuing to work. Methods: Patients were recruited from Musculoskeletal Assessment Clinics at 5 hospitals across Ireland. Participants completed questionnaires including assessments of work impairment (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire), work ability (single item from the Work Ability Index) and work performance (Work Role Functioning Questionnaire; WRFQ). Logistic and hierarchical regressions were conducted to analyse the relation between psychosocial variables and work outcomes. Results: 155 participants (53.5% female; mean age = 46.50 years) who were working at the time of assessment completed the questionnaires. Absenteeism was low, yet 62.6% were classified as functioning poorly according to the WRFQ; 52.3% reported having poor work ability. Logistic regression analyses indicated that higher work role functioning was associated with higher pain self-efficacy (OR 1.51); better work ability was associated with older age (OR 1.063) and lower functional restriction (OR 0.93); greater absenteeism was associated with lower pain self-efficacy (OR 0.65) and poorer work expectancy (OR 1.18). Multiple regression analysis indicated that greater presenteeism was associated with higher pain intensity (β = 0.259) and lower pain self-efficacy (β = − 0.385). Conclusions: While individuals continue to work with musculoskeletal pain, their work performance can be adversely affected. Interventions that target mutable factors, such as pain self-efficacy, may help reduce the likelihood of work impairment
    corecore