3 research outputs found
Opioids in advanced cancer: use, storage and disposal in the home
Objectives To determine the patterns of storing, using and disposing of opioids among patients with advanced cancer followed at home. Methods Patients who were prescribed opioids were selected. Prescribed opioids and their doses used for background pain and breakthrough pain were collected, as well as CAGE (cut down, annoyed, guilty and eye opener) for alcohol and drugs, smoking and history of illicit substance use. Questions regarding the opioid use, storage and disposal were posed. Results 100 patients were surveyed. Fifty-one patients had unused opioids at home, 25 patients did not throw away the drugs, 40 patients saved opioids for future use and 35 patients were unaware of proper opioid disposal methods. A total of 28 patients reported unsafe use by sharing or losing their opioids; 12 patients were unaware that their opioid could be fatal when taken by others. Most patients acknowledged that pain medications could be dangerous when taken by others. Patients with a partner and who were married were more likely to keep their opioids locked (p=0.028 and p=0.025, respectively). Conclusion A large number of patients with advanced cancer followed at home do not store, use and dispose of opioids safely. Patient education programmes should be incorporated to decrease the availability of opioids at home for abuse, diversion, and accidental poisoning
Surgeons’ practice and preferences for the anal fissure treatment: results from an international survey
The best nonoperative or operative anal fissure (AF) treatment is not yet established, and several options have been proposed. Aim is to report the surgeons' practice for the AF treatment. Thirty-four multiple-choice questions were developed. Seven questions were about to participants' demographics and, 27 questions about their clinical practice. Based on the specialty (general surgeon and colorectal surgeon), obtained data were divided and compared between two groups. Five-hundred surgeons were included (321 general and 179 colorectal surgeons). For both groups, duration of symptoms for at least 6 weeks is the most important factor for AF diagnosis (30.6%). Type of AF (acute vs chronic) is the most important factor which guide the therapeutic plan (44.4%). The first treatment of choice for acute AF is ointment application for both groups (59.6%). For the treatment of chronic AF, this data is confirmed by colorectal surgeons (57%), but not by the general surgeons who prefer the lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) (31.8%) (p = 0.0001). Botulin toxin injection is most performed by colorectal surgeons (58.7%) in comparison to general surgeons (20.9%) (p = 0.0001). Anal flap is mostly performed by colorectal surgeons (37.4%) in comparison to general surgeons (28.3%) (p = 0.0001). Fissurectomy alone is statistically significantly most performed by general surgeons in comparison to colorectal surgeons (57.9% and 43.6%, respectively) (p = 0.0020). This analysis provides useful information about the clinical practice for the management of a debated topic such as AF treatment. Shared guidelines and consensus especially focused on operative management are required to standardize the treatment and to improve postoperative results
Delayed colorectal cancer care during covid-19 pandemic (decor-19). Global perspective from an international survey
Background
The widespread nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been unprecedented. We sought to analyze its global impact with a survey on colorectal cancer (CRC) care during the pandemic.
Methods
The impact of COVID-19 on preoperative assessment, elective surgery, and postoperative management of CRC patients was explored by a 35-item survey, which was distributed worldwide to members of surgical societies with an interest in CRC care. Respondents were divided into two comparator groups: 1) ‘delay’ group: CRC care affected by the pandemic; 2) ‘no delay’ group: unaltered CRC practice.
Results
A total of 1,051 respondents from 84 countries completed the survey. No substantial differences in demographics were found between the ‘delay’ (745, 70.9%) and ‘no delay’ (306, 29.1%) groups. Suspension of multidisciplinary team meetings, staff members quarantined or relocated to COVID-19 units, units fully dedicated to COVID-19 care, personal protective equipment not readily available were factors significantly associated to delays in endoscopy, radiology, surgery, histopathology and prolonged chemoradiation therapy-to-surgery intervals. In the ‘delay’ group, 48.9% of respondents reported a change in the initial surgical plan and 26.3% reported a shift from elective to urgent operations. Recovery of CRC care was associated with the status of the outbreak. Practicing in COVID-free units, no change in operative slots and staff members not relocated to COVID-19 units were statistically associated with unaltered CRC care in the ‘no delay’ group, while the geographical distribution was not.
Conclusions
Global changes in diagnostic and therapeutic CRC practices were evident. Changes were associated with differences in health-care delivery systems, hospital’s preparedness, resources availability, and local COVID-19 prevalence rather than geographical factors. Strategic planning is required to optimize CRC care