Implementation Of Electronic Medical Records: How Healthcare Providers Are Managing The Challenges Of Going Digital

Electronic medical records (EMRs) are the newest form of documenting a patient’s medical record.  An EMR is a system that contains a patient’s personal medical history, test results, dictations, and other medical and financial information.  EMRs will improve healthcare by enhancing patient care, preventative health, and provider convenience and is an extreme improvement to an already highly technological healthcare corporation.  The implementation ‘wave’ is not happening just because it is an improvement to healthcare, but it is also moving forward because it is required by the U.S. government.  President Obama recently employed a stimulus package that will assist healthcare establishments with startup of electronic medical records.  Along with the great improvements and advantages come inconveniences, challenges, and high costs.  For large hospitals, EMR deployments can cost the organization millions of dollars; hospitals can spend from $25,000 to$60,000 per physician to deploy a system.  EMR deployment is a public policy challenge with the federal government possibly spending more than $20 billion in stimulus funds to reimburse providers for EMR implementations.  EMR system implementations are like any business process reengineering project because they cause many challenges.  Employees are not always accepting of change and managing change effectively is critical to successful implementation of any new technology.  Additionally, new electronic technologies increase privacy issues while at the same time healthcare facilities are becoming stricter with confidentiality.  Electronic medical record implementation is complex, but the benefits of organization and improved healthcare outweigh the minor setbacks.  In this study, data was gathered from two healthcare facilities through interviews of the leaders of the EMR implementation process at each facility.  Trade journals and EMR vendor information was also explored.  The goal was to explore the phenomenon of the EMR implementation in this short term research project

The impact of HIPEC vs. EPIC for the treatment of mucinous appendiceal carcinoma: a study from the US HIPEC collaborative

Introduction Mucinous appendiceal carcinoma is a rare malignancy that commonly spreads to the peritoneum leading to peritoneal metastases. Complete cytoreduction with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (PIC) is the mainstay of treatment, administered as either hyperthermic intra peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) or early post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC). Our goal was to assess the perioperative and long term survival outcomes associated with these two PIC methods. Materials and methods Patients with mucinous appendiceal carcinoma were identified in the US HIPEC Collaborative database from 12 academic institutions. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and survival outcomes were compared among patients who underwent HIPEC vs. EPIC with inverse probability weighting (IPW) used for adjustment. Results Among 921 patients with mucinous appendiceal carcinoma, 9% underwent EPIC while 91% underwent HIPEC. There was no difference in Grade III–V complications between the two groups (18.5% for HIPEC vs. 15.0% for EPIC, p=.43) though patients who underwent HIPEC had higher rates of readmissions (21.2% vs. 8.8%, p<.01). Additionally, PIC method was not an independent predictor for overall survival (OS) or recurrence-free survival (RFS) after adjustment on multivariable analysis. Conclusions Among patients with mucinous appendiceal carcinoma, both EPIC and HIPEC appear to be associated with similar perioperative and long-term outcomes

Comparison of open and closed hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: Results from the United States hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy collaborative.

BackgroundCytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for peritoneal carcinomatosis can be performed in two ways: Open or closed abdominal technique.AimTo evaluate the impact of HIPEC method on post-operative and long-term survival outcomes.MethodsPatients undergoing CRS with HIPEC from 2000-2017 were identified in the United States HIPEC collaborative database. Post-operative, recurrence, and overall survival outcomes were compared between those who received open vs closed HIPEC.ResultsOf the 1812 patients undergoing curative-intent CRS and HIPEC, 372 (21%) patients underwent open HIPEC and 1440 (79%) underwent closed HIPEC. There was no difference in re-operation or severe complications between the two groups. Closed HIPEC had higher rates of 90-d readmission while open HIPEC had a higher rate of 90-d mortalities. On multi-variable analysis, closed HIPEC technique was not a significant predictor for overall survival (hazards ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.51-1.10, P = 0.14) or recurrence-free survival (hazards ratio: 1.39, 95% confidence interval: 1.00-1.93, P = 0.05) in the entire cohort. These findings remained consistent in the appendiceal and the colorectal subgroups.ConclusionIn this multi-institutional analysis, the HIPEC method was not independently associated with relevant post-operative or long-term outcomes. HIPEC technique may be left to the discretion of the operating surgeon

A novel preoperative risk score to optimize patient selection for performing concomitant liver resection with cytoreductive surgery/HIPEC

BackgroundWhile parenchymal hepatic metastases were previously considered a contraindication to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), liver resection (LR) is increasingly performed with CRS/HIPEC.MethodsPatients from the US HIPEC Collaborative (2000-2017) with invasive appendiceal or colorectal adenocarcinoma undergoing primary, curative intent CRS/HIPEC with CC0-1 resection were included. LR was defined as a formal parenchymal resection. Primary endpoints were postoperative complications and overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 658 patients were included. About 83 (15%) underwent LR of colorectal (58%) or invasive appendiceal (42%) metastases. LR patients had more complications (81% vs. 60%; p = .001), greater number of complications (2.3 vs. 1.5; p &lt; .001) per patient and required more reoperations (22%&nbsp;vs. 11%; p = .007) and readmissions (39% vs. 25%; p = .014) than non-LR patients. LR patients had decreased OS&nbsp;(2-year OS 62% vs. 79%, p &lt; .001), even when accounting for peritoneal carcinomatosis index and histology type. Preoperative factors associated with decreased OS on multivariable analysis in LR patients included age &lt; 60 years&nbsp;(HR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.10-11.81), colorectal histology (HR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.69-12.65), and multiple liver tumors (HR, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.21-9.85) (all p &lt; .05). When assigning one point for each factor, there was an incremental decrease in 2-year survival as the risk score increased from 0 to 3 (0: 100%; 1: 91%; 2: 58%; 3: 0%).ConclusionsAs CRS/HIPEC + LR has become more common, we created a simple risk score to stratify patients considered for CRS/HIPEC + LR. These data aid in striking the balance between an increased perioperative complication profile with the potential for improvement in OS

Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on the Outcomes of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Review.

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is associated with improved survival for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CR-PM). However, the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to CRS-HIPEC is poorly understood. A retrospective review of adult patients with CR-PM who underwent CRS+/-HIPEC from 2000-2017 was performed. Among 298 patients who underwent CRS+/-HIPEC, 196 (65.8%) received NAC while 102 (34.2%) underwent surgery first (SF). Patients who received NAC had lower peritoneal cancer index score (12.1 + 7.9 vs. 14.3 + 8.5, p = 0.034). There was no significant difference in grade III/IV complications (22.4% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.650), readmission (32.3% vs. 23.5%, p = 0.114), or 30-day mortality (1.5% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.411) between groups. NAC patients experienced longer overall survival (OS) (median 32.7 vs. 22.0 months, p = 0.044) but similar recurrence-free survival (RFS) (median 13.8 vs. 13.0 months, p = 0.456). After controlling for confounding factors, NAC was not independently associated with improved OS (OR 0.80) or RFS (OR 1.04). Among patients who underwent CRS+/-HIPEC for CR-PM, the use of NAC was associated with improved OS that did not persist on multivariable analysis. However, NAC prior to CRS+/-HIPEC was a safe and feasible strategy for CR-PM, which may aid in the appropriate selection of patients for aggressive cytoreductive surgery

Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on the Outcomes of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Review.

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is associated with improved survival for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CR-PM). However, the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to CRS-HIPEC is poorly understood. A retrospective review of adult patients with CR-PM who underwent CRS+/-HIPEC from 2000-2017 was performed. Among 298 patients who underwent CRS+/-HIPEC, 196 (65.8%) received NAC while 102 (34.2%) underwent surgery first (SF). Patients who received NAC had lower peritoneal cancer index score (12.1 + 7.9 vs. 14.3 + 8.5, p = 0.034). There was no significant difference in grade III/IV complications (22.4% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.650), readmission (32.3% vs. 23.5%, p = 0.114), or 30-day mortality (1.5% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.411) between groups. NAC patients experienced longer overall survival (OS) (median 32.7 vs. 22.0 months, p = 0.044) but similar recurrence-free survival (RFS) (median 13.8 vs. 13.0 months, p = 0.456). After controlling for confounding factors, NAC was not independently associated with improved OS (OR 0.80) or RFS (OR 1.04). Among patients who underwent CRS+/-HIPEC for CR-PM, the use of NAC was associated with improved OS that did not persist on multivariable analysis. However, NAC prior to CRS+/-HIPEC was a safe and feasible strategy for CR-PM, which may aid in the appropriate selection of patients for aggressive cytoreductive surgery

Implications of Postoperative Complications for Survival After Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of the US HIPEC Collaborative

BackgroundPostoperative complications (POCs) are associated with worse oncologic outcomes in various cancer histologies. The impact of POCs on the&nbsp;survival&nbsp;of patients with&nbsp;appendiceal or colorectal cancer after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is unknown.MethodsThe US HIPEC Collaborative (2000-2017) was reviewed for patients who underwent CCR0/1 CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal/colorectal cancer. The analysis was stratified by noninvasive appendiceal neoplasm versus invasive appendiceal/colorectal adenocarcinoma. The POCs were grouped into infectious, cardiopulmonary, thromboembolic, and intestinal dysmotility. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS).ResultsOf the 1304 patients, 33% had noninvasive appendiceal neoplasm (n = 426), and 67% had invasive appendiceal/colorectal adenocarcinoma (n = 878). In the noninvasive appendiceal cohort, POCs were identified in 55% of the patients (n = 233). The 3-year OS and RFS did not differ between the patients who experienced a complication and those who did not (OS, 94% vs 94%, p = 0.26; RFS, 68% vs 60%, p = 0.15). In the invasive appendiceal/colorectal adenocarcinoma cohort, however, POCs (63%; n = 555) were associated with decreased 3-year OS (59% vs 74%; p &lt; 0.001) and RFS (32% vs 42%; p &lt; 0.001). Infectious POCs were the most common (35%; n = 196). In Multivariable analysis accounting for gender, peritoneal cancer index (PCI), and incomplete resection (CCR1), infectious POCs in particular were associated with decreased OS compared with no complication (hazard ratio [HR] 2.08; p &lt; 0.01) or other types of complications (HR, 1.6; p &lt; 0.01). Similarly, infectious POCs were independently associated with worse RFS (HR 1.61; p &lt; 0.01).ConclusionPostoperative complications are associated with decreased OS and RFS after CRS/HIPEC for invasive histology, but not for an indolent disease such as noninvasive appendiceal neoplasm, and this association is largely driven by infectious complications. The exact mechanism is unknown, but may be immunologic. Efforts must target best practices and standardized prevention strategies to minimize infectious postoperative complications