Background Over fifty million people reside in rural America. However, the impact of patient rurality on colon cancer care has been incompletely characterized, despite its known impact on screening. Objective Our study sought to examine the impact of patient rurality on quality and comprehensive colon cancer care. Design Using the 1996–2008 California Cancer Registry, we constructed a retrospective cohort of 123,129 patients with stage 0–IV colon cancer. Rural residence was established based on the patient’s medical service study area designated by the registry. Patients All patients diagnosed between 1996–2008 with tumors located in the colon were eligible for inclusion in this study. Main Outcome Measures Baseline characteristics were compared by rurality status. Multivariate regression models then were used to examine the impact of rurality on stage in the entire cohort, adequate lymphadenectomy in stage I–III disease and receipt of chemotherapy for stage III disease. Proportional hazards regression was used to examine the impact of rurality on cancer specific survival. Results Of all patients diagnosed with colon cancer, 18,735 (15%) resided in rural areas. Our multivariate models demonstrate that rurality was associated with later stage of diagnosis, inadequate lymphadenectomy in stage I–III disease and lower likelihood of receiving chemotherapy for stage III disease. In addition, rurality was associated with worse cancer specific survival. Limitations We could not account for socioeconomic status directly, though we used insurance status as one surrogate. Furthermore, we did not have access to treatment location or distance traveled. We also could not account for provider or hospital case volume, patient comorbidities nor complications. Conclusions A significant portion of patients treated for colon cancer live in rural areas. Yet, rural residence is associated with modest differences in stage, adherence to quality measures and survival. Future endeavors should help improve care to this vulnerable population (see SDC1: video abstract).
Introduction. Although residents frequently lead end-of-life (EOL) discussions in the intensive care unit (ICU), training in EOL care during residency has been required only recently, and few educational interventions target EOL communication in the ICU. This study evaluated a simulation-based intervention designed to improve resident EOL communication skills with families in the ICU. Methods. Thirty-four second-year internal medicine residents at a large urban teaching hospital participated in small group sessions with faculty trained in the “VitalTalk” method. A Likert-type scale questionnaire measured self-assessed preparedness before, immediately following, and approximately 9 months after intervention. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank-sum analysis. Results. Self-assessed preparedness significantly improved for all categories surveyed (preintervention mean; postintervention mean; p value), including discussing bad news (3.3; 4.2; p < 0.01), conducting a family conference (3.1; 4.1; p < 0.01), discussing treatment options (3.2; 3.9; p < 0.01), discussing discontinuing ICU treatments (2.9; 3.5; p < 0.01), and expressing empathy (3.9; 4.5; p < 0.01). Improvement persisted at follow-up for all items except “expressing empathy.” Residents rated the educational quality highly. Conclusion. This study provides evidence that brief simulation-based interventions can produce lasting improvements in residents' confidence to discuss EOL care with family members of patients in the ICU.
In a large teaching hospital system, the overall rate of clinically relevant complications detected on chest radiographs following ultrasound-guided right internal jugular vein catheterization is exceedingly low. Routine chest radiograph after this common procedure is an unnecessary use of resources and may delay resuscitation of critically ill patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.