Background A barrier to routine preoperative frailty assessment is the large number of frailty instruments described. Previous systematic reviews estimate the association of frailty with outcomes, but none have evaluated outcomes at the individual instrument level or specific to clinical assessment of frailty, which must combine accuracy with feasibility to support clinical practice. Methods The authors conducted a preregistered systematic review (CRD42019107551) of studies prospectively applying a frailty instrument in a clinical setting before surgery. Medline, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane Library and the Comprehensive Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane databases were searched using a peer-reviewed strategy. All stages of the review were completed in duplicate. The primary outcome was mortality and secondary outcomes reflected routinely collected and patient-centered measures; feasibility measures were also collected. Effect estimates were pooled using random-effects models or narratively synthesized. Risk of bias was assessed. Results Seventy studies were included; 45 contributed to meta-analyses. Frailty was defined using 35 different instruments; five were meta-analyzed, with the Fried Phenotype having the largest number of studies. Most strongly associated with: mortality and nonfavorable discharge was the Clinical Frailty Scale (odds ratio, 4.89; 95% CI, 1.83 to 13.05 and odds ratio, 6.31; 95% CI, 4.00 to 9.94, respectively); complications was associated with the Edmonton Frail Scale (odds ratio, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.52 to 5.65); and delirium was associated with the Frailty Phenotype (odds ratio, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.75 to 8.22). The Clinical Frailty Scale had the highest reported measures of feasibility. Conclusions Clinicians should consider accuracy and feasibility when choosing a frailty instrument. Strong evidence in both domains support the Clinical Frailty Scale, while the Fried Phenotype may require a trade-off of accuracy with lower feasibility. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

Introduction Advance care planning is a means for patients to communicate their wishes, fears and desires for future health decisions should they lose the ability to consider or communicate these. Despite being supported by governments and healthcare leaders, uptake amongst the general population remains low. Nurses play a crucial role in promoting and engaging with these discussions given their close relationship with patients and families in a range of clinical settings. Aim To describe the barriers that nurses and healthcare professionals believe prevent them from exploring advance care planning with their patients. Method We carried out a systematic review of peer‐reviewed journal articles from the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science and ProQuest Central, guided by the PRISMA checklist. Results Eleven articles were identified: all were self‐reporting surveys using a mix of open and closed questions. They originated in the USA, Canada, Australia and Ireland. The participants included various healthcare professionals, with the majority of studies focussing on nurses. The two most important barriers to advance care planning are lack of education and insufficient time. Advance care planning appears to be well supported, and nurses and healthcare professionals report themselves to be comfortable and confident to take on the responsibility. Conclusion There is a need for greater education and training for nurses and healthcare professionals. In particular, there needs to be better understanding of professional and legal responsibilities. The need for sufficient time to be made available to allow these conversations, in often busy settings, will need institutional and financial support. Relevance to clinical practice Increased training and knowledge are likely to lead to more positive attitudes and greater confidence for nurses, and other healthcare professionals, which should help support and encourage patient engagement with advance care planning.

No abstract

BACKGROUND:The aims of this study were to provide data on the safety of head and neck cancer surgery currently being undertaken during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: This international, observational cohort study comprised 1137 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer undergoing primary surgery with curative intent in 26 countries. Factors associated with severe pulmonary complications in COVID-19-positive patients and infections in the surgical team were determined by univariate analysis. RESULTS: Among the 1137 patients, the commonest sites were the oral cavity (38%) and the thyroid (21%). For oropharynx and larynx tumors, nonsurgical therapy was favored in most cases. There was evidence of surgical de-escalation of neck management and reconstruction. Overall 30-day mortality was 1.2%. Twenty-nine patients (3%) tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within 30 days of surgery; 13 of these patients (44.8%) developed severe respiratory complications, and 3.51 (10.3%) died. There were significant correlations with an advanced tumor stage and admission to critical care. Members of the surgical team tested positive within 30 days of surgery in 40 cases (3%). There were significant associations with operations in which the patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 30 days, with a high community incidence of SARS-CoV-2, with screened patients, with oral tumor sites, and with tracheostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Head and neck cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era appears safe even when surgery is prolonged and complex. The overlap in COVID-19 between patients and members of the surgical team raises the suspicion of failures in cross-infection measures or the use of personal protective equipment. Cancer 2020;0:1-13.