Background: Our current treatment of an appendiceal mass is initially conservative, followed by an interval appendectomy. The necessity of this routine interval appendectomy is debatable. A study was conducted to evaluate whether surgical factors and pathological features of the excised appendices support interval appendectomy. Methods: We performed a retrospective study at the University Hospital Groningen and the Deventer Ziekenhuis. All patients diagnosed with an appendiceal mass in the period January 1991 to January 1997 were identified using the hospital database. The medical records of all these patients (n = 233, 108 M, 125 F) were reviewed. The clinical course of the appendiceal mass patients was split up into three distinct episodes: initial diagnosis and treatment of the appendiceal mass, the interval period and the interval appendectomy. Presenting symptoms, findings at clinical examination and additional imaging (ultrasound) were registered, as well as the course of the primary hospitalisation, the interval period, and the interval appendectomy. Results of histological examination of all resected specimens were reviewed. Results: It was found that clinical findings alone were not specific enough to diagnose an appendiceal mass; 47% had a palpable abdominal mass and the median temperature was 38.2°C ranging from 36 to 40.5°C. Ultrasound examination was done in 69% of patients and showed an appendiceal mass in 72%. During the interval period, 4 patients presented with an appendiceal mass needing drainage, and 3 with acute appendicitis requiring emergency appendectomy. At interval appendectomy, histological examination of resection specimen showed a normal appendix without signs of previous inflammation in 30% of cases. In addition, complications due to interval appendectomy were seen in 18% of patients, including sepsis, bowel perforation, small bowel ileus, and various wound abscesses. Conclusions: We conclude that when causes for the appendiceal mass other than appendicitis are excluded, interval appendectomy seems unnecessary in patients who respond well to initial conservative treatment.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to develop and validate the Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS), which aims to measure cancer patients' trust in their oncologist. Structure, reliability and validity were examined.MethodsConstruction of the TiOS was based on a multidimensional theoretical framework. Cancer patients were surveyed within a week after their consultation. Trust, satisfaction, trust in health care, self-reported health and background variables were assessed. Dimensionality, internal consistency, test–retest reliability and construct validity were investigated.ResultsData of 423 patients were included (response rate = 65%). After item reduction, the TiOS included 18 items. Trust scores were high. Exploratory factor analysis suggested one-dimensionality. Confirmatory factor analysis nevertheless indicated a reasonable fit of our four-dimensional theoretical model, distinguishing competence, fidelity, honesty and caring. Internal consistency and test–retest reliabilities were high. Good construct validity was indicated by moderate correlations of trust (TiOS) with satisfaction, trust in health care, willingness to recommend and number of consultations with the oncologist. Exploratory analyses suggested significant correlations of trust with ethnicity and age.ConclusionsThe TiOS reliably and validly assesses cancer patients' trust in their oncologist. The questionnaire can be employed in both clinical practice and future research of cancer patients' trust.

Background: Cancer patients need to trust their oncologist to embark in the process of oncologic treatment. Yet, it is unclear how oncologist communication contributes to such trust. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of three elements of oncologists' communication on cancer patients' trust: conferring competence, honesty, and caring.Methods: Eight videotaped consultations, 'vignettes', were created, reflecting an encounter between an oncologist and a patient with colorectal cancer. All vignettes were identical, except for small variations in the oncologist's verbal communication. Cancer patients (n = 345) were randomly assigned to viewing two vignettes, asked to identify with the patient and afterwards to rate their trust in the observed oncologist. The effects of competence, honesty, and caring on trust were established with multilevel analysis.Results: Oncologist's enhanced expression of competence ( β = 0.17, 95% CI 0.08, 0.27; P < 0.001), honesty ( β = 0.30, 95% CI 0.20, 0.40; P < 0.001), as well as caring ( β = 0.36, 95% CI 0.26, 0.46; P < 0.001) resulted in significantly increased trust. Communication of honesty and caring also increased patients' expectation of operation success and reported willingness to recommend the oncologist. Conclusion(s):As hypothesized, oncologists can influence their patients' trust by enhanced conveyance of their level of competence, honesty, and caring. Caring behavior has the strongest impact on trust. These findings can be translated directly into daily clinical practice as well as in communication skills training.

Use of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands is safe and results are better in short-term outcome than open surgery, irrespective of the hospital of treatment. Outcome after conversion was similar to OR.

ObjectiveTo identify, on the basis of past performance, those hospitals that demonstrate good outcomes in sufficient numbers to make it likely that they will provide adequate quality of care in the future, using a combined measure of volume and outcome (CM-V&O). To compare this CM-V&O with measures using outcome-only (O-O) or volume-only (V-O), and verify 2010-quality of care assessment on 2011 data.DesignSecondary analysis of clinical audit data.SettingThe Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit database of 2010 and 2011, the Netherlands.Participants8911 patients (test population, treated in 2010) and 9212 patients (verification population, treated in 2011) who underwent a resection of primary colorectal cancer in 89 Dutch hospitals.Main Outcome MeasuresOutcome was measured by Observed/Expected (O/E) postoperative mortality and morbidity. CM-V&O states 2 criteria; 1) outcome is not significantly worse than average, and 2) outcome is significantly better than substandard, with ‘substandard care’ being defined as an unacceptably high O/E threshold for mortality and/or morbidity (which we set at 2 and 1.5 respectively).ResultsAverage mortality and morbidity in 2010 were 4.1 and 24.3% respectively. 84 (94%) hospitals performed ‘not worse than average’ for mortality, but only 21 (24%) of those were able to prove they were also ‘better than substandard’ (O/E<2). For morbidity, 42 hospitals (47%) met the CM-V&O. Morbidity in 2011 was significantly lower in these hospitals (19.8 vs. 22.8% p<0.01). No relationship was found between hospitals' 2010 performance on O-O en V-O, and the quality of their care in 2011.ConclusionCM-V&O for morbidity can be used to identify hospitals that provide adequate quality and is associated with better outcomes in the subsequent year.