Previous studies of patient experience with bowel screening tests, in particular CT colonography (CTC), have superimposed global rating scales and not explored individual experience in detail. To redress this, we performed qualitative interviews in order to characterize patient expectations and experiences in depth. Following ethical permission, 16 patients undergoing CTC, 18 undergoing colonoscopy and 15 undergoing barium enema agreed to a semi-structured interview by a health psychologist. Interviews were recorded, responses transcribed and themes extracted with the aim of assimilating individual experiences to facilitate subsequent development and interpretation of quantitative surveys of overall satisfaction with each diagnostic test. Transcript analysis identified three principal themes: physical sensations, social interactions and information provision. Physical sensations differed for each test but were surprisingly well tolerated overall. Social interactions with staff were perceived as very important in colouring the whole experience, particularly in controlling the feelings of embarrassment, which was critical for all procedures. Information provision was also an important determinant of experience. Verbal feedback was most common during colonoscopy and invariably reassuring. However, patients undergoing CTC received little visual or verbal feedback and were often confused regarding the test outcome. Barium enema had no specific advantage over other tests. Qualitative interviews provided important perspectives on patient experience. Our data demonstrated that models describing the quality of medical encounters are applicable to single diagnostic episodes. Staff interactions and information provision were particularly important. We found advantages specific to both CTC and colonoscopy but none for barium enema. CTC could benefit greatly from improved information provision following examination.
BackgroundColorectal cancer remains a common cause of cancer death in the UK, with surgery being the mainstay of treatment. An objective measurement of the suitability of each patient for surgery, and their risk–benefit calculation, would be of great utility. We postulate that sarcopenia (low muscle mass) could fulfil this role as a prognostic indicator. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between sarcopenia and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing elective bowel resection for colorectal cancer.MethodsOne hundred and sixty-three consecutive patients who had elective curative colorectal resection for cancer were eligible for inclusion in the study. Psoas muscle mass was assessed on preoperative computed tomography scan at the level of the L3 vertebra and standardised for patient height (total psoas index, TPI). Sarcopenia (low muscle mass) was defined as < 524 mm2/m2 in males and 385 mm2/m2 in females. In addition to clinical–pathological parameters, postoperative complications were recorded and patients were followed up for mortality for 1 year after surgery.ResultsSarcopenia was present in 19.6% of the study participants and was significantly related to body mass index (p = 0.007), 30-day mortality (p = 0.042) and 1-year mortality (p = 0.046). In univariate analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (p = 0.016), tumour stage (p = 0.018) and sarcopenia (p = 0.043) were found to be significant independent predictors of 1-year mortality.ConclusionsThis study has found sarcopenia to be prevalent in patients with colorectal cancer having elective surgery. Independent of age, sarcopenia was associated with poorer 30-day mortality and survival at 1 year. Measurement of muscle mass preoperatively could be used to stratify a patient’s risk, allowing targeted strategies such as prehabilitation, to be implemented to modify sarcopenia and improve long-term outcomes for patients.
Emergency cholecystectomy is less costly and more effective than delayed cholecystectomy. This approach is likely to be beneficial to patients in terms of improved health outcomes and to the healthcare provider owing to the reduced costs.
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.