Preoperative functional status is a risk factor for developing postoperative complications (POC) in major abdominal and thoracic surgery, but this has hardly been evaluated in esophageal cancer patients undergoing esophagectomy. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to determine if preoperative functional status in esophageal cancer patients is associated with POC. From March 2012 to October 2014, esophageal cancer patients scheduled for esophagectomy at the outpatient clinic of a large tertiary referral center were eligible for the study. We measured inspiratory muscle strength, hand grip strength, physical activities, and health related quality of life as indicators of functional status one day before surgery. POC were scored according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification. We used univariate and multivariate backward regression analysis to determine the association between functional status and POC. We included 94 patients in the study and esophagectomy was performed in 90 patients from which 55 developed POC (61.1%). After multivariate analysis, none of the indicators of preoperative functional status were independently associated with POC (inspiratory muscle strength [OR 1.00; P = 0.779], hand grip strength [OR 0.99; P = 0.250], physical activities [OR 1.00; P = 0.174], and health related quality of life [OR 1.02; P = 0.222]). We concluded that preoperative functional status in our study cohort is not associated with POC after esophagectomy.
BACKGROUND: One-third of all medication errors causing harm to hospitalized patients occur in the medication preparation and administration phase, which is predominantly a nursing activity. To monitor, evaluate and improve the quality and safety of this process, evidence-based quality indicators can be used.OBJECTIVES: The aim of study was to identify evidence-based quality indicators (structure, process and outcome) for safe in-hospital medication preparation and administration.METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for relevant studies published up to January 2015. Additionally, nine databases were searched to identify relevant grey literature. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the method for quality indicator development combined a literature search with expert panel opinion, (2) the study contained quality indicators on medication safety, and (3) any of the quality indicators were applicable to hospital medication preparation and administration. A multidisciplinary team appraised the studies independently using the AIRE instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. Quality indicators applicable to in-hospital medication preparation and administration were extracted using a structured form.RESULTS: The search identified 1683 studies, of which 64 were reviewed in detail and five met the inclusion criteria. Overall, according to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose; most of them applied stakeholder involvement and used evidence reasonably; usage of the indicator in practice was scarcely described. A total of 21 quality indicators were identified: 5 structure indicators (e.g. safety management and high alert medication), 11 process indicators (e.g. verification and protocols) and 5 outcome indicators (e.g. harm and death). These quality indicators partially cover the 7 rights.CONCLUSION: Despite the relatively small number of included studies, the identified quality indicators can serve as an excellent starting point for further development of nursing specific quality indicators for medication safety. Especially on the right patient, right route, right time and right documentation there is room future development of quality indicators.
MULTIFILE
Background: Over the years, a plethora of frailty assessment tools has been developed. These instruments can be basically grouped into two types of conceptualizations – unidimensional, based on the physical–biological dimension – and multidimensional, based on the connections among the physical, psychological, and social domains. At present, studies on the comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures are limited. Objective: The aims of this paper were: 1) to compare the prevalence of frailty obtained using a uni- and a multidimensional measure; 2) to analyze differences in the functional status among individuals captured as frail or robust by the two measures; and 3) to investigate relations between the two frailty measures and disability.
