Purpose: This research aimed to explore factors associated with patient-reported breast and abdominal scar quality after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction (BR). Material and Methods: This study was designed as a descriptive cross-sectional survey in which women after DIEP flap BR were invited to complete an online survey on breast and abdominal scarring. The online survey was distributed in the Netherlands in several ways in order to reach a diverse population of women. Outcomes were assessed with the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Additional items were assessed with a numeric rating scale (NRS). Results: A total of 248 women completed the survey. There was a statistically significant worse POSAS scar appraisal for the abdominal scar compared with the breast scar. The vast majority of women reported high scores on at least one scar characteristic of their breast scar or ab- dominal scar. Overall, color, stiffness, thickness, and irregularity scored higher than pain and itching. Women were only moderately positive about the size, noticeability, location, and the information provided regarding scarring. Conclusion: It is crucial to address the inevitability of scars in patient education before a DIEP flap BR, with a particular focus on the abdominal scar, as women experience abdominal scars significantly worse than their breast scars. Providing more information on the experience of other women and the expected appearance will contribute to having realistic expectations while allowing them to make well-informed decisions.
DOCUMENT
A model for programmatic assessment in action is proposed that optimizes assessment for learning as well as decision making on learner progress. It is based on a set of assessment principles that are interpreted from empirical research. The model specifies cycles of training, assessment and learner support activities that are completed by intermediate and final moments of evaluation on aggregated data-points. Essential is that individual data-points are maximized for their learning and feedback value, whereas high stake decisions are based on the aggregation of many data-points. Expert judgment plays an important role in the program. Fundamental is the notion of sampling and bias reduction for dealing with subjectivity. Bias reduction is sought in procedural assessment strategies that are derived from qualitative research criteria. A number of challenges and opportunities are discussed around the proposed model. One of the virtues would be to move beyond the dominating psychometric discourse around individual instruments towards a systems approach of assessment design based on empirically grounded theory.
MULTIFILE
BackgroundEarly structured mobilization has become a key element of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs to improve patient outcomes and decrease length of hospital stay. With the intention to assess and improve early mobilization levels, the 8-point ordinal John Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility (JH-HLM) scale was implemented at two gastrointestinal and oncological surgery wards in the Netherlands. After the implementation, however, healthcare professionals perceived a ceiling effect in assessing mobilization after gastrointestinal and oncological surgery. This study aimed to quantify this perceived ceiling effect, and aimed to determine if extending the JH-HLM scale with four additional response categories into the AMsterdam UMC EXtension of the JOhn HOpkins Highest Level of mObility (AMEXO) scale reduced this ceiling effect.MethodsAll patients who underwent gastrointestinal and oncological surgery and had a mobility score on the first postoperative day before (July–December 2018) or after (July–December 2019) extending the JH-HLM into the AMEXO scale were included. The primary outcome was the before-after difference in the percentage of ceiling effects on the first three postoperative days. Furthermore, the before-after changes and distributions in mobility scores were evaluated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to assess these differences.Results Overall, 373 patients were included (JH-HLM n = 135; AMEXO n = 238). On the first postoperative day, 61 (45.2%) patients scored the highest possible mobility score before extending the JH-HLM into the AMEXO as compared to 4 (1.7%) patients after (OR = 0.021, CI = 0.007–0.059, p ConclusionsA substantial ceiling effect was present in assessing early mobilization in patients after gastrointestinal and oncological surgery using the JH-HLM. Extending the JH-HLM into the AMEXO scale decreased the ceiling effect significantly, making the tool more appropriate to assess early mobilization and set daily mobilization goals after gastrointestinal and oncological surgery.
MULTIFILE
