Introduction Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard treatment for patients with non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer, as well as for patients with therapy refractory high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. However, 50–65% of patients undergoing RC experience perioperative complications. The risk, severity and impact of these complications is associated with a patient’s preoperative cardiorespiratory fitness, nutritional and smoking status and presence of anxiety and depression. There is emerging evidence supporting multimodal prehabilitation as a strategy to reduce the risk of complications and improve functional recovery after major cancer surgery. However, for bladder cancer the evidence is still limited. The aim of this study is to investigate the superiority of a multimodal prehabilitation programme versus standard-of-care in terms of reducing perioperative complications in patients with bladder cancer undergoing RC.Methods and analysis This multicentre, open label, prospective, randomised controlled trial, will include 154 patients with bladder cancer undergoing RC. Patients are recruited from eight hospitals in The Netherlands and will be randomly (1:1) allocated to the intervention group receiving a structured multimodal prehabilitation programme of approximately 3–6 weeks, or to the control group receiving standard-of-care. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who develop one or more grade ≥2 complications (according to the Clavien-Dindo classification) within 90 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes include cardiorespiratory fitness, length of hospital stay, health-related quality of life, tumour tissue biomarkers of hypoxia, immune cell infiltration and cost-effectiveness. Data collection will take place at baseline, before surgery and 4 and 12 weeks after surgery.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Medical Ethics Committee NedMec (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) under reference number 22–595/NL78792.031.22. Results of the study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT05480735.
Background: The increasing numbers of surgeries involving high risk, multi-morbid patients, coupled with inconsistencies in the practice of perioperative surgical wound care, increases patients’ risk of surgical site infection and other wound complications. Objectives: To synthesise and evaluate the recommendations for nursing practice and research from published systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library on nurse-led preoperative prophylaxis and postoperative surgical wound care interventions used or initiated by nurses. Design: Meta-review, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data sources: The Cochrane Library database. Review methods: All Cochrane Systematic Reviews were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected the reviews and extracted data. One reviewer appraised the methodological quality of the included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 checklist. A second reviewer independently verified these appraisals. The review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Results: Twenty-two Cochrane reviews met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 reviews focused on preoperative interventions to prevent infection, while 12 focused on postoperative interventions (one review assessed both pre-postoperative interventions). Across all reviews, 14 (63.6%) made at least one recommendation to undertake a specific practice, while two reviews (9.1%) made at least one specific recommendation not to undertake a practice. In relation to recommendations for further research, insufficient sample size was the most predominant methodological issue (12/22) identified across reviews. Conclusions: The limited number of recommendations for pre-and-postoperative interventions reflects the paucity of high-quality evidence, suggesting a need for rigorous trials to address these evidence gaps in fundamentals of nursing care.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic taught us how to rethink care delivery. It catalyzed creative solutions to amplify the potential of personnel and facilities. This paper presents and evaluates a promptly introduced triaging solution that evolved into a tool to tackle the ever-growing waiting lists at an academic ophthalmology department, the TeleTriageTeam (TTT). A team of undergraduate optometry students, tutor optometrists, and ophthalmologists collaborate to maintain continuity of eye care. In this ongoing project, we combine innovative interprofessional task allocation, teaching, and remote care delivery. Objective: In this paper, we described a novel approach, the TTT; reported its clinical effectiveness and impact on waiting lists; and discussed its transformation to a sustainable method for delivering remote eye care. Methods: Real-world clinical data of all patients assessed by the TTT between April 16, 2020, and December 31, 2021, are covered in this paper. Business data on waiting lists and patient portal access were collected from the capacity management team and IT department of our hospital. Interim analyses were performed at different time points during the project, and this study presents a synthesis of these analyses. Results: A total of 3658 cases were assessed by the TTT. For approximately half (1789/3658, 48.91%) of the assessed cases, an alternative to a conventional face-to-face consultation was found. The waiting lists that had built up during the first months of the pandemic diminished and have been stable since the end of 2020, even during periods of imposed lockdown restrictions and reduced capacity. Patient portal access decreased with age, and patients who were invited to perform a remote, web-based eye test at home were on average younger than patients who were not invited. Conclusions: Our promptly introduced approach to remotely review cases and prioritize urgency has been successful in maintaining continuity of care and education throughout the pandemic and has evolved into a telemedicine service that is of great interest for future purposes, especially in the routine follow-up of patients with chronic diseases. TTT appears to be a potentially preferred practice in other clinics and medical specialties. The paradox is that judicious clinical decision-making based on remotely collected data is possible, only if we as caregivers are willing to change our routines and cognitions regarding face-to-face care delivery.
LINK
