BACKGROUND: An early return to normal intake and early mobilization enhances postoperative recovery. However, one out of six surgical patients is undernourished during hospitalization and approximately half of the patients eat 50% or less of the food provided to them. We assessed the use of newly introduced breakfast buffets in two wards for gastrointestinal and oncological surgery and determined the impact on postoperative protein and energy intake.METHODS: A prospective pilot cohort study was conducted to assess the impact of the introduction of breakfast buffets in two surgical wards. Adult patients had the opportunity to choose between an attractive breakfast buffet and regular bedside breakfast service. Primary outcomes were protein and energy intake during breakfast. We asked patients to report the type of breakfast service and breakfast intake in a diary over a seven-day period. Prognostic factors were used during multivariable regression analysis.RESULTS: A total of 77 patients were included. The median percentage of buffet use per patient during the seven-day study period was 50% (IQR 0-83). Mean protein intake was 14.7 g (SD 8.4) and mean energy intake 332.3 kcal (SD 156.9). Predictors for higher protein intake included the use of the breakfast buffet (β = 0.06, p = 0.01) and patient weight (β = 0.13, p = 0.01). Both use of the breakfast buffet (β = 1.00, p = 0.02) and Delirium Observation Scale scores (β = -246.29, p = 0.02) were related to higher energy intake.CONCLUSION: Introduction of a breakfast buffet on a surgical ward was associated with higher protein and energy intake and it could be a promising approach to optimizing such intake in surgical patients. Large, prospective and preferably randomized studies should confirm these findings.
Background: There is a lack of evidence regarding the relationship between family involvement and outcomes in gastrointestinal oncology patients after surgery. To evaluate the effect of a family involvement program for patients undergoing oncologic gastrointestinal surgery on unplanned readmissions within 30 days after surgery. Methods: A multicenter patient-preference cohort study compared 2 groups: patients who participated in the family involvement program versus usual care. The program comprised involvement of family caregivers in care and training of health care professionals in family-centered care. Multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate the effect of the FIP on the number of unplanned readmissions up to 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included complications sensitive to fundamental care activities, emergency department visits, intensive care unit admissions, hospital length of stay, and the need for professional home care after discharge. Results: Of the 301 patients included, 152 chose the family involvement program, and 149 chose usual care. Postoperative readmissions occurred in 25 (16.4%) patients in the family involvement program group, and 15 (10.1%) in the usual care group (P = .11). A significant reduction of 16.2% was observed in the need for professional home care after discharge in the family involvement program group (P < .01). No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in the other secondary outcomes. Conclusion: The family involvement program did not reduce the number of unplanned readmissions, but it led to a substantial reduction in-home care, which suggests an economic benefit from a societal perspective. Implementation of the family involvement program should, therefore, be considered in clinical practice.
MULTIFILE
This study investigates patients' access to surgical care for burns in a low- and middle-income setting by studying timeliness, surgical capacity, and affordability. A survey was conducted in a regional referral hospital in Manyara, Tanzania. In total, 67 patients were included. To obtain information on burn victims in need of surgical care, irrespective of time lapsed from the burn injury, both patients with burn wounds and patients with contractures were included. Information provided by patients and/or caregivers was supplemented with data from patient files and interviews with hospital administration and physicians. In the burn wound group, 50% reached a facility within 24 hours after the injury. Referrals from other health facilities to the regional referral hospital were made within 3 weeks for 74% in this group. Of contracture patients, 74% had sought healthcare after the acute burn injury. Of the same group, only 4% had been treated with skin grafts beforehand, and 70% never received surgical care or a referral. Together, both groups indicated that lack of trust, surgical capacity, and referral timeliness were important factors negatively affecting patient access to surgical care. Accounting for hospital fees indicated patients routinely exceeded the catastrophic expenditure threshold. It was determined that healthcare for burn victims is without financial risk protection. We recommend strengthening burn care and reconstructive surgical programs in similar settings, using a more comprehensive health systems approach to identify and address both medical and socioeconomic factors that determine patient mortality and disability.
