49
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Delivering safe and timely cancer care during COVID‐19: lessons and successes from the transition period

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The pandemic caused by COVID‐19 has caused significant strain on healthcare professionals across the globe. Without downplaying the devastating effects of the virus itself, the collateral damage, specifically in cancer care, has only compounded an already difficult time in medicine [1]. Previously protected by cancer treatment targets, cancer patients across the country found their care halted by coronavirus as hospitals cancelled elective clinics and operating lists to redeploy staff. Resources aside, a second challenge for those that continued with services was how to minimize the patient’s risk of spreading or contracting coronavirus. Almost half of patients with concurrent COVID‐19 infection experienced postoperative pulmonary complications, and so it is imperative that we shield our patients as best as we can [2]. At the Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, we implemented a number of steps to ensure both the safety of our patients and the care of our cancer patients in a difficult time. After the lifting of the first lockdown we registered the present audit to critique our outcomes in pelvic oncology in accordance with local governance protocols. Our renal cancer patients are referred to a local tertiary centre and therefore were not included in this audit. Like other centres, we utilized a local private hospital in order to deliver our elective surgical service. We acknowledge, however, that a key factor in our favour was the proximity of our local private Nuffield hospital (GN), which is directly connected to the primary trust day‐case operating theatres. From 6 April 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic, two Xi Da Vinci robots were relocated to GN which was to be used as a ‘COVID‐19‐clean’ site at which to deliver elective robotic surgery, alongside other procedures. Staff Staff to patient transmission was an acute concern throughout. To combat this, non‐surgeon staff were divided between the two sites, with those working at GN having a weekly PCR swab test. Results were available within 48–72 h. All theatre staff were dedicated to GN and did not work at the main hospital. Surgeons' work was divided, with a weekly alternating pattern of working at GN or at the main hospital site. All surgeons were also swabbed weekly on Fridays in preparation for their week at the ‘COVID‐19‐clean’ GN site. None of our staff members received positive swab results during this time. Outpatient Care All outpatient care was diverted to telephone consultations as of 23 March 2020. For those that required clinical examination or flexible cystoscopy, face‐to‐face review remained available, with staff wearing standard personal protective equipment (PPE). Patients attending appointments were advised to wait in their car before being contacted to attend the appointment, to reduce numbers in the department. Patients completed COVID‐19 screening questionnaires by telephone prior to attending, as well as a questionnaire on arrival. Face‐to‐face outpatient care took place in the urology centre, which has a separate entrance to the main hospital. Elective Care National guidelines were followed for patients, such as COVID‐19 symptom screening (by telephone and on arrival), two‐week isolation, and preoperative nasopharyngeal swabs within 72 h of surgery [3]. On admission each patient had a separate side room. Both morning and afternoon surgery patients were admitted at 08:00 h. No holding bay in theatre was used and patients were wheeled directly into theatre for their anaesthetic. As per Public Health England COVID‐19 infection control policy, minimal staff numbers were present in theatre and all theatre staff wore PPE for the duration of each procedure. Where appropriate, an airseal port confined carbon dioxide plume. As a tertiary robotic centre, our enhanced recovery pathway is well established and, where possible, we continued to adhere to it. Patients undergoing robot‐assisted radical cystectomy undertook prehabilitation to optimize cardiorespiratory function. Patients were optimized preoperatively, including management of anaemia and encouraging exercise. For stoma education a video was produced for patients who were unable to meet face to face with the stoma nurse preadmission. As standard, carbohydrate preload was given preoperatively, with early mobilization and removal of drains postoperatively in order to ensure a safe and timely discharge. To audit our outcomes we reviewed all operations performed from March to June 2020 and August to November 2019. This was registered as a local audit in accordance with local governance protocols. We also collected cancer targets data for bladder and prostate. Table 1 provides the operative and referral data for the aforementioned timelines. Table 1 Prostate and bladder referrals in the two audit periods Prostate August–November 2019 March–June 2020 P Number of referrals 150 79 Days to MRI Median 4 4.5 0.363 IQR 3–6 3–5 Time from referral to diagnosis, days Median 13 9 0.017 IQR 7–22 6.25–16.75 Bladder August–November 2019 March–June 2020 P Number of referrals 81 134 Days to OPA Median 8 7 0.013 IQR 7–10 4–8 Time to flexible cystoscopy, days Median 24 11 <0.001 IQR 20–28 8–16 IQR, interquartile range; OPA, outpatient appointment. A Mann–Whitney U‐test was used to compare means for bladder and prostate data. P values < 0.05 were taken to indicate statistical significance. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency. Prostate In total, we received 80 referrals for possible prostate malignancies between March and June 2020, and 150 between August and November 2019. The number of days to MRI was slightly reduced in March to June, but we did not find a statistical difference. We found a statistically significant decrease in the number of days it took for a patient to go from referral to diagnosis. Furthermore, we also improved on the proportion of patients who had their diagnosis told to them within 28 days, from 74% to 87%. Bladder In total, we received 134 referrals for possible bladder malignancies between March and June 2020, and 81 between August and November 2019. We improved on days to outpatient appointment (OPA) for patients and time to flexible cystoscopy, with both results carrying statistical significance; we were able to reduce time to OPA from 8 to 6 days, and time to flexible cystoscopy from 26 to 12 days. Discussion There were a total of 369 cancer operations performed at our trust between March and June 2020. These can be broken down into 120 robot‐assisted, 36 endoscopic cases and seven open surgeries. In addition, 106 biopsies were performed, and 100 patients had brachytherapy seeds implanted. To offer a comparison, in the same time frame from August until November 2019, we performed 407 cancer operations: 124 robot‐assisted, 24 endoscopic and six open surgeries. During that period, 117 patients had biopsies, and 136 had brachytherapy seeds implanted. Whilst we acknowledge that a comparison between March and June 2019 would have been preferable, the Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust formally opened its dedicated urology unit on 5 March 2019, offering both a dedicated brachytherapy theatre as well as additional outpatient capacity. It was felt that an audit that did not take into account the new facilities at their prime would not offer a fair comparison. No patient was readmitted with symptomatic COVID‐19 after discharge for elective surgery. Unfortunately, no data regarding COVID‐19 infection that did not result in admission are available, as widespread community testing was not available for the entirety of the period audited. Interestingly, there were significantly more bladder referrals during the 'COVID‐19' period, with the opposite true for prostate referrals. We do not yet have the data to establish how that compares with other centres. Regardless, there was a statistically significant reduction in the time from referral to diagnosis for prostate referrals, and a similar finding in reduction for days to OPA and time to flexible cystoscopy for bladder referrals. This is probably attributable to increased clinician availability for outpatient activity, due to limitation in the number of theatre lists dedicated to benign cases. At our trust, both flexible cystoscopy and prostate biopsies are performed under local anaesthetic in an outpatient setting. This would explain the reduction in time to diagnosis. We acknowledge that our cystectomy numbers did decrease during the COVID‐19 period. Whilst our ‘in‐house’ bladder cancer referrals for cystectomy did increase, the number from our feeding hospitals declined significantly. We did not explore our data for referrals from other hospitals but we can speculate that there were potentially delays in the 2‐week wait processing at these centres. It appears at the time of writing that we are now seeing a subsequent increase in referrals from these centres, likely to compensate for this. This retrospective study demonstrates that, with appropriate re‐allocation of resources, we can continue to safely meet cancer targets. Our findings reflect those published by Paramore et al. [4], who studied their cohort of 52 patients in a similar time frame. Similar findings were identified by the COVIDSurg collaborative [5]. That international multicentre paper also concluded that COVID‐19‐free surgical sites offered safer elective surgery. Our experience demonstrates that, by regular staff and patient testing, maintaining a ‘COVID‐19‐clean’ site for surgery, and utilising appropriate PPE, hospitals can continue to provide safe and timely care to their cancer patients. We understand that we were fortunate to be in such close proximity to a private hospital, but by early utilisation in a constantly changing environment we were able to uphold the high standards that we continuously strive for. As we head towards a second wave, it is more important than ever that cancer care continues throughout to prevent the very real risk of cancer patients becoming the second cohort of victims in this pandemic. Conflict of Interest None declared.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

          Summary Background The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 82·6% (219 of 265) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p<0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p<0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p<0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19–Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study

            As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Covid-19: Urgent cancer referrals fall by 60%, showing “brutal” impact of pandemic

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                jamal.dirie@nhs.net
                Journal
                BJU Int
                BJU Int
                10.1111/(ISSN)1464-410X
                BJU
                Bju International
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1464-4096
                1464-410X
                22 February 2021
                : 10.1111/bju.15343
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust Guildford UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence: Jamal Dirie, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK.

                e‐mail: jamal.dirie@ 123456nhs.net

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3783-8179
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2492-9637
                Article
                BJU15343
                10.1111/bju.15343
                8014448
                33474819
                fce0fa26-407a-4193-ba0b-be0b66726c5f
                © 2021 The Authors BJU International © 2021 BJU International

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 1, Pages: 3, Words: 2635
                Categories
                Research Communication
                Research Communication
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                corrected-proof
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.1 mode:remove_FC converted:01.04.2021

                Urology
                Urology

                Comments

                Comment on this article