Search

Introduction: For adequate pain treatment in patients with cancer, it is important to monitor and evaluate pain regularly. Although the numeric rating scale (NRS) is implemented in hospitals in the Netherlands, pain is still not systematically registered during outpatient consultations. The aim of this study was to assess whether home telemonitoring increases pain registration in medical records of outpatients with cancer. Methods: Patients with cancer were included in the intervention group (IG) when they visited the outpatient clinic. They received a short message service and an interactive voice response on their mobile phones 3 times a week, asking them to provide their pain score (NRS). When the reported NRS pain score was ≥5, a specialized oncology nurse adapted the pain treatment when necessary. Outcomes were compared to a control group (CG) without home telemonitoring. In both groups, medical records were analyzed and data on pain and analgesics were collected. Results: In each group, the medical records of 54 patients were analyzed on 3 consecutive outpatient visits. In the CG, pain registration or its absence was described in 60 visits (37.0%). In the IG, pain registration or its absence was reported in 83 visits (51.2%). Patients in the IG received a prescription for analgesics significantly more often (36/54 patients [66.6%]) than did patients in the CG (18/54 patients [33.3%]), P < 0.01). Conclusion: Home telemonitoring for patients with cancer significantly increases registration of pain and prescriptions of analgesics in outpatient medical records. Home telemonitoring helps to increase the awareness of pain and its management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Iatrogenic bile duct injury remains a current complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. One uniform and standardized protocol, based on the “critical view of safety” concept of Strasberg, should reduce the incidence of this complication. Furthermore, owing to the rapid development of minimally invasive surgery, technicians are becoming more frequently involved. To improve communication between the operating team and technicians, standardized actions should also be defined. The aim of this study was to compare existing protocols for laparoscopic cholecystectomy from various Dutch hospitals. Fifteen Dutch hospitals were contacted for evaluation of their protocols for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. All evaluated protocols were divided into six steps and were compared accordingly. In total, 13 hospitals responded—5 academic hospitals, 5 teaching hospitals, 3 community hospitals—of which 10 protocols were usable for comparison. Concerning the trocar positions, only minor differences were found. The concept of “critical view of safety” was represented in just one protocol. Furthermore, the order of clipping and cutting the cystic artery and duct differed. Descriptions of instruments and apparatus were also inconsistent. Present protocols differ too much to define a universal procedure among surgeons in The Netherlands. The authors propose one (inter)national standardized protocol, including standardized actions. This uniform standardized protocol has to be officially released and recommended by national scientific associations (e.g., the Dutch Society of Surgery) or international societies (e.g., European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons). The aim is to improve patient safety and professional communication, which are necessary for new developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]