No abstract

Objective: Interventions aimed at limiting opioid use are widespread. These are most often targeted toward prescribers or health systems. Patients’ perspectives are too often absent during the creation of such interventions. This qualitative study aims to understand patient experiences with education about perioperative pain control, from preoperative expectation-setting to post-operative pain control strategies and ultimately opioid disposal.Design: We performed semistructured interviews focused on patient experiences in the perioperative period. Content from interview transcripts was analyzed using a constant comparative method.Setting: All participants underwent surgery at a single, academic tertiary-care center.Participants: Adult patients who had a general surgery operation in the prior 60 days.Outcome measure: Key themes from interviews about perioperative pain management, specifically related to preoperative expectation-setting and post-operative education.Results: Patients identified gaps in communication and education in three main areas: preoperative expectation setting of post-operative pain; post-operative pain control strategies, including use of opioid medications; and the importance of appropriate opioid disposal. Failure to set expectations led to either significant patient anxiety preoperatively or poor preparation for home discharge. Poor education on pain control strategies led to misinformation on when and how to use opioids. Lack of education on opioid disposal led to most participants failing to properly dispose of leftover medication.Conclusions: Gaps in education surrounding post-operative pain and opioid use can lead to patient anxiety, inappropriate use of opioids, and poor disposal rates of leftover medications. Future interventions aimed at patient education to improve pain management and opioid stewardship should be created with an understanding of patient experiences and perceptions.

No abstract

Background and Objectives: The relatively recent availability of effective systemic therapies for metastatic melanoma necessitates reconsideration of current surveillance patterns. Evidence supporting surveillance guidelines for resected Stage II melanoma is lacking. Prior reports note routine imaging detects only 21% of recurrent disease. This study aims to define recurrence patterns for Stage II melanoma to inform future surveillance guidelines. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients with Stage II melanoma. We analyzed risk factors for recurrence and methods of recurrence detection. We also assessed survival. Yearly hazards of recurrence were visualized. Results: With a median follow-up of 4.9 years, 158 per 580 patients (27.2%) recurred. Overall, most recurrences were patient-detected (60.7%) or imagingdetected (27.3%). Routine imaging was important in detecting recurrence in patients with distant recurrences (adjusted rate 43.1% vs. 9.4% for local/in-transit; p = .04) and with Stage IIC melanoma (42.5% vs. 18.5% for IIA; p = .01). Male patients also self-detected recurrent disease less than females (52.1% vs. 76.8%; p < .01). Conclusions: Routine imaging surveillance played a larger role in detecting recurrent disease for select groups in this cohort than noted in prior studies. In an era of effective systemic therapy, routine imaging should be considered for detection of asymptomatic relapse for select, high-risk patient groups.

No abstract