Background This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January–October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P < 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P < 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P < 0.001). Conclusion Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Purpose Pressures related to the COVID-19 pandemic have created the need to develop innovative ways to deliver mental health care, especially for urgent needs. After the launch of a pediatric Emergency Department (ED) Virtual Care service, we aimed to evaluate pediatric ED physicians’ experiences with the use of ED virtual care for mental health assessments. Methods This mixed-methods study was conducted at a pediatric academic health center in Ontario, Canada. Pediatric ED physicians who conducted ED virtual mental health assessments from May to December 2020 were eligible. Participants completed a 22-question novel survey and were invited to participate in a focus group. Descriptive and thematic analyses were used to analyze the data. Results Twenty-nine physicians provided mental health services through the ED virtual care platform. Twenty-five physicians (86% response rate) completed the survey and 3 (10%) participated in a focus group. While many agreed that virtual care benefits patients (67%), key barriers identified included time constraints, lack of mental health clinician support, and uncertainty around the pediatric ED physicians’ role in these types of assessments. Despite these barriers, physicians recognized the potential benefit of the ED virtual care service for mental health assessments and were largely amenable to improving this process should mental health support be available. Conclusions While many physicians agreed that there is a potential benefit of the ED virtual care platform for urgent mental health assessments, time constraints and lack of confidence in providing satisfactory virtual mental health care with minimal mental health support limited its acceptability. These findings can inform the future implementation of mental health services using an innovative virtual ED platform. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43678-023-00446-w.

No abstract

Introduction: Mothers of children with haemophilia (CWH) experience guilt related to this genetic condition. Several factors contributing to maternal guilt have been identified, but the scope and extent of guilt have not previously been quantified. Aim: This study provides insight into the experience of mothers of CWH and how they perceive and manage guilt. It then identifies the most common and helpful coping mechanisms. Methods: Between May and October 2021, we distributed an anonymous electronic survey to mothers of CWH. The Parent Experience of Child Illness measured maternal guilt, the PROMIS Parent Proxy for Life Satisfaction measured perception of their child's life satisfaction and additional questions explored specific guilt factors and coping strategies.Results: Eighty-seven mothers responded to the survey. Forty percent of mothers experienced increased guilt. The most common reasons for guilt included putting their child through pain during infusions and passing on the affected X chromosome.Perceived life satisfaction, increased age and genetic counselling were associated with less guilt. The most common coping strategies involved utilizing social support, self-education and connecting with other mothers in the community. Conclusion:Some mothers experienced increased feelings of guilt, illustrating the need for providers to tactfully provide anticipatory guidance and counselling. Tangible manifestations of haemophilia were more likely to trigger feelings of guilt than familial factors. Community immersion was beneficial, as other mothers in the community served as a source of social and educational support. Most mothers did not report guilt, illustrating the adaptability and resilience of the haemophilia community.

Background: Pain is a common symptom in patients who survive cancer and in those who live with progressive advanced disease. Systematic screening and documentation of pain are necessary to improve the quality of cancer pain treatment, because a key pain-related barrier is that patients are reluctant to discuss pain, due to fear that reporting pain will distract the healthcare professional from their cancer treatment. Methods: This study adopted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. Data collection incorporated three strands. The first strand involved a quantitative enquiry in which medical chart reviews of patients (n=100) attending the medical oncology outpatient clinic were examined. The second qualitative strand comprised of semi-structured interviews with patients (n=10) attending that service. The third strand was qualitative and consisted of focus group discussions with healthcare professionals (n=12). Results: All 100 patients had cancer. The quantitative findings confirmed the suboptimum assessment and subsequent recording of patient’s pain, that seemed to afford a reality check for all healthcare professionals. For patients, the outcomes of the anti-cancer treatment were their priority, and pain was perceived as inevitable, being associated with a cancer diagnosis. There were multifaceted complexities voiced amongst healthcare professionals associated with balancing the benefits and harms aligned with treating cancer pain. Conclusions: Pain assessment in medical records was not systematically recorded by healthcare professionals. Patients were reluctant to self-report pain during their medical oncology outpatient review. The expectation that patients will self-report pain can be accommodated by healthcare professionals if a personalized pain goal is part of the cancer pain management plan during each clinical encounter. Healthcare professionals reported a need to take distinct responsibility for supplementing their dearth of knowledge, skills and beliefs regarding assessing and managing patients’ cancer pain. Optimal pain management stems from an interprofessional approach that was applied in this study design.