No abstract

The aim of this study was to describe bowel problems, self-care practices, and information needs of patients who have recovered from the acute effects of sphincter-saving surgery for colorectal cancer. A retrospective, descriptive survey was conducted using a structured telephone interview and mailed questionnaires. The sample consisted of 101 patients who had undergone sphincter-saving surgery for colorectal cancer in the last 6 to 24 months. Most participants (71.3%) reported a change in bowel habits after surgery. The 6 most frequently reported gastrointestinal problems were incomplete evacuation (75.2%), excessive flatus (75.2%), urgency (73.3%), straining (61.4%), perianal soreness or itching (49.5%), and bloating (43.6%). Incontinence of feces (varying from smears to complete bowel action) was reported by 37.6% of participants. The most frequently reported information needs were related to diet (50.5%) and managing conditions such as diarrhea (31.7%), bloating/wind/gas (28.7%), pain (21.8%), and incomplete emptying of the bowel (18.8%). Patients who had recovered from the acute effects of sphincter-saving surgery for colorectal cancer reported a wide range of bowel problems and ongoing concerns about managing symptoms. Findings from this study provide valuable information to guide the development of educational resources to prevent or better manage bowel problems after surgery.

A prospective cohort study was used to determine the reliability and validity of two fall risk assessment tools and nurses' clinical judgement in predicting patient falls. The study wards comprised two aged care and rehabilitation wards within a 570 bed acute care tertiary teaching hospital in Western Australia. Instrument testing included test-retest reliability and calculations of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy. The test retest reliability of all methods was good. In this setting, the three methods of assessing fall risk showed good sensitivity but poor specificity. Also, all methods had limited accuracy, and overall, exhibited an inability to adequately discriminate between patient populations at risk of falling and those not at risk of falling. Consequently, neither nurses' clinical judgement nor the fall risk assessment tools could be recommended for assessing fall risk in this clinical setting.