Aftercare Of Survivors Research Articles

Risk stratification of young adult survivors of cancer to estimate hospital morbidity burden: applicability of a pediatric therapy-based approach

PurposeChildren and young adults (CYA) are at risk of late morbidity following cancer treatment, with risk varying by disease type and treatment received. Risk-stratified levels of aftercare which stratify morbidity burden to inform the intensity of long-term follow-up care, are well established for survivors of cancer under the age of 18 years, utilizing the National Cancer Survivor Initiative (NCSI) approach. We investigated the applicability of risk-stratified levels of aftercare in predicting long-term morbidity in young adults (YA), aged 18–29 years.MethodsLong-term CYA survivors followed-up at a regional center in the North of England were risk-stratified by disease and treatments received into one of three levels. These data were linked with local cancer registry and administrative health data (Hospital Episode Statistics), where hospital activity was used as a marker of late morbidity burden.ResultsPoisson modelling with incident rate ratios (IRR) demonstrated similar trends in hospital activity for childhood (CH) and YA cancer survivors across NCSI risk levels. NCSI levels independently predicted long-term hospitalization risk in both CH and YA survivors. Risk of hospitalization was significantly reduced for levels 1 (CH IRR 0.32 (95% CI 0.26–0.41), YA IRR 0.06 (95% CI 0.01–0.43)) and 2; CH IRR 0.46 (95% CI 0.42-0.50), YA IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.37-0.50)), compared with level 3.ConclusionsThe NCSI pediatric late-effects risk stratification system can be effectively and safely applied to cancer patients aged 18–29, independent of ethnicity or socioeconomic position.Implications for Cancer SurvivorsTo enhance quality of care and resource utilization, long-term aftercare of survivors of YA cancer can and should be risk stratified through adoption of approaches such as the NCSI risk-stratification model.

Elderly Patients in the Intensive Care Unit.

Very old intensive care unit (ICU) patients, aged ≥ 80 years, are by no mean newcomers, but during the last decades their impact on ICU admissions has grown in parallel with the increase in the number of elderly persons in the community. Hence, from being a "rarity," they have now become common and constitute one of the largest subgroups within intensive care, and may easily be the largest group in 20 years and make up 30 to 40% of all ICU admissions. Obviously, they are not admitted because they are old but because they are with various diseases and problems like any other ICU patient. However, their age and the presence of common geriatric syndromes such as frailty, cognitive decline, reduced activity of daily life, and several comorbid conditions makes this group particularly challenging, with a high mortality rate. In this review, we will highlight aspects of current and future epidemiology and current knowledge on outcomes, and describe the effects of the aforementioned geriatric syndromes. The major challenge for the coming decades will be the question of whom to treat and the quest for better triage criteria not based on age alone. Challenges with the level of care during the ICU stay will also be discussed. A stronger relationship with geriatricians should be promoted to create a better and more holistic care and aftercare for survivors.

Standardizing the categorizations of models of aftercare for survivors of childhood cancer

BackgroundWith significant improvements in the survival rates for most childhood cancers, there is increased pressure to determine how follow-up or aftercare for survivors is best structured.Main bodyPrevious work in this area has not been consistent in how it categorizes models of aftercare, which risks confusion between studies and evaluations of different models. The adoption of a standardized method for classifying and describing different models of aftercare is necessary in order to maximize the applicability of the available evidence. We identify some of the different ways models of aftercare have been classified in previous research. We then propose a revised taxonomy which allows for a more consistent classification and description of these models. The proposed model bases the classification of models of aftercare on who is the lead provider, and then collects data on five other key features: which other providers are involved in providing aftercare, where care is provided, how are survivors engaged, which services are provided, and who receives aftercare.ConclusionThere is a good deal of interest in the effectiveness of different models of aftercare. Future research in this area would be assisted by the adoption of a shared taxonomy that will allow programs to be identified by their structural type.

Nurse-led scheme presages changes in aftercare for survivors

Nurse-led scheme presages changes in aftercare for survivors