Dataset Information

Impact of a pandemic on surgical neuro-oncology-maintaining functionality in the early phase of crisis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has extraordinarily impacted global healthcare. Neuro-oncological surgery units have peculiar features that make them highly relevant in the strategic reaction to the pandemic. In this Chinese Society of Neuro-Oncology (CSNO) initiated survey, we appraise the changes implemented in neuro-oncological surgery hospitals across different Asian countries and provide expert recommendations for responses at different stages of the pandemic.

Methods

We performed a 42-question survey of the early experience of neuro-oncological surgery practice in hospitals across different Asian countries on April 1, 2020, with responses closed on April 18, 2020.

Results

144 hospitals completed the questionnaire. Most were in WHO post-peak phase of the pandemic and reported a median reduction in neuro-oncological surgery volume of 25-50%. Most (67.4%) resumed elective surgery in only COVID-19 negative patients;11.1% performed only emergency cases irrespective of COVID-19 status;2.1% suspended all surgical activity. Ninety-one (63.2%) relocated personnel from neurosurgery to other departments. Fifty-two (36.1%) hospitals suspended post-operative adjuvant therapy and 94 (65.2%) instituted different measures to administer post-operative adjuvant therapy. Majority (59.0%) of the hospitals suspended research activity. Most (70%) respondents anticipate that current neurosurgery restrictions will continue to remain for > 1 month.

Conclusions

Majority of the respondents to our survey reported reduced neuro-oncological surgery activity, policy modification, personnel reallocation, and curtailment of educational/research activities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The persistent widespread interruption of surgical neuro-oncology in even post-peak phases of the pandemic raises serious concerns about the long-term impact of the pandemic on neuro-oncological patients and highlights the essence of timely measures for pandemic preparedness, patient triage, and workforce protection.

SUBMITTER: Hameed NUF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7812331 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesPressures on healthcare systems due to COVID-19 has impacted patients without COVID-19 with surgery disproportionally affected. This study aims to understand the impact on the initial management of patients with brain tumours by measuring changes to normal multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision making.DesignA prospective survey performed in UK neurosurgical units performed from 23 March 2020 until 24 April 2020.SettingRegional neurosurgical units outside London (as the pandemic was more advanced at time of study).ParticipantsRepresentatives from all units were invited to collect data on new patients discussed at their MDT meetings during the study period. Each unit decided if management decision for each patient had changed due to COVID-19.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome measures included number of patients where the decision to undergo surgery changed compared with standard management usually offered by that MDT. Secondary outcome measures included changes in surgical extent, numbers referred to MDT, number of patients denied surgery not receiving any treatment and reasons for any variation across the UK.Results18 units (75%) provided information from 80 MDT meetings that discussed 1221 patients. 10.7% of patients had their management changed-the majority (68%) did not undergo surgery and more than half of this group not undergoing surgery had no active treatment. There was marked variation across the UK (0%-28% change in management). Units that did not change management could maintain capacity with dedicated oncology lists. Low volume units were less affected.ConclusionCOVID-19 has had an impact on patients requiring surgery for malignant brain tumours, with patients receiving different treatments-most commonly not receiving surgery or any treatment at all. The variations show dedicated cancer operating lists may mitigate these pressures.Study registrationThis study was registered with the Royal College of Surgeons of England's COVID-19 Research Group (https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/coronavirus/rcs-covid-research-group/).

Project description:BackgroundIt remains unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed neuro-oncology clinical practice, training, and research efforts.MethodsWe performed an international survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents, April 24-May 17, 2020. We assessed clinical practice and research environments, institutional preparedness and support, and perceived impact on patients.ResultsOf 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were US-based and 314 (55%) international. Ninety-four percent of participants reported changes in their clinical practice. Ninety-five percent of respondents converted at least some practice to telemedicine. Ten percent of practitioners felt the need to see patients in person, specifically because of billing concerns and pressure from their institutions. Sixty-seven percent of practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial, including 62% suspending phase III trial enrollments. More than 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk for COVID-19. Seventy-one percent of clinicians feared for their own personal safety or that of their families, specifically because of their clinical duties; 20% had inadequate personal protective equipment. While 69% reported increased stress, 44% received no psychosocial support from their institutions. Thirty-seven percent had salary reductions and 63% of researchers temporarily closed their laboratories. However, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient satisfaction, communication quality, and technology use to deliver care and mediate interactions with other practitioners.ConclusionsThe pandemic has changed treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options. Institutional lack of support created clinician and researcher anxiety. Communication with patients was satisfactory. We make recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward and address the personal challenges of providers and researchers.