Rectal Prolapse
Conditions
Brief summary
Different studies showed large variation between care processes in multiple diseases, this leads to large variation in outcomes. Better adherence to evidence-based guidelines for these diseases can reduce this variation and can improve the health outcomes. Ventral mesh rectopexy has gained popularity in Europe to treat different rectal prolapse syndromes. This procedure has been shown to achieve acceptable anatomic results with low recurrence rates, few complications, and improvements of both constipation and fecal incontinence. However, there is limited data on the care process and outcomes. Moreover, there is no insight in the variation between different centers for patients undergoing ventral mesh rectopexy. This study aims to map the variation in care for patients undergoing ventral mesh rectopexy in Flemish hospitals and to get an overview about the variation within and between these hospitals. Hereby, this will be a repeat of the studies for colorectal cancer, fragility hip fractures, stroke and breast cancer surgery.
Interventions
OTHERLearning session 1
Learn form international report, Explain key interventions, Explain BIC methodology, Retrospective patient record analysis, Team measures
OTHERLearning session 2
Feedback report, Share (inter)national best practices, Discussion, set priorities, teaching and improvement, Retrospective patient record analysis
OTHERLearning session 3
Feedback report, Share best practices, Discussion, set priorities, teaching and improvement, Retrospective patient record analysis, Team measures
Sponsors
KU Leuven
Study design
Observational model
OTHER
Time perspective
RETROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Inclusion criteria
* Minimum age of 18 years; * Elective admission for ventral mesh rectopexy * Total rectal prolapse * Grade III Internal prolapse with incontinence or obstructed defaecation
Exclusion criteria
* Colpo posterior * Patients diagnosed with severe dementia (DSM IV) or severe concomitant disease that may affect very short-term outcome (life expectancy less than 3 months) and hence influence deviations from standard acute care.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Length of stay | through study completion, an average of 4 months | Number of days in the hospital |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| In-hospital complication rate | through study completion, an average of 4 months | Re-intervention, wound complications, surgical site infection, ileus and postoperative bleeding |
| in-hospital mortality | through study completion, an average of 4 months | Mortality during hospitalization |
| 30 day readmission rate | through study completion, an average of 4 months | Readmission rate within 30 days after discharge |
| 30 days mortality rate | through study completion, an average of 4 months | Mortality rate within 30 days after discharge |
Countries
Belgium
Outcome results
None listed