Breast cancer care continues to see remarkable growth in knowledge of the disease and advances in treatment. That was certainly evident at the recent School of Oncoplastic Surgery (SOS), in Dallas last month.
The school, which was founded by breast surgeon Gail Lebovic, M.D. with a grant from the Mary Kay Ash Foundation, recently had its eighth annual session in Dallas. This year’s session was sponsored by the National Consortium of Breast Centers and the American Society of Breast Disease Clinical Track.
Among the highlights of that three-day training workshop was a talk by Julie Reiland, MD, FACS. An SOS faculty member, Dr. Reiland is a breast surgeon at Avera Medical Group Comprehensive Breast Care, in Sioux Falls, SD. Speaking to a packed room at SOS, Dr. Reiland talked about the convergence of oncoplastic surgery and intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT).
Ambulatory surgery centers face plenty of financial (some might even say “existential”) challenges. Among these are a tightening reimbursement environment, competition from hospital systems, and high health insurance deductibles.
Nonetheless, breast cancer care is emerging as a bright spot for ASCs, including two centers we talked with recently.
In a large New York City surgery center, for example, breast care helps lead the way. In an Arkansas center, transparent pricing and use of a relatively new surgical marker called BioZorb are part of the story.
Among the many improvements in the care of women who have breast cancer, one of the most promising is oncoplastic surgery.
This approach combines methods to remove cancer with reconstructive techniques to insure complete tumor control. At same time it achieves better aesthetic outcomes.
This month’s upcoming School of Oncoplastic Surgery will help surgeons develop new skills they can use when performing breast-conserving surgery (lumpectomy) on patients with breast cancer. The three-day course will be held Jan. 22-24, 2016 in Dallas.
The course provides a spectrum of skills for attendees. Through a sculpture lab, anatomy lab and interaction with live models, surgeons learn essential tools with hands-on experiences. Panel discussions and case presentations also allow surgeons to openly discuss challenges they face in their practices, and to learn various ways to address complex clinical situations in cancer care.
The founder and leader of the school is Dr. Gail Lebovic. She’s a past president of the American Society of Breast Disease, recipient of several distinguished awards and the inventor of multiple successful medical technologies in women’s healthcare.
In an earlier post, we detailed the advantages that both hospitals and patients gain when non-physician vascular access specialists (VAS’s) are allowed to place central venous catheters (CVCs) and arterial lines. Now a recently published article describes how a vascular access team at a large community hospital in Illinois expanded its scope of practice to encompass these lines.
We’ve posted previously about the dangers of catheter-related bloodstream infections and the option of using safer technology to prevent them. With the emergence of a new, safer device for urinary catheterization, it’s time to apply the same logic to catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs).
The association between CAUTIs and the common use of Foley catheters is outlined in this new multimedia white paper. For results of a national survey of infection preventionists about CAUTIs, click here.
How the ACA’s Pay-For-Performance Programs Target Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections
The mainstream media has primarily covered the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA or Obamacare) for how it affects health insurance. But as healthcare insiders, readers of this blog know there’s much more to this groundbreaking piece of legislation — including its provisions aimed at upping healthcare quality and lowering healthcare costs. Many of those provisions affect the practice of vascular access because catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) have both quality and cost implications.
Healthcare providers should be taking a close look at these sections of the law because they can affect everything from reimbursements to materials management. Vascular access specialists (VAS’s) should know the provisions, too, because the ACA targets vascular access outcomes.
A study published in the Fall 2014 issue of the Journal of the Association for Vascular Access (JAVA) showed that a chlorhexidine-impregnated peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) eliminated central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) during the two-year study period (July 2011-July 2013). In addition, only one incidence of thrombosis occurred during the study period – a non-occlusive thrombus associated with device insertion. When the study ended, the good results continued: No CLABSIs or episodes of thrombosis were associated with the catheter between the end of the study and the study’s publication.
A recent study found that a central venous catheter (CVC) designed to reduce bloodstream infections totally eliminated them at a hospital in Spain. The antimicrobial CVC also sharply reduced treatment costs related to the infections, compared to the unprotected CVC matched against it. You can read a study summary here.
The antimicrobial CVC in the study was the ARROW® CVC with ARROWg+ard® Technology. The catheter achieves its antimicrobial effect from a protective layer of chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine bonded to the catheter’s surface.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), more commonly known as Obamacare, is 906 pages long. But amidst all that detail are a few driving goals. One of those is something few would argue with: higher quality healthcare at lower cost. That’s also the focus of a new white paper on vascular access.
It’s no wonder the ACA’s authors made that a priority. The U.S. lags behind other industrialized countries on both sides of the quality/cost equation. We have the most expensive healthcare, by far, among industrialized nations, according to both the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the healthcare-focused Commonwealth Fund. The U.S. also ranks worse than many of these nations on some measures of quality, including safety.