Objective:To formulate a community teacher standard for the training of general practitioner program (direction in hospice care).Methods:This was a qualitative study. Twenty-nine experts in general practice and hospice care from various teaching hospitals and community health service centers were invited to participate in two rounds of Delphi consultation from April to August 2022. Based on the results of the consultation, a standard for community faculty training in comprehensive care and end-of-life care for general practitioners was formulated, and the weight coefficients of the indicators were calculated.Results:Of the 29 experts, 11 (37.9%) were male, their age was (52.9±8.9) years, and their working life was (17.0±7.2) years. In the two rounds of expert consultation, the expert positive coefficient was 100.0% (29/29) and 96.6% (28/29), the expert authority coefficient was 0.789 and 0.851, and the expert opinion coordination coefficient W of the importance of all indicators was 0.124 and 0.131, respectively ( χ2=123.01, 131.71, P<0.05). Finally, a set of community-based teacher standard for general practitioner specialty training (direction in hospice care) was established, which consisted of 4 first-level indicators and 30 second-level indicators. The four first-level indicators were basic literacy, clinical qualification and ability, teaching qualification and ability, and scientific research ability, all with the weight coefficients of 0.254, 0.254, 0.252 and 0.240, respectively. Conclusion:The standard of teachers in the community base of general practitioner specialty training (direction in hospice care) established in this study is more scientific, which is conducive to the comprehensive evaluation of teachers in the community training base.

Objective:To develop accreditation standards for clinical faculty in general practitioner specialized training of hospice care.Methods:This was a qualitative study. Twenty nine experts in fields of general practice and hospice care were invited for two rounds of Delphi consultation from April 2022 to August 2022. Based on the consultation results, the accreditation standards for clinical faculty in general practitioner training bases of hospice care specialty was preliminarily developed.Results:The mean age of the consulting experts was (52.9±8.9) years with a mean working year of (17.0±7.2), and 69.0% (20/29) of them held senior professional titles. In the two rounds of consultation, the expert positive coefficient was 100.0% (29/29) and 96.6% (28/29), the expert authority coefficient was 0.765 and 0.813, and the expert opinion coordination coefficient W for the importance of all indicators was 0.112 and 0.196, respectively. The expert opinions tended to be consistent. Finally, a set of clinical base faculty standards for general specialty training was developed, which consisted of 4 first-level indicators and 24 second-level indicators. The 4 first-level indicators were basic literacy, clinical qualification and ability, teaching qualification and ability, scientific research ability, with the weight coefficients of 0.253, 0.255, 0.254 and 0.241, respectively. Conclusion:The standards for clinical teaching faculty in general practitioner specialty training base of hospice care has been established in this study, which is conducive to the comprehensive quality evaluation for training faculty.

Objective:To construct a set of admission evaluation indicators for terminal patients in community hospice wards.Methods:This qualitative study employed a mixed-methods approach. From January to June 2023, 10 physicians working in community hospice wards in Shanghai participated in one-on-one, semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Based on the interview findings and literature review, a preliminary set of admission evaluation indicators was drafted. Subsequently, from July to December 2023, 18 national experts in hospice/palliative care were selected for a two-round Delphi expert consultation to refine the indicators. The final indicator system was established based on the consultation results, and the weight coefficients for each indicator were determined.Results:Sixteen experts completed both rounds of consultation. The experts had a mean age of (52.0±8.3) years and a mean working experience of (14.4±6.8) years. The response rates for the two rounds were 88.9% and 100.0%, respectively. The authority coefficients were 0.875 and 0.894, and the Kendall′s W coordination coefficients were 0.338 (χ2=471.737, P<0.001) and 0.349 (χ2=398.230, P<0.001), respectively. After two rounds of Delphi consultation, a final admission evaluation indicator system was established, comprising 4 first-level indicators and 63 second-level indicators. The first-level indicators and their weight coefficients were: Underlying Disease (0.256 7), Survival Prognosis (0.256 7), Holistic Needs (0.256 6), and Social Environment (0.240 0). Conclusion:The admission evaluation indicator system for terminal patients in community hospice wards developed in this study facilitates the standardized development of community hospice/palliative care services and contributes to providing high-quality care for patients and their families.

Objective:To explore the safety and short-term efficacy of single-port robotic transanal total mesorectal excision (SPr-taTME).Methods:The retrospective and descriptive study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of six patients who underwent SPr-taTME at Daping Hospital of Army Medical University from October to November 2024 were collected. There were 3 males and 3 females, aged (65±5)years. Observation indicators: (1) intraoperative situations; (2) postoperative situations; (3) follow-up. Measurement data with normal distribution were represen-ted as Mean± SD, measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M(range). Count data were described as absolute numbers. Results:(1) Intraoperative situations. All patients successfully underwent SPr-taTME without conversion to laparotomy or blood transfusion. There was no intraoperative complication such as accidental hemorrhage or adjacent organ injury. No intra-operative adverse events or mortality occurred. The operation time of the 6 patients was 286(range, 240?400)minutes. The time of transanal platform setup and robotic docking was (21±10)minutes, transanal dissection time was (97±45)minutes, and transabdominal dissection time was (90±35)minutes. The volume of intraoperative blood loss was (47±14)mL. Among the six patients, 1 case underwent synchronous transanal and transabdominal surgery, while 5 cases underwent non-synchronous procedures. Specimens were extracted transanally in 5 cases and via an auxiliary abdominal incision in 1 case. The single-port robotic platform was utilized for the abdominal surgery in 3 cases, while laparoscopy was used in 3 cases. Splenic flexure mobilization was performed in 3 cases and omitted in the other 3 cases. Three patients underwent hand-sewn sigmoid colon-anal anastomosis, 1 case underwent modified Bacon pull-through anastomosis, 1 case received stapled sigmoidorectal anastomosis, 1 case underwent sigmoid colostomy without anastomosis due to significant bowel edema. Two cases didn′t undergo intestinal stoma, 2 cases underwent virtual ileostomy, 1 case underwent ileostomy, and 1 case underwent sigmoid colostomy. (2) Postoperative situations. All patients started water drinking and out‐of‐bed activities on postoperative day 1 and liquid diet intake on postoperative day 2. The time to postoperative first flatus was 1(range, 1?3)days, and duration of postoperative hospital stay was (8±2)days.The total number of lymph nodes dissected was 13±2, with the number of positive lymph nodes as 0(range, 0?3) and the distance of distal resection margin as (23±8)mm. Pathological examination of 6 patients showed 1 case in stage T1N0, 2 cases in stage ypT0N0, 1 case in ypT1N0, 1 case in ypT3N1, and 1 case in ypT0N1. The degree of mesorectal integrity was complete in 5 patients and nearly complete in 1 patient. The surgical specimens of 6 patients showed negative in distal, proximal and circumferential margin. (3) Follow-up. All 6 patients completed the 30-day postoperative follow-up. None of the patients experienced postoperative complication such as bleeding, intestinal obstruction or anastomotic leakage. There was no readmission within 30 days after surgery. Digital rectal examination or colonoscopy on postoperative 30 day confirmed no anastomosis-related complications, including stenosis, dehiscence or anastomotic leakage. All 6 patients survived.Conclusion:The SPr-taTME is safe and feasible, with satisfactory short-term efficacy.

Objective:To explore the safety and short-term efficacy of single-port robotic transanal total mesorectal excision (SPr-taTME).Methods:The retrospective and descriptive study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of six patients who underwent SPr-taTME at Daping Hospital of Army Medical University from October to November 2024 were collected. There were 3 males and 3 females, aged (65±5)years. Observation indicators: (1) intraoperative situations; (2) postoperative situations; (3) follow-up. Measurement data with normal distribution were represen-ted as Mean± SD, measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M(range). Count data were described as absolute numbers. Results:(1) Intraoperative situations. All patients successfully underwent SPr-taTME without conversion to laparotomy or blood transfusion. There was no intraoperative complication such as accidental hemorrhage or adjacent organ injury. No intra-operative adverse events or mortality occurred. The operation time of the 6 patients was 286(range, 240?400)minutes. The time of transanal platform setup and robotic docking was (21±10)minutes, transanal dissection time was (97±45)minutes, and transabdominal dissection time was (90±35)minutes. The volume of intraoperative blood loss was (47±14)mL. Among the six patients, 1 case underwent synchronous transanal and transabdominal surgery, while 5 cases underwent non-synchronous procedures. Specimens were extracted transanally in 5 cases and via an auxiliary abdominal incision in 1 case. The single-port robotic platform was utilized for the abdominal surgery in 3 cases, while laparoscopy was used in 3 cases. Splenic flexure mobilization was performed in 3 cases and omitted in the other 3 cases. Three patients underwent hand-sewn sigmoid colon-anal anastomosis, 1 case underwent modified Bacon pull-through anastomosis, 1 case received stapled sigmoidorectal anastomosis, 1 case underwent sigmoid colostomy without anastomosis due to significant bowel edema. Two cases didn′t undergo intestinal stoma, 2 cases underwent virtual ileostomy, 1 case underwent ileostomy, and 1 case underwent sigmoid colostomy. (2) Postoperative situations. All patients started water drinking and out‐of‐bed activities on postoperative day 1 and liquid diet intake on postoperative day 2. The time to postoperative first flatus was 1(range, 1?3)days, and duration of postoperative hospital stay was (8±2)days.The total number of lymph nodes dissected was 13±2, with the number of positive lymph nodes as 0(range, 0?3) and the distance of distal resection margin as (23±8)mm. Pathological examination of 6 patients showed 1 case in stage T1N0, 2 cases in stage ypT0N0, 1 case in ypT1N0, 1 case in ypT3N1, and 1 case in ypT0N1. The degree of mesorectal integrity was complete in 5 patients and nearly complete in 1 patient. The surgical specimens of 6 patients showed negative in distal, proximal and circumferential margin. (3) Follow-up. All 6 patients completed the 30-day postoperative follow-up. None of the patients experienced postoperative complication such as bleeding, intestinal obstruction or anastomotic leakage. There was no readmission within 30 days after surgery. Digital rectal examination or colonoscopy on postoperative 30 day confirmed no anastomosis-related complications, including stenosis, dehiscence or anastomotic leakage. All 6 patients survived.Conclusion:The SPr-taTME is safe and feasible, with satisfactory short-term efficacy.

Objective:To formulate a community teacher standard for the training of general practitioner program (direction in hospice care).Methods:This was a qualitative study. Twenty-nine experts in general practice and hospice care from various teaching hospitals and community health service centers were invited to participate in two rounds of Delphi consultation from April to August 2022. Based on the results of the consultation, a standard for community faculty training in comprehensive care and end-of-life care for general practitioners was formulated, and the weight coefficients of the indicators were calculated.Results:Of the 29 experts, 11 (37.9%) were male, their age was (52.9±8.9) years, and their working life was (17.0±7.2) years. In the two rounds of expert consultation, the expert positive coefficient was 100.0% (29/29) and 96.6% (28/29), the expert authority coefficient was 0.789 and 0.851, and the expert opinion coordination coefficient W of the importance of all indicators was 0.124 and 0.131, respectively ( χ2=123.01, 131.71, P<0.05). Finally, a set of community-based teacher standard for general practitioner specialty training (direction in hospice care) was established, which consisted of 4 first-level indicators and 30 second-level indicators. The four first-level indicators were basic literacy, clinical qualification and ability, teaching qualification and ability, and scientific research ability, all with the weight coefficients of 0.254, 0.254, 0.252 and 0.240, respectively. Conclusion:The standard of teachers in the community base of general practitioner specialty training (direction in hospice care) established in this study is more scientific, which is conducive to the comprehensive evaluation of teachers in the community training base.

Objective:To develop accreditation standards for clinical faculty in general practitioner specialized training of hospice care.Methods:This was a qualitative study. Twenty nine experts in fields of general practice and hospice care were invited for two rounds of Delphi consultation from April 2022 to August 2022. Based on the consultation results, the accreditation standards for clinical faculty in general practitioner training bases of hospice care specialty was preliminarily developed.Results:The mean age of the consulting experts was (52.9±8.9) years with a mean working year of (17.0±7.2), and 69.0% (20/29) of them held senior professional titles. In the two rounds of consultation, the expert positive coefficient was 100.0% (29/29) and 96.6% (28/29), the expert authority coefficient was 0.765 and 0.813, and the expert opinion coordination coefficient W for the importance of all indicators was 0.112 and 0.196, respectively. The expert opinions tended to be consistent. Finally, a set of clinical base faculty standards for general specialty training was developed, which consisted of 4 first-level indicators and 24 second-level indicators. The 4 first-level indicators were basic literacy, clinical qualification and ability, teaching qualification and ability, scientific research ability, with the weight coefficients of 0.253, 0.255, 0.254 and 0.241, respectively. Conclusion:The standards for clinical teaching faculty in general practitioner specialty training base of hospice care has been established in this study, which is conducive to the comprehensive quality evaluation for training faculty.

Objective:To construct a set of admission evaluation indicators for terminal patients in community hospice wards.Methods:This qualitative study employed a mixed-methods approach. From January to June 2023, 10 physicians working in community hospice wards in Shanghai participated in one-on-one, semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Based on the interview findings and literature review, a preliminary set of admission evaluation indicators was drafted. Subsequently, from July to December 2023, 18 national experts in hospice/palliative care were selected for a two-round Delphi expert consultation to refine the indicators. The final indicator system was established based on the consultation results, and the weight coefficients for each indicator were determined.Results:Sixteen experts completed both rounds of consultation. The experts had a mean age of (52.0±8.3) years and a mean working experience of (14.4±6.8) years. The response rates for the two rounds were 88.9% and 100.0%, respectively. The authority coefficients were 0.875 and 0.894, and the Kendall′s W coordination coefficients were 0.338 (χ2=471.737, P<0.001) and 0.349 (χ2=398.230, P<0.001), respectively. After two rounds of Delphi consultation, a final admission evaluation indicator system was established, comprising 4 first-level indicators and 63 second-level indicators. The first-level indicators and their weight coefficients were: Underlying Disease (0.256 7), Survival Prognosis (0.256 7), Holistic Needs (0.256 6), and Social Environment (0.240 0). Conclusion:The admission evaluation indicator system for terminal patients in community hospice wards developed in this study facilitates the standardized development of community hospice/palliative care services and contributes to providing high-quality care for patients and their families.

Objective:To develop the training syllabus of palliative care for general practitioners.Methods:Twenty-nine experts in fields of general practice and hospice care from different teaching hospitals and community health service centers were invited to participate in two rounds of Delphi consultation from April 2022 and August 2022. Based on results of Delphi consultation a preliminary training syllabus was established through data analysis, synthesis and process.Results:Of the 29 experts, 11 (37.9%) were male with age of (52.9±8.9) years and working experience of (17.0±7.2) years. The expert activity coefficient of the two rounds of consultation was 100.0% (29/29) and 96.6% (28/29), authority coefficient was 0.815 and 0.870, and opinion coordination coefficient was 0.359 and 0.515, respectively ( P<0.05). The training syllabus comprised of 4 first-grade indicators, 19 second-grade indicators and 58 third-grade indicators. The weight coefficients of the 4 first-grade indicators, namely objective of training, theory courses and theoretical knowledge, clinical base rotation contents and requirements, community base rotation content and requirements, were 0.251, 0.251, 0.250 and 0.248, respectively. Conclusions:A preliminary training syllabus of palliative care for general practitioner has been developed in this study, which provide a basis for standardized training of community palliative care.

Objective:To compare the short- and mid-term clinical outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic radical resection of right- and left-sided colon cancer.Methods:In this retrospective cohort study, clinical data on patients who had undergone robotic or laparoscopic radical resection of right and left sided-colon cancer performed by two senior physicians in the Department of Gastro-Colorectal and Anal Surgery, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University between January 2015 and December 2023 were collected. The patients were allocated to robotic ( n=117) or laparoscopic groups ( n=267). Propensity score matching in a ratio of 1∶1 was implemented to minimize the impact of imbalances in baseline information between the two groups. Propensity score matching left 228 patients in the study cohort, with 114 in each group. The participants were aged (60.8±12.1) and (60.3±13.1) years and the body mass indices were (23.1±3.0) kg/m 2 and (23.1±2.8) kg/m 2 in the robotic and laparoscopic groups respectively. After matching, relevant perioperative indicators, postoperative complications, and 3-year survival outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results:After propensity score matching, the differences in baseline information between the two groups were not statistically significant ( P>0.05). After matching, in the robotic surgery group, radical resection of right- versus left-sided colon cancer had been performed on 80 and 34 patients, respectively; compared with 78 and 36, respectively, in the laparoscopic surgery group. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had a longer operative time ( [209.8±48.4] minutes vs. [186.7±46.9] minutes, t=3.665, P<0.001), higher hospitalization cost ( [88657.8±18548.1] yuan vs. [61179.5±13822.7] yuan, t=12.683, P<0.001), and lower rate of postoperative complications (7.9% [9/114] vs. 17.5% [20/114], χ 2=4.780, P=0.029); these differences are statistically significant. The robotic group tended to have a lower conversion rate than the laparoscopic group (0 vs. 4.4% [5/114]); however, this difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (χ 2=3.272, P=0.070). The amount of intraoperative bleeding, time to first passage of flatus, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade), number of resected lymph nodes, and number of positive lymph nodes did not differ significantly between the two groups (all P>0.05). Furthermore, the differences between the robotic and laparoscopic groups in 3-year disease-free survival (81.4% vs. 82.8%, P=0.863) and overall survival (83.1% vs. 86.5%, P=0.921) were not statistically significant ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Robotic radical resection of right and left-sided colon cancer is safe and feasible and an effective alternative to laparoscopic surgery. Although robotic surgery has a longer operative time and higher hospitalization costs than laparoscopic surgery, it has a lower rate of postoperative complications, and a 3-year survival outcome comparable to that of laparoscopic surgery.