Implementation of prehabilitation in colorectal cancer surgery: qualitative research on how to strengthen facilitators and overcome barriers

[App-based prehabilitation: implementation and adherence]

In recent years prehabilitation before oncological visceral surgery has become increasingly more in the clinical focus. The aim of prehabilitation is to significantly increase patient's physical and mental performance status through multimodal treatment resulting in a decrease of postoperative complications and faster rehabilitation. As prehabilitation requires a high level of personnel and economic resources in the healthcare system, app-based prehabilitation might be a suitable alternative. The currently available evidence shows a high patient adherence to app-based prehabilitation with an improvement of functional performance status; however, further studies with more patients especially from Germany are necessary to confirm the preliminary data and to become established in the clinical routine.

Effects of Prehabilitation Concurrent Exercise on Functional Capacity in Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Our aim was to examine the efficacy of concurrent exercise (i.e., aerobic and strength exercise) during prehabilitation programs on functional capacity in comparison with standard cancer care strategies in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients scheduled for surgery. Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was performed. A search of electronic databases [PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO Host] was conducted to identify all publications employing concurrent exercise in patients with CRC. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate the standardized change in mean difference (SMD) and 95%CI between exercise intervention and control groups for the 6 min walking test (6MWT) distance covered before and after prehabilitation. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria (379 patients with CRC). Concurrent training during prehabilitation led to significant positive effects on the 6MWT (0.28 SMD [0.03-0.54], p = 0.037). Subgroup analyses showed a higher SMD (0.48 [0.00-0.98], p = 0.050) in younger (i.e., <70 years) CRC patients compared to their older counterparts (0.10 [0.08-0.11], p = 0.310). Meta-regression models between SMD of the 6MWT and body mass index, prehabilitation program duration, and baseline 6MWT distance covered did not show any significant relationship. Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrates the superiority of concurrent exercise prehabilitation in improving functional capacity related to cardiometabolic changes and lowering postoperative risk in patients with CRC.

Barriers and facilitators to prehabilitation of elderly patients with early lung cancer from the perspective of different clinical professionals: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Understanding the barriers and facilitators of prehabilitation in elderly patients with early-stage lung cancer is of significant importance. This study aimed to elucidate these barriers and facilitators from the perspectives of different clinical professionals.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive study was undertaken. Semi-structured interviews with clinical professionals, using purposive sampling and content analysis were conducted in March to May 2023 to summarize and refine the key themes.

RESULTS

From the perspective of clinical professionals, the facilitators of prehabilitation have been categorized into five major themes. These include the recognized importance of prehabilitation, the positive attitude of clinical professionals, the support of leadership, the willingness of the majority of patients to accept prehabilitation, and the initial implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery - multidisciplinary team (ERAS-MDT) approach. Conversely, clinical professionals identify several barriers to prehabilitation, which are grouped into seven themes. These impediments encompass a lack of knowledge regarding clinical practice, insufficient preoperative preparation time, the absence of an aging-friendly clinical practice scheme, an immature multidisciplinary cooperation mechanism, a lack of explicit regulations, inadequate emergency safeguards, and a shortage of specialized professionals. Practice strategies for promoting prehabilitation in elderly patients with early lung cancer include development of evidence summaries, develop healthcare training materials, develop patient health education brochures, clarify the division of labor of ERAS-MDT, improve patient safety and monitoring measures, optimize practice flow and obtain funding support.

CONCLUSION

To enhance the feasibility and clinical relevance of prehabilitation, clinical professionals should consider establishing a multidisciplinary information consulting team, developing a comprehensive prehabilitation program, and reinforcing the support system prior to surgery.

Prehabilitation Strategies: Enhancing Surgical Resilience with a Focus on Nutritional Optimization and Multimodal Interventions

Surgery imposes significant physiological and psychological stress, often leading to complications, delayed recovery, and prolonged hospital stays. Prehabilitation, a proactive strategy to optimize patients' resilience before surgery, has emerged as a transformative approach in perioperative care. Nutritional prehabilitation specifically addresses metabolic dysregulation, muscle loss, and immune suppression caused by surgical stress. This review highlights the critical role of nutritional prehabilitation within a multimodal framework, integrating exercise, psychological support, and emerging technologies. Although some evidence supports the effectiveness of prehabilitation in enhancing functional outcomes and improvements in rates of complications and mortality, its implementation faces challenges such as resources, lack of standardized protocols, and variability across healthcare settings, highlighting the need for greater standardization. Physical training as part of prehabilitation also improves mood, fosters patient engagement, and instills a sense of control over the disease process. These psychosocial benefits, alongside enhanced patient-reported outcomes and qualitative measures, reflect the holistic value of prehabilitation. Emerging technologies, such as wearable devices and telemedicine, offer scalable and personalized solutions for delivering prehabilitation, particularly in resource-limited settings. Future research should prioritize refining protocols, exploring long-term outcomes, and addressing the unique needs of high-risk populations. By emphasizing a proactive approach to perioperative care, this review aims to highlight the potential of nutritional prehabilitation as a foundational component of multimodal strategies designed to optimize surgical resilience, empower patients, and transform surgical recovery into a proactive and patient-centered journey.

The challenges of evidence-based prehabilitation in a real-life context for patients preparing for colorectal surgery-a cohort study and multiple case analysis

BACKGROUND

Multimodal prehabilitation programs are effective at reducing complications after colorectal surgery in patients with a high risk of postoperative complications due to low aerobic capacity and/or malnutrition. However, high implementation fidelity is needed to achieve these effects in real-life practice. This study aimed to investigate the implementation fidelity of an evidence-based prehabilitation program in the real-life context of a Dutch regional hospital.

METHODS

In this observational cohort study with multiple case analyses, all patients who underwent colorectal surgery from January 2023 to June 2023 were enrolled. Patients meeting the criteria for low aerobic capacity or malnutrition were advised to participate in a prehabilitation program. According to recent scientific insights and the local care context, this program consisted of four exercise modalities and three nutrition modalities. Implementation fidelity was investigated by evaluating: (1) coverage (participation rate), (2) duration (number of days between the start of prehabilitation and surgery), (3) content (delivery of prescribed intervention modalities), and (4) frequency (attendance of sessions and compliance with prescribed parameters). An aggregated percentage of content and frequency was calculated to determine overall adherence.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients intended to follow the prehabilitation care pathway, of which 41 performed a preoperative risk assessment (coverage 80%). Ten patients (24%) were identified as high-risk and participated in the prehabilitation program (duration of 33-84 days). Adherence was high (84-100%) in five and moderate (72-73%) in two patients. Adherence was remarkably low (25%, 53%, 54%) in three patients who struggled to execute the prehabilitation program due to multiple physical and cognitive impairments.

CONCLUSION

Implementation fidelity of an evidence-based multimodal prehabilitation program for high-risk patients preparing for colorectal surgery in real-life practice was moderate because adherence was high for most patients, but low for some patients. Patients with low adherence had multiple impairments, with consequences for their preparation for surgery. For healthcare professionals, it is recommended to pay attention to high-risk patients with multiple impairments and further personalize the prehabilitation program. More knowledge about identifying and treating high-risk patients is needed to provide evidence-based recommendations and to obtain higher effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT06438484.

The implementation of preoperative optimization in British Columbia: a quality improvement initiative

PURPOSE

Surgical patient optimization is a proactive approach to improve postoperative outcomes. This article reviews the development of the Surgical Patient Optimization Collaborative, an initiative supporting preoperative optimization in British Columbia, Canada.

METHODS

The Collaborative facilitated optimization programs over two cohorts between 2019 and 2024. A "Change Package" offered screening, intervention, and measurement tools for the following 13 surgical risk factors: anemia, anxiety, body mass index (cohort 2 only), cardiac status, frailty, glycemic control, nutrition, sleep apnea, pain management, physical activity, smoking, social support, substance use, and venous thromboembolism (cohort 1 only). Monthly data submissions from participating sites included the number of patients undergoing optimization, National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-defined 30-day outcomes, length of stay, and patient-reported measures. Run charts were used to analyze the progress of optimization implementation across both cohorts.

RESULTS

Fourteen sites participated in each cohort. In total, 9,686 patients were screened for optimization, with 7,100/7,505 (95%) patients receiving at least one optimization intervention. Improvement shifts in the number of patients screened were identified in the run charts across both cohorts. Most patients felt that their optimization improved their surgical experience and outcomes. Data for clinical outcomes were inconsistently reported from sites and precluded analyses. Barriers to implementation included project complexity and structural characteristics, and facilitators were knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, reflection, and evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative optimization programs were successfully implemented across multiple sites in British Columbia. High-quality clinical outcome analyses are still needed to determine the impact of preoperative optimization on postoperative outcomes. The insight gained from the Collaborative's implementation process may help inform future multicentre preoperative optimization efforts.

Evaluation of postoperative results after a presurgical optimisation programme

BACKGROUND

Presurgical optimisation programmes decrease the risk of postoperative complications, reduce hospital stays and speed up patient recovery. They usually involve a multidisciplinary team addressing physical, nutritional and psychosocial issues. The objective of this study was to assess the results of implementing a presurgical optimisation programme led by a liaison nurse in patients undergoing major surgery in a primary general hospital.

METHODS

An observational, retrospective, descriptive, cross-sectional, comparative study based on the revision of patients' health records undergoing major surgery between January 2019 and December 2022. Patients entering the presurgical optimisation programme (intervention group) were compared with patients receiving usual medical care (control group). The presurgical optimisation programme consisted of oral nutritional supplementation, physical exercise, strengthening of lung capacity and psychological and emotional support. Frequency (%) of surgery complications and use of healthcare resources (duration of hospitalisation, time spent in the intensive care unit (ICU), and readmission) at day 30 were recorded. Descriptive statistics were applied.

RESULTS

Two hundred eleven patients (58.5% men, mean age: 65.76 years (SD 11.5), 75.2%. non-smokers; mean body mass index (BMI): 28.32 (SD 5.38); mean Nutritional Risk Score (NRS) 3.71 (SD 1.35; oncology diagnosis: 88.6%) were included: 135 in the intervention group, and 76 in the control group. The average duration of the presurgical optimisation programme was 20 days (SD 5). Frequency of postoperative complications was 25% (n = 33) in the intervention group and 52.6% (n = 40) in the control group (p < 0.001) [odds ratio (OR) = 3.4; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.8; 6.2)]. 14.5% (n = 19) of patients in the intervention group and 34.2% (n = 26) in the control group had remote postoperative complications [OR = 3.1; 95% CI (1.6; 6.2)]. Patients in the intervention group spent fewer days in the hospital [mean 8.34 (SD 6.70) vs 11.63 (SD 10.63)], and there were fewer readmissions at 30 days (7.6% vs 19.7%) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

A presurgical optimisation programme led by a liaison nurse decreases the rate of immediate and late surgical complications and reduces hospital stays and readmissions in patients undergoing major surgery.

Health professionals' perceptions of prehabilitation before haematopoietic cell transplantation to optimise candidacy in older adults

PURPOSE

Haematologic malignancies for the most part are diseases of the elderly. Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) remains the only potentially curative strategy for many patients but carries substantial morbidity and mortality risks, particularly in frail or co-morbid patients. Pre-transplant optimisation of key targets through prehabilitation may have significant clinical impact.

METHODS

We utilised qualitative methodology (semi-structured interviews) to gain insights and understanding of the perceptions of medical, nursing and allied health professionals towards prehabilitation before haematopoietic cell transplantation to optimise candidacy in older adults. Thematic analysis was performed using a qualitative descriptive approach completed in duplicate by two researchers.

RESULTS

Between August and October 2023, eleven health professionals participated from four large cancer centres across the island of Ireland (n = 3 consultant haematologists, n = 7 specialist haematology nurses and n = 1 senior haematology physiotherapist). Four major themes were identified. The themes comprehensive biopsychosocial care and increasing demand for transplant in older patients highlight the unique challenges impacting older adults who receive HSCT. The multimodality pathways of care theme highlights the heterogeneity of treatment pathways across different clinical sites and disease types. This has implications for the prehabilitation: logistics and benefits theme, which indicated strong support for prehabilitation but emphasised that implementation must consider national reach and context.

CONCLUSIONS

There is broad national multidisciplinary interest in the development of prehabilitation programmes for patients being considered for transplant. Our results will inform the development of services in this area in consideration of national reach, malignancy-specific pathways and the unique factors associated with older age.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of prehabilitation for elderly frail patients prior to elective surgery: a qualitative study with healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation aims to enhance functional capacity before surgery, minimise complications and achieve a better postoperative outcome. This can be particularly useful for older, frail patients to better tolerate surgery. The aim of this study was to identify what barriers and facilitators healthcare professionals in Germany experienced in the implementation and delivery of the multimodal prehabilitation programme "PRAEP-GO" for (pre-)frail adults aged 70 years and older to inform the implementation of prehabilitation into standard care.

METHODS

A nested descriptive qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured face-to-face interviews with healthcare professionals involved in the PRAEP-GO trial from the Berlin and Brandenburg region in Germany. Transcripts were analysed using Kuckartz' qualitative content analysis. Results were interpreted and synthesised using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, a theoretical framework to allow their application to a more general context.

RESULTS

A total of 14 interviews were conducted. Seven therapists (physio-, ergo-, sports therapy), five physicians and two employees from other professions with mainly administrative and organisational tasks in the project. All identified barriers and facilitating factors could be assigned to the themes of organisation, prehabilitation, cooperation and communication between healthcare professionals and with patients. Much optimisation potential was found regarding organisational aspects, e.g. addressing perceived staff shortages and optimising the patient pathway. Furthermore, it became apparent that communication and cooperation between professionals but also with patients need to be improved. More evidence regarding prehabilitation should be provided to convince professionals more. Prehabilitation should be multimodal and individualised, including the programme duration. Officially introducing prehabilitation into standard care would facilitate its delivery.

DISCUSSION

These findings underscore the fact that successful implementation of prehabilitation programmes, such as PRAEP-GO, requires sufficient organisational infrastructure, human resources, access to knowledge, an adaptable and individualised programme design as well as good communication among professionals and with patients. The transferability of the findings is limited by the absence of nutritionists and resulting overrepresentation of other therapists in the sample. To further convince professionals and patients of the concept of prehabilitation, more research is needed to build a solid evidence base that will ensure greater awareness and, thus, more motivation and cooperation among professionals and patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (osf.io/ksfgj).

La préhabilitation, un nouveau parcours préopératoire pour améliorer la condition des patients

The maintenance and optimization of functional capacities before, during, and after treatment are major challenges for frailty persons as cancer's patients. It is now known that physical activity in prehabilitation plays a crucial role in limiting, among other things, post-operative complications. The benefits have already been demonstrated in various studies, including a decrease in hospitalization duration, an increase in cardiorespiratory endurance, improvement in quality of life, and better fatigue management. It is observed that patients who undergo prehabilitation are those who recover their preoperative capacities the fastest. However, it is estimated that only one-third of patients with access to prehabilitation improve their physical capacities.

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of prehabilitation for frail patients into routine health care: a realist review

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of prehabilitation as a new preoperative care pathway to optimise perioperative outcomes, its implementation into routine health care is widely pending. Frail patients might particularly benefit from prehabilitation interventions, but facilitating and hindering factors need to be considered in the implementation process. Thus, our aim was to derive a programme theory on what prehabilitation programmes work for frail patients in what circumstances and why.

METHODS

Following Pawson's realist review approach, preliminary programme theories on facilitators and barriers were established. General and topic-specific databases were searched systematically for facilitators and barriers to the implementation of prehabilitation for frail patients. Articles were included if they dealt with multimodal prehabilitation programmes prior to surgery in a frail population and if they contained information on facilitators and barriers during the implementation process in the full text. Based on these articles, refined programme theories were generated.

RESULTS

From 2,609 unique titles, 34 were retained for the realist synthesis. Facilitating factors included the individualisation of prehabilitation programmes to meet the patients' needs and abilities, multimodality, adaption to the local setting and health care system, endorsement by an ambassador and sharing of responsibilities among a multidisciplinary team. Central barriers for frail patients were transportation, lack of social support, and inadequate, overwhelming information provision.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing prehabilitation as a new care pathway for frail patients requires organisational readiness and adaptability to the local setting. On an individual level, a clear understanding of responsibilities and of the intervention's goal among patients and providers are necessary. Added attention must be paid to the individualisation to fit the needs and restrictions of frail patients. This makes prehabilitation a resource-intense, but promising intervention for frail surgery patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42022335282).

Evaluation of nutrition components within prehabilitation programs in gastrointestinal cancers: Is prehab worth the hype?

Nutrition impact symptoms and unintended weight loss are prevalent in patients with gastrointestinal cancers, especially during the perioperative period or while prescribed anticancer treatments. Because patients may experience loss of lean body mass and malnutrition, aggressive nutrition intervention prior to surgery should be considered. Cancer prehabilitation is a process spanning the care continuum from diagnosis to the time of surgery encompassing nutrition support, psychological and physical assessment, and targeted interventions. Thirteen studies published between 2013 and 2023 were included in this review and evaluated prehabilitation programs' impact on postoperative outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Literature continues to emerge supporting the integration of nutrition into a prehabilitation program because of its potential to contribute to improved clinical outcomes, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness, but considerable variation exists with respect to the specific recommendations provided by current prehabilitation programs.

Nutritional interventions in prehabilitation for cancer surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nutrition remains a key focus in the preoptimization of patients undergoing cancer surgery. Given the catabolic nature of cancer, coupled with the physiological insult of surgery, malnutrition (when assessed) is prevalent in a significant proportion of patients. Therefore, robust research on interventions to attenuate the detrimental impact of this is crucial.

RECENT FINDINGS

As a unimodal prehabilitation intervention, assessment for malnutrition is the first step, as universal supplementation has not been shown to have a significant impact on outcomes. However, targeted nutritional therapy, whether that is enteral or parenteral, has been shown to improve the nutritional state of patients' presurgery, potentially reducing the rate of postoperative complications such as nosocomial infections. As part of multimodal prehabilitation, the situation is more nuanced given the difficulty in attribution of effects to the differing components, and vast heterogeneity in intervention and patient profiles.

SUMMARY

Multimodal prehabilitation is proven to improve length of hospital stay and postoperative outcomes, with nutrition forming a significant part of the therapy given. Further work is required to look at not only the interplay between the optimization of nutritional status and other prehabilitation interventions, but also how to best select which patients will achieve significant benefit.

Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery: a systematic review of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation aims at enhancing patients' functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses (CUAs). The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs' results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect.

RESULTS

We included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost-benefit analyses, 12 cost-consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

We found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020182813.

Barriers and facilitators to physical activity prehabilitation in patients with kidney cancer

PURPOSE

Timely and effective physical activity (PA) prehabilitation is an evidence-based approach for improving a patient's health status preoperatively. Identifying barriers and facilitators to PA prehabilitation can help inform best practices for exercise prehabilitation program implementation. We explore the barriers and facilitators to PA prehabilitation in patients undergoing nephrectomy.

METHODS

A qualitative exploratory study was conducted by interviewing 20 patients scheduled for nephrectomy. Interviewees were selected via convenience sampling strategy. The interviews were semi-structured and discussed experienced and perceived barriers/facilitators to PA prehabilitation. Interview transcripts were imported to Nvivo 12 for coding and semantic content analysis. A codebook was independently created and collectively validated. Themes of barriers and facilitators were identified and summarized in descriptive findings based on frequency of themes.

RESULTS

Five relevant themes of barriers to PA prehabilitation emerged: 1) mental factors, 2) personal responsibilities, 3) physical capacity, 4) health conditions, and 5) lack of exercise facilities. Contrarily, facilitators potentially contributing to PA prehabilitation adherence in kidney cancer included 1) holistic health, 2) social and professional support, 3) acknowledgment of health benefits, 4) exercise type and guidance, and 5) Communication channels.

CONCLUSION AND KEY FINDINGS

Kidney cancer patient's adherence to physical activity prehabilitation is influenced by multiple biopsychosocial barriers and facilitators. Hence, adherence to physical activity prehabilitation requires timely adaptation of health beliefs and behavior embedded in the reported barriers and facilitators. For this reason, prehabilitation strategies should strive to be patient-centered and include health behavioral change theories as underlying frameworks for sustaining patient engagement and self-efficacy.

Multimodal Prehabilitation in Patients Undergoing Complex Colorectal Surgery, Liver Resection, and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC): A Pilot Study on Feasibility and Potential Efficacy

BACKGROUND

Surgery for complex primary and metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), such as liver resection and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), in academic settings has led to improved survival but is associated with complications up to 75%. Prehabilitation has been shown to prevent complications in non-academic hospitals. This pilot study aimed to determine the feasibility and potential efficacy of a multimodal prehabilitation program in patients undergoing surgery in an academic hospital for complex primary and metastatic CRC.

METHODS

All patients awaiting complex colorectal surgery, liver resection, or HIPEC from July 2019 until January 2020 were considered potentially eligible. Feasibility was measured by accrual rate, completion rate, adherence to the program, satisfaction, and safety. To determine potential efficacy, postoperative outcomes were compared with a historical control group.

RESULTS

Sixteen out of twenty-five eligible patients (64%) commenced prehabilitation, and fourteen patients fully completed the intervention (88%). The adherence rate was 69%, as 11 patients completed >80% of prescribed supervised trainings. No adverse events occurred, and all patients expressed satisfaction with the program. The complication rate was significantly lower in the prehabilitation group (37.5%) than the control group (70.2%, p = 0.020). There was no difference in the type of complications.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study illustrates that multimodal prehabilitation is feasible in the majority of patients undergoing complex colorectal cancer, liver resection, and HIPEC in an academic setting.