Clinical features and risk factors of oedematous Mycobacterium ulcerans lesions in an Australian population: beware cellulitis in an endemic area

Introduction
Oedematous lesions are a less common but more severe form of Mycobacterium ulcerans disease. Misdiagnosis as bacterial cellulitis can lead to delays in treatment. We report the first comprehensive descriptions of the clinical features and risk factors of patients with oedematous disease from the Bellarine Peninsula of south-eastern Victoria, Australia.

Methods
Data on all confirmed Mycobacterium ulcerans cases managed at Barwon Health, Victoria, were collected from 1/1/1998–31/12/2012. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to assess associations with oedematous forms of Mycobacterium ulcerans disease.

Results
Seventeen of 238 (7%) patients had oedematous Mycobacterium ulcerans lesions. Their median age was 70 years (IQR 17–82 years) and 71% were male. Twenty-one percent of lesions were WHO category one, 35% category two and 41% category three. 16 (94%) patients were initially diagnosed with cellulitis and received a median 14 days (IQR 9–17 days) of antibiotics and 65% required hospitalization prior to Mycobacterium ulcerans diagnosis. Fever was present in 50% and pain in 87% of patients. The WCC, neutrophil count and CRP were elevated in 54%, 62% and 75% of cases respectively. The median duration of antibiotic treatment was 84 days (IQR 67–96) and 94% of cases required surgical intervention. On multivariable analysis, there was an increased likelihood of a lesion being oedematous if on the hand (OR 85.62, 95% CI 13.69–535.70; P<0.001), elbow (OR 7.83, 95% CI 1.39–43.96; p<0.001) or ankle (OR 7.92, 95% CI 1.28–49.16; p<0.001), or if the patient had diabetes mellitus (OR 9.42, 95% CI 1.62–54.74; p = 0.02).

Conclusions
In an Australian population, oedematous Mycobacterium ulcerans lesions present with similar symptoms, signs and investigation results to, and are commonly mistakenly diagnosed for, bacterial limb cellulitis. There is an increased likelihood of oedematous lesions affecting the hand, elbow or ankle, and in patients with diabetes.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for obesity. Seventeen electronic databases were searched [MEDLINE; EMBASE; PreMedline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; The Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, DARE, NHS EED and HTA databases; Web of Knowledge Science Citation Index (SCI); Web of Knowledge ISI Proceedings; PsycInfo; CRD databases; BIOSIS; and databases listing ongoing clinical trials] from inception to August 2008. Bibliographies of related papers were assessed and experts were contacted to identify additional published and unpublished references. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text using a standard form. Interventions investigated were open and laparoscopic bariatric surgical procedures in widespread current use compared with one another and with non-surgical interventions. Population comprised adult patients with body mass index (BMI) > or = 30 and young obese people. Main outcomes were at least one of the following after at least 12 months follow-up: measures of weight change; quality of life (QoL); perioperative and postoperative mortality and morbidity; change in obesity-related comorbidities; cost-effectiveness. Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review for comparisons of Surgery versus Surgery were RCTs. For comparisons of Surgery versus Non-surgical procedures eligible studies were RCTs, controlled clinical trials and prospective cohort studies (with a control cohort). Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review of cost-effectiveness were full cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses and cost-consequence analyses. One reviewer performed data extraction, which was checked by two reviewers independently. Two reviewers independently applied quality assessment criteria and differences in opinion were resolved at each stage. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of all included studies. In the economic model the analysis was developed for three patient populations, those with BMI > or = 40; BMI > or = 30 and < 40 with Type 2 diabetes at baseline; and BMI > or = 30 and < 35. Models were applied with assumptions on costs and comorbidity.

Clinical research and leadership training program as a knowledge translation initiative across an Australian health care service

 Health professionals need to be integrated more effectively in clinical research initiatives to ensure that research addresses key clinical needs and provides practical, implementable solutions at the coal face of care. Here we describe the informative phase of a broader program to enable and support health professionals at Monash Health who do not have a research background, to engage in and lead research to improve healthcare outcomes. The findings will be used to develop a dedicated clinical research and leadership training program. The training program will support Monash Health staff to up-skill or enhance skills to conduct rigorous research; engage and lead multidisciplinary, collaborative teams; and to use research to guide practice, as well as identify and address gaps in clinical research.  

A university-based clinical exercise facility that serves as a clinical, teaching and research space

Deakin University opened its Clinical Exercise Learning Centre (CELC) in May 2011, initially staffed by four (now seven) Accredited Exercise Physiologists (AEP), and funded by the university. The main objectives of CELC are to provide (i) excellent clinical practicum learning opportunities for postgraduate students enrolled in the Master of Clinical Exercise Physiology that prepare students for subsequent external placements; (ii) learning opportunities that are vertically integrated with the preparatory components of the Masters, including pathophysiology units and pre-clinical units; (iii) learning opportunities that are also integrated with the external clinical practicum program that is embedded in the Masters; (iv) a clinical service to the community and strong referral networks with local GPs; (v) a research centre that is focussed on evaluating the efficacy of Accredited Exercise Physiology (AEP) services for a range of clinical situations, with a view to contributing to a future national evidence-based practice network supported by ESSA. Deakin University funds the CELC facility, equipment, consumables, limited car parking, practice management software and server and, most importantly, the staff. Therefore CELC runs at a loss even against fees charged and this was built into the original model. Staff include an AEP clinical practicum coordinator, two casual AEPs and several academic AEPs; the latter practise as a small part of their approved workloads. The practice model is for all AEPs to provide clinical services with referred clients who are billed as if CELC is a private practice, whilst concurrently teaching and mentoring students; the latter are expected to be active learners in CELC and have exposure to a wide range of pathologies and clinical situations. Billable hours are always provided by AEPs, not students, but students can assist. CELC provides clinical services 1:1:1 (client: AEP: student), 1:1:5 and 8:1:5. CELC was awarded national runner-up in the ESSA Exercise Physiology clinic of the year in 2011 and has grown its caseload to > 200 referrers in 2013. CELC recently designed a generic research platform and has begun to roll out research projects that are designed to translate 'traditional' research-based evidence of exercise benefits for chronic disease in order to evaluate AEP efficacy of practice in the Australian context. CELC provides a model for other universities, provided those universities see it for its learning value, and not to generate revenue or profit.

Assessment of simulated clinical skills and distance students: can we do it better?

Australian universities have traditionally been able to supplement clinical education, for undergraduate nursing courses, delivered on placement with weekly clinical teaching in the simulated environment. The Objective Structured Clinical Assessment (OSCA) tool has been used in this simulated environment to assess clinical skills. Recently, however, online delivery of undergraduate nursing courses has become more common. The move from an internal mode of teaching to an online external mode is seen worldwide and poses challenges to staff and students as well as changing the teaching and learning culture of institutions (Philip and Wozniak, 2009). This cultural shift and the resulting diminishing timeframe for students to acquire and practice simulated clinical skills imply that it may become necessary to rethink assessment forms such as the OSCA assessment. This study examines whether or not the OSCA tool developed by Bujack et al. (1991a) is the best tool to be used in this new context, where online teaching is supplemented by very short, annual, intensive periods of study. Skills acquisition theories dictate that time is required to produce an ideal skills acquisition environment (Quinn, 2000) but the time constraints placed on students in such intensive periods of study could influence skills acquisition. This cross-sectional qualitative study used semi-structured interviews and focus groups to collect data. 65% of the nursing faculty participated in the study. The teaching of the Bachelor of Nursing (BN) occurred on two campuses and staff from both areas participated. This group of nurse academics was employed across the range of academic levels (from lecturer to professor) at the University. Data analysis followed a generic thematic analysis framework. Findings in this study show that there are a variety of attitudes and underpinning beliefs amongst staff in relation to the OSCAs. Doubts were raised in regard to the suitability of the use of the OSCA tool in this setting. It also became apparent during this study that the OSCA tool possibly serves purposes other than an assessment tool.

Combining clinical judgement and formalised risk assessment techniques in anaesthesiology : lessons from bushfire emergency management

The underlying thinking in bushfire management has much to offer anaesthetists. Although it is imperative to develop improved methods of predicting the risk of perioperative patient morbidity and mortality, we must avoid them being used in a way that can undermine both individual clinical judgment on a case-by-case basis and the effectivenessof the methods themselves. This requires all concerned to be aware of the reliability and validity of the algorithms used to provide such predictions as well as the quality of the data upon which they are based. Like fire behaviour analysts, anaesthetists should still be free to trust their knowledge, expertise and experience. When experienced fire fighters sense a conflict between what the evidence on the ground is telling them and what a predictive fire map is saying, they use their understanding of limitations of the fire analysts’ predictions to inform their own professional judgment.