Police officers' perceptions of interviewing offenders on sex offender registries

Police interviews with offenders form an important component of the sex offender registry monitoring process. This study provides an analysis of police professionals’ perceptions of the benefits and process of interviewing offenders on sex offender registries. Participants were a heterogeneous sample of 24 Australian police personnel whose roles were primarily associated with the operation of sex offender registries across three different jurisdictions. Participants’ perceptions of sex offender registry interviews were elicited using non-directive prompts in focus groups of between two and five officers. Transcripts of these focus groups were analysed andkey themes identified. Reported benefits related to the identification and correction of misunderstandings about registry requirements and elicitation of information to assist ongoing management and investigation of new offences. Further, establishing a sound relationship enabled proactive support of the offender in his/her attempt not to re-offend. Interview procedures emphasised the importance of genuine engagement and a relationship based on trust. The findings highlighted several challenges to interviewing and directions for further training, support and research. Participants’ responses underscore the significant role that interviews play in the effective implementation of sex offender registries and emphasise the need for successful engagement of offenders during these interviews to improve the utility of registry schemes. This was the first study to examine the strengths and challenges of interviewing offenders on the registry from a policing perspective.

Early stroke case-fatality rates in three hospital registries in the Northeast and Southeast of Brazil

Few studies have addressed early cerebrovascular lethality in Brazil. Objective: To evaluate 10 and 28-day stroke case-fatality rates in three hospitals in three Brazilian cities. Methods: We described the stroke registries in Sao Paulo, Joao Pessoa, and Natal. Results: Out of a total of 962 first-ever events (mean age, 68.1 years-old; 53% men), 83.6% (804 cases) were classified as ischemic and 16.4% (158) as hemorrhagic stroke. Overall, the case-fatality rates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for hemorrhagic stroke events were higher than for ischemic events, both at 10 (12.3%; 95% CI 7.2-17.4 versus 7.0%; 95% CI 5.3-8.8) and at 28 days (19.8%; 95% CI 13.6-26.0 versus 11.1%; 95% CI 8.9-13.3). Conclusions: We did not find any substantial differences in early case-fatality rates according to stroke subtypes, when comparing the three centers.

Optimising care in a Swiss University Emergency Department by implementing a multicentre trauma register (TARN): report on evaluation, costs and benefits of trauma registries

Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to trauma patients are, depending on experience, equipment and different therapeutic doctrines, subject to wide variations. The ability to compare trauma centres using a standardised trauma register helps to reveal unresolved systemic issues and simplifies the quality management in an Emergency Department (ED).

Reporting of noninferiority trials was incomplete in trial registries

Objective To examine the registration of noninferiority trials, with a focus on the reporting of study design and noninferiority margins. Study Design and Setting Cross-sectional study of registry records of noninferiority trials published from 2005 to 2009 and records of noninferiority trials in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) or ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries. The main outcome was the proportion of records that reported the noninferiority design and margin. Results We analyzed 87 registry records of published noninferiority trials and 149 registry records describing noninferiority trials. Thirty-five (40%) of 87 records from published trials described the trial as a noninferiority trial; only two (2%) reported the noninferiority margin. Reporting of the noninferiority design was more frequent in the ISRCTN registry (13 of 18 records, 72%) compared with ClinicalTrials.gov (22 of 69 records, 32%; P = 0.002). Among the 149 records identified in the registries, 13 (9%) reported the noninferiority margin. Only one of the industry-sponsored trial compared with 11 of the publicly funded trials reported the margin (P = 0.001). Conclusion Most registry records of noninferiority trials do not mention the noninferiority design and do not include the noninferiority margin. The registration of noninferiority trials is unsatisfactory and must be improved.

Comparative effectiveness research across two spine registries

Comparative effectiveness research in spine surgery is still a rarity. In this study, pain alleviation and quality of life (QoL) improvement after lumbar total disc arthroplasty (TDA) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) were anonymously compared by surgeon and implant.

Differences in coronary risk factors, procedural characteristics, mortality and stent thrombosis between two all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention registries from Europe and Japan: a patient-level data analysis of the Bern-Rotterdam and j-Cypher registries

Aims: The reported rate of stent thrombosis (ST) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation varies among registries. To investigate differences in baseline characteristics and clinical outcome in European and Japanese all-comers registries, we performed a pooled analysis of patient-level data. Methods and results: The j-Cypher registry (JC) is a multicentre observational study conducted in Japan, including 12,824 patients undergoing SES implantation. From the Bern-Rotterdam registry (BR) enrolled at two academic hospitals in Switzerland and the Netherlands, 3,823 patients with SES were included in the current analysis. Patients in BR were younger, more frequently smokers and presented more frequently with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI). Conversely, JC patients more frequently had diabetes and hypertension. At five years, the definite ST rate was significantly lower in JC than BR (JC 1.6% vs. BR 3.3%, p<0.001), while the unadjusted mortality tended to be lower in BR than in JC (BR 13.2% vs. JC 14.4%, log-rank p=0.052). After adjustment, the j-Cypher registry was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.49-0.64) as well as definite stent thrombosis (HR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35-0.61). Conclusions: The baseline characteristics of the two large registries were different. After statistical adjustment, JC was associated with lower mortality and ST.

A new universal, standardized implant database for product identification: a unique tool for arthroplasty registries.

INTRODUCTION Every joint registry aims to improve patient care by identifying implants that have an inferior performance. For this reason, each registry records the implant name that has been used in the individual patient. In most registries, a paper-based approach has been utilized for this purpose. However, in addition to being time-consuming, this approach does not account for the fact that failure patterns are not necessarily implant specific but can be associated with design features that are used in a number of implants. Therefore, we aimed to develop and evaluate an implant product library that allows both time saving barcode scanning on site in the hospital for the registration of the implant components and a detailed description of implant specifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS A task force consisting of representatives of the German Arthroplasty Registry, industry, and computer specialists agreed on a solution that allows barcode scanning of implant components and that also uses a detailed standardized classification describing arthroplasty components. The manufacturers classified all their components that are sold in Germany according to this classification. The implant database was analyzed regarding the completeness of components by algorithms and real-time data. RESULTS The implant library could be set up successfully. At this point, the implant database includes more than 38,000 items, of which all were classified by the manufacturers according to the predefined scheme. Using patient data from the German Arthroplasty Registry, several errors in the database were detected, all of which were corrected by the respective implant manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS The implant library that was developed for the German Arthroplasty Registry allows not only on-site barcode scanning for the registration of the implant components but also its classification tree allows a sophisticated analysis regarding implant characteristics, regardless of brand or manufacturer. The database is maintained by the implant manufacturers, thereby allowing registries to focus their resources on other areas of research. The database might represent a possible global model, which might encourage harmonization between joint replacement registries enabling comparisons between joint replacement registries.

Is a Revision a Revision? An Analysis of National Arthroplasty Registries' Definitions of Revision.

BACKGROUND The reported survival of implants depends on the definition used for the endpoint, usually revision. When screening through registry reports from different countries, it appears that revision is defined quite differently. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES The purposes of this study were to compare the definitions of revision among registry reports and to apply common clinical scenarios to these definitions. METHODS We downloaded or requested reports of all available national joint registries. Of the 23 registries we identified, 13 had published reports that were available in English and were beyond the pilot phase. We searched these registries' reports for the definitions of the endpoint, mostly revision. We then applied the following scenarios to the definition of revision and analyzed if those scenarios were regarded as a revision: (A) wound revision without any addition or removal of implant components (such as hematoma evacuation); (B) exchange of head and/or liner (like for infection); (C) isolated secondary patella resurfacing; and (D) secondary patella resurfacing with a routine liner exchange. RESULTS All registries looked separately at the characteristic of primary implantation without a revision and 11 of 13 registers reported on the characteristics of revisions. Regarding the definition of revision, there were considerable differences across the reports. In 11 of 13 reports, the primary outcome was revision of the implant. In one registry the primary endpoint was "reintervention/revision" while another registry reported separately on "failure" and "reoperations". In three registries, the definition of the outcome was not provided, however in one report a results list gave an indication for the definition of the outcome. Wound revision without any addition or removal of implant components (scenario A) was considered a revision in three of nine reports that provided a clear definition on this question, whereas two others did not provide enough information to allow this determination. Exchange of the head and/or liner (like for infection; scenario B) was considered a revision in 11 of 11; isolated secondary patella resurfacing (scenario C) in six of eight; and secondary patella resurfacing with routine liner exchange (scenario D) was considered a revision in nine of nine reports. CONCLUSIONS Revision, which is the most common main endpoint used by arthroplasty registries, is not universally defined. This implies that some reoperations that are considered a revision in one registry are not considered a revision in another registry. Therefore, comparisons of implant performance using data from different registries have to be performed with caution. We suggest that registries work to harmonize their definitions of revision to help facilitate comparisons of results across the world's arthroplasty registries.