Speeding stroke recovery? A systematic review of amphetamine after stroke

Introduction: The use of drugs to enhance recovery (“rehabilitation pharmacology”) has been assessed. Amphetamine can improve outcome in experimental models of stroke, and several small clinical trials have assessed its use in stroke. Methods: Electronic searches were performed to identify randomised controlled trials of amphetamine in stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic). Outcomes included functional outcome (assessed as combined death or disability/dependency), safety (death) and haemodynamic measures. Data were analysed as dichotomous or continuous outcomes, using odds ratios (OR), weighted or standardised mean difference, (WMD or SMD) using random-effects models with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI); statistical heterogeneity was assessed. Results: Eleven completed trials (n=329) were identified. Treatment with amphetamine was associated with non-significant trends to increased death (OR 2.78 (95% CI, 0.75– 10.23), n=329, 11 trials) and improved motor scores (WMD 3.28 (95% CI −0.48–7.04) n=257, 9 trials) but had no effect on the combined outcome of death and dependency (OR 1.15 (95% CI 0.65–2.06, n=206, 5 trials). Amphetamine increased systolic blood pressure (WMD 9.3 mmHg, 95% CI 3.3–15.3, n=106, 3 trials) and heart rate (WMD 7.6 beats per minute (bpm), 95% CI 1.8–13.4, n=106, 3 trials). Despite variations in treatment regimes, outcomes and follow-up duration there was no evidence of significant heterogeneity or publication bias. Conclusion: No evidence exists at present to support the use of amphetamine after stroke. Despite a trend to improved motor function, doubts remain over

Using Needs Assessment to Understand Continuing Disability in Patients with Enduring Mental Illness. Implications for Considerations of Service Development

Particular strengths of the MRC Needs for Care Assessment Schedule have been used to investigate the treatment status of patients with persistent psychiatric disability in ways that other needs assessment tools are unable to. One hundred and seventy-nine such patients from three settings; a private sector psychiatric hospital, two public sector day hospitals situated in the same town, and a high security hospital, were found to have a high level of need. Although there were differences between settings, overall these needs were well met in all three. The high level of persistent disability found amongst these patients could not be attributed to failure on the part of those treating them to use the best available methods, or to failures to comply or engage with treatment on the patient's part. In some two thirds of instances persistent disability was best explained by the fact that even the most suitable available treatments have to be considered only partially effective.

Adaptive regulation or governmentality: patient safety and the changing regulation of medicine

Studies from across the world have shown that clinical mistakes are a major threat to the safety of patient care (World Health Organisation 2004). For the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales it is estimated that one in ten hospital patients experience some form of error, and each year these cost the service over £2billion in remedial care (Department of Health 2000). Unsurprisingly, ‘patient safety’ is now a major international health policy priority, questioning the efficacy of existing regulatory practices and proposing a new ethos of learning. Within England and Wales, the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) has been created to lead policy development and champion service-wide learning, whilst throughout the NHS the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) has been introduced to enable this learning (NPSA 2003). This paper investigates the extent to which, in seeking to better manage the threats to patient safety, this policy agenda represents a transition in medical regulation.

Independence or Protection - does it have to be a choice? Reflections on the abuse people with learning disabilities in Cornwall

This commentary will use recent events in Cornwall to highlight the ongoing abuse of adults with learning disabilities in England. It will critically explore how two parallel policy agendas – namely, the promotion of choice and independence for adults with learning disabilities and the development of adult protection policies – have failed to connect, thus allowing abuse to continue to flourish. It will be argued that the abuse of people with learning disabilities can only be minimised by policies which reflect an understanding that choice and independence must necessarily be mediated by effective adult protection measures. Such protection needs to include not only an appropriate regulatory framework, access to justice and well-qualified staff, but also a more critical and reflective approach to the current orthodoxy which promotes choice and independence as the only acceptable goals for any person with a learning disability.