Interventional radiology and the care of the oncology patient.

Interventional Radiology (IR) is occupying an increasingly prominent role in the care of patients with cancer, with involvement from initial diagnosis, right through to minimally invasive treatment of the malignancy and its complications. Adequate diagnostic samples can be obtained under image guidance by percutaneous biopsy and needle aspiration in an accurate and minimally invasive manner. IR techniques may be used to place central venous access devices with well-established safety and efficacy. Therapeutic applications of IR in the oncology patient include local tumour treatments such as transarterial chemo-embolisation and radiofrequency ablation, as well as management of complications of malignancy such as pain, organ obstruction, and venous thrombosis.

Improving the care of preterm infants: before, during, and after, stabilisation in the delivery room

Introduction Up to 10% of infants require stabilisation during transition to extrauterine life. Enhanced monitoring of cardiorespiratory parameters during this time may improve stabilisation outcomes. In addition, technology may facilitate improved preparation for delivery room stabilisation as well as NICU procedures, through educational techniques. Aim To improve infant care 1) before birth via improved training, 2) during stabilisation via enhanced physiological monitoring and improved practice, and 3) after delivery, in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), via improved procedural care. Methods A multifaceted approach was utilised including; a combination of questionnaire based surveys, mannequin-based investigations, prospective observational investigations, and a randomised controlled trial involving preterm infants less than 32 weeks in the delivery room. Forms of technology utilised included; different types of mannequins including a CO2 producing mannequin, qualitative end tidal CO2 (EtCO2) detectors, a bespoke quantitative EtCO2 detector, and annotated videos of infant stabilisation as well as NICU procedures Results Manual ventilation improved with the use of EtCO2 detection, and was positively assessed by trainees. Quantitative EtCO2 detection in the delivery room is feasible, EtCO2 increased over the first 4 minutes of life in preterm infants, and EtCO2 was higher in preterm infants who were intubated. Current methods of heart rate assessment were found to be unreliable. Electrocardiography (ECG) application warrants further evaluation. Perfusion index (PI) monitoring utilised in the delivery room was feasible. Video recording technology was utilised in several ways. This technology has many potential benefits, including debriefing and coaching in procedural healthcare, and warrants further evaluation. Parents would welcome the introduction of webcams in the NICU. Conclusions I have evaluated new methods of improving infant care before, during, and after stabilisation in the DR. Specifically, I have developed novel educational tools to facilitate training, and evaluated EtCO2, PI, and ECG during infant stabilisation. I have identified barriers in using webcams in the NICU, to now be addressed prior to webcam implementation.

Time-limited home-care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults

Background: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. Objectives: To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. Search methods: We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed. Main results: Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years). We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows. Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants). Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants). The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.34; 1 study with 750 participants) at time points up to 12 months. People receiving reablement may be slightly less likely to have been approved for a higher level of personal care than people receiving usual care over the 24 months' follow-up (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 1 trial, 750 participants). Similarly, although there may be a small reduction in total aggregated home and healthcare costs over the 24-month follow-up (reablement: AUD 19,888; usual care: AUD 22,757; 1 trial with 750 participants), we are uncertain about the size and importance of these effects as the results were based on very low quality evidence. Neither study reported user satisfaction with the service. Authors' conclusions: There is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of reablement as the evidence was of very low quality according to our GRADE ratings. Therefore, the effectiveness of reablement services cannot be supported or refuted until more robust evidence becomes available. There is an urgent need for high quality trials across different health and social care systems due to the increasingly high profile of reablement services in policy and practice in several countries.