Localization Algorithm Performance in Ultra Low Power Active RFID Based Patient Tracking

Indoor personnel localization research has generated a range of potential techniques and algorithms. However, these typically do not account for the influence of the user's body upon the radio channel. In this paper an active RFID based patient tracking system is demonstrated and three localization algorithms are used to estimate the location of a user within a modern office building. It is shown that disregarding body effects reduces the accuracy of the algorithms' location estimates and that body shadowing effects create a systematic position error that estimates the user's location as closer to the RFID reader that the active tag has line of sight to.

Managing patient deterioration: evaluation of what works.

Background: Rapid Response Systems (RRS) have been implemented nationally and internationally to improve patient safety in hospital. However, to date the majority of the RRS research evidence has focused on measuring the effectiveness of the intervention on patient outcomes. To evaluate RRS it has been recommended that a multimodal approach is required to address the broad range of process and outcome measures required to determine the effectiveness of the RRS concept. Aim: The aim of this paper is to evaluate the official RRS programme theoretical assumptions regarding how the programme is meant to work against actual practice in order to determine what works. Methods: The research design was a multiple case study approach of four wards in two hospitals in Northern Ireland. It followed the principles of realist evaluation research which allowed empirical data to be gathered to test and refine RRS programme theory [1]. This approach used a variety of mixed methods to test the programme theories including individual and focus group interviews with a purposive sample of 75 nurses and doctors, observation of ward practices and documentary analysis. The findings from the case studies were analysed and compared within and across cases to identify what works for whom and in what circumstances. Results: The RRS programme theories were critically evaluated and compared with study findings to develop a mid-range theory to explain what works, for whom in what circumstances. The findings of what works suggests that clinical experience, established working relationships, flexible implementation of protocols, ongoing experiential learning, empowerment and pre-emptive management are key to the success of RRS implementation.  Conclusion:These findings highlight the combination of factors that can improve the implementation of RRS and in light of this evidence several recommendations are made to provide policymakers with guidance and direction for their success and sustainability.References: 1.Pawson R and Tilley N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation. Sage Publications; LondonType of submission: Concurrent session Source of funding: Sandra Ryan Fellowship funded by the School of Nursing & Midwifery, Queen’s University of Belfast

Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic effects of radiotherapy than do clinician-reported outcomes. We did a quality of life (QoL) substudy to assess PROs up to 24 months after conventionally fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP) trial.

METHODS: The CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 57 UK hospitals took part in the QoL substudy. Men with localised prostate cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy were eligible for trial entry if they had histologically confirmed T1b-T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, an estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less than 30%, prostate-specific antigen concentration less than 30 ng/mL, and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a standard fractionation schedule of 74 Gy in 37 fractions or one of two hypofractionated schedules: 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted block sizes of six and nine, stratified by centre and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Treatment allocation was not masked. UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), including Short Form (SF)-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and SF-12 quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, pre-radiotherapy, 10 weeks post-radiotherapy, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial completed accrual on June 16, 2011, and the QoL substudy was closed to further recruitment on Nov 1, 2009. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint of the QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97182923.

FINDINGS: 2100 participants in the CHHiP trial consented to be included in the QoL substudy: 696 assigned to the 74 Gy schedule, 698 assigned to the 60 Gy schedule, and 706 assigned to the 57 Gy schedule. Of these individuals, 1659 (79%) provided data pre-radiotherapy and 1444 (69%) provided data at 24 months after radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 50·0 months (IQR 38·4-64·2) on April 9, 2014, which was the most recent follow-up measurement of all data collected before the QoL data were analysed in September, 2014. Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19 fractions groups at 2 years showed no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men; moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59). We saw no differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months.

INTERPRETATION: The incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy. If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findings will add to the growing evidence for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules becoming the standard treatment for localised prostate cancer.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Comorbidity in severe asthma requiring systemic corticosteroid therapy: cross-sectional data from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database and the British Thoracic Difficult Asthma Registry

Objective: To determine the prevalence of systemic corticosteroid-induced morbidity in severe asthma.
Design: Cross-sectional observational study.Setting The primary care Optimum Patient Care Research Database and the British Thoracic Society Difficult Asthma Registry.
Participants: Optimum Patient Care Research Database (7195 subjects in three age- and gender-matched groups)—severe asthma (Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) treatment step 5 with four or more prescriptions/year of oral corticosteroids, n=808), mild/moderate asthma (GINA treatment step 2/3, n=3975) and non-asthma controls (n=2412). 770 subjects with severe asthma from the British Thoracic Society Difficult Asthma Registry (442 receiving daily oral corticosteroids to maintain disease control).
Main outcome measures: Prevalence rates of morbidities associated with systemic steroid exposure were evaluated and reported separately for each group.
Results: 748/808 (93%) subjects with severe asthma had one or more condition linked to systemic corticosteroid exposure (mild/moderate asthma 3109/3975 (78%), non-asthma controls 1548/2412 (64%); p<0.001 for severe asthma versus non-asthma controls). Compared with mild/moderate asthma, morbidity rates for severe asthma were significantly higher for conditions associated with systemic steroid exposure (type II diabetes 10% vs 7%, OR=1.46 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.91), p<0.01; osteoporosis 16% vs 4%, OR=5.23, (95% CI 3.97 to 6.89), p<0.001; dyspeptic disorders (including gastric/duodenal ulceration) 65% vs 34%, OR=3.99, (95% CI 3.37 to 4.72), p<0.001; cataracts 9% vs 5%, OR=1.89, (95% CI 1.39 to 2.56), p<0.001). In the British Thoracic Society Difficult Asthma Registry similar prevalence rates were found, although, additionally, high rates of osteopenia (35%) and obstructive sleep apnoea (11%) were identified.

Conclusions: Oral corticosteroid-related adverse events are common in severe asthma. New treatments which reduce exposure to oral corticosteroids may reduce the prevalence of these conditions and this should be considered in cost-effectiveness analyses of these new treatments.

Measuring the sustainability of a national economy. The application of three measures of sustainability to Ireland

An assessment of the sustainability of the Irish economy has been carried out using three methodologies, enabling comparison and evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of each, and potential synergies among them. The three measures chosen were economy-wide Material Flow Analysis (MFA), environmentally extended input-output (EE-IO) analysis and the Ecological Footprint (EF). The research aims to assess the sustainability of the Irish economy using these methods and to draw conclusions on their effectiveness in policy making both individually and in combination. A theoretical description discusses the methods and their respective advantages and disadvantages and sets out a rationale for their combined application. The application of the methods in combination has provided insights into measuring the sustainability of a national economy and generated new knowledge on the collective application of these methods. The limitations of the research are acknowledged and opportunities to address these and build on and extend the research are identified. Building on previous research, it is concluded that a complete picture of sustainability cannot be provided by a single method and/or indicator.