Physician recommendation for invasive prenatal testing: the case of the 'precious baby'

Do clinicians manage pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technologies (ART) differently from spontaneous pregnancies?

Clinicians decisions about prenatal testing during pregnancy depend, at least partially, on the method of conception.

Research thus far has shown that patients decisions regarding prenatal screening are different in ART pregnancies compared with spontaneous ones, such that ART pregnancies may be considered more valuable or precious than pregnancies conceived without treatment.

In this cross-sectional study, preformed during the year 2011, 163 obstetricians and gynecologists in Israel completed an anonymous online questionnaire.

Clinicians were randomly assigned to read one of two versions of a vignette describing the case of a pregnant woman. The two versions differed only with regard to the method of conception (ART; n 78 versus spontaneous; n 85). Clinicians were asked to provide their recommendations regarding amniocentesis.

The response rate among all clinicians invited to complete the questionnaire was 16.7. Of the 85 clinicians presented with the spontaneous pregnancy scenario, 37 (43.5) recommended amniocentesis. In contrast, of the 78 clinicians presented with the ART pregnancy scenario, only 15 (19.2) recommended the test. Clinicians were 3.2 (95 confidence interval [CI]: 1.66.6) times more likely to recommend amniocentesis for a spontaneous pregnancy than for an ART pregnancy.

The study is limited by a low response rate, the relatively small sample and the hypothetical nature of the decision, as clinician recommendations may have differed in an actual clinical setting.

Our findings show that fertility history and use of ART may affect clinicians recommendations regarding amniocentesis following receipt of screening test results. This raises the question of how subjective factors influence clinicians decisions regarding other aspects of pregnancy management.

There was no funding source to this study. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

GWAS identifies an NAT2 acetylator status tag single nucleotide polymorphism to be a major locus for skin fluorescence

Skin fluorescence (SF) is a non-invasive marker of AGEs and is associated with the long-term complications of diabetes. SF increases with age and is also greater among individuals with diabetes. A familial correlation of SF suggests that genetics may play a role. We therefore performed parallel genome-wide association studies of SF in two cohorts.

History-guided conversational recommendation

Product recommendation is an important aspect of many e-commerce systems. It provides an effective way to help users navigate complex product spaces. In this paper, we focus on critiquing-based recommenders. We present a new critiquing-based approach, History-Guided Recommendation (HGR), which is capable of using the recommendation pairs (item and critique) or critiques only so far in the current recommendation session to predict the most likely product recommendations and therefore short-cut the sometimes protracted recommendation sessions in standard critiquing approaches. The HGR approach shows a significant improvement in the interaction between the user and the recommender. It also enables successfully accepted recommendations to be made much earlier in the session

Situation Background Assessment Recommendation (SBAR): Undergraduate Perspectives

Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR): Undergraduate Perspectives C Morgan, L Adams, J Murray, R Dunlop, IK Walsh. Ian K Walsh, Centre for Medical Education, Queen’s University Belfast, Mulhouse Building, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6DP Background and Purpose: Structured communication tools are used to improve team communication quality.1,2 The Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR) tool is widely adopted within patient safety.3 SBAR effectiveness is reportedly equivocal, suggesting use is not sustained beyond initial training.4-6 Understanding perspectives of those using SBAR may further improve clinical communication. We investigated senior medical undergraduate perspectives on SBAR, particularly when communicating with senior colleagues. Methodology: Mixed methods data collection was used. A previously piloted questionnaire with 12 five point Lickert scale questions and 3 open questions was given to all final year medical students. A subgroup also participated in 10 focus groups, deploying strictly structured audio-recorded questions. Selection was by convenience sampling, data gathered by open text questions and comments transcribed verbatim. In-vivo coding (iterative, towards data saturation) preceded thematic analysis. Results: 233 of 255 students (91%) completed the survey. 1. There were clearly contradictory viewpoints on SBAR usage. A recurrent theme was a desire for formal feedback and a relative lack of practice/experience with SBAR. 2. Students reported SBAR as having variable interpretation between individuals; limiting use as a shared mental model. 3. Brief training sessions are insufficient to embed the tool. 4. Most students reported SBAR helping effective communication, especially by providing structure in stressful situations. 5. Only 18.5% of students felt an alternative resource might be needed. Sub analysis of the themes highlighted: A. Lack of clarity regarding what information to include and information placement within the acronym, B. Senior colleague negative response to SBAR C. Lack of conciseness with the tool. Discussion and Conclusions: Despite a wide range of contradictory interpretation of SBAR utility, most students wish to retain the resource. More practice opportunities/feedback may enhance user confidence and understanding. References: (1) Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Quality & Safety in Health Care 2004 Oct;13(Suppl 1):85-90. (2) d'Agincourt-Canning LG, Kissoon N, Singal M, Pitfield AF. Culture, communication and safety: lessons from the airline industry. Indian J Pediatr 2011 Jun;78(6):703-708. (3) Dunsford J. Structured communication: improving patient safety with SBAR. Nurs Womens Health 2009 Oct;13(5):384-390. (4) Compton J, Copeland K, Flanders S, Cassity C, Spetman M, Xiao Y, et al. Implementing SBAR across a large multihospital health system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2012 Jun;38(6):261-268. (5) Ludikhuize J, de Jonge E, Goossens A. Measuring adherence among nurses one year after training in applying the Modified Early Warning Score and Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation instruments. Resuscitation 2011 Nov;82(11):1428-1433. (6) Cunningham NJ, Weiland TJ, van Dijk J, Paddle P, Shilkofski N, Cunningham NY. Telephone referrals by junior doctors: a randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of SBAR in a simulated setting. Postgrad Med J 2012 Nov;88(1045):619-626.