Gli strumenti della performance. Un’analisi dei Piani e delle Relazioni sulla Performance 2011 nei comuni di grandi dimensioni

No abstract available

DESCRIBING SLEEP AND SEDATION PRACTICES IN THE ICU: A MULTINATIONAL SURVEY

Introduction Sleep disturbances are common in critically ill patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) with the potential for serious consequences and long-term effects on health outcomes and patient morbidity.
Objectives Our aim was to describe sleep management and sedation practices of adult ICUs in ten countries and to evaluate roles and responsibilities of the ICU staff in relation to key sleep and sedation decisions.
Methods A multicenter, self-administered survey sent to nurse managers of adult ICUs across 10 countries. The questionnaire comprised four domains: sleep characteristics of the critically ill; sleep and sedation practices; non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions used to improve sleep; and the autonomy and influence of nurses on sleeping practices in the ICU.
Results Overall response rate was 66% (range 32% UK to 100% Cyprus), providing data from 522 ICUs. In all countries, the most frequent patient characteristic perceived to identify sleep was lying quietly with closed eyes (N=409, 78%) (range 92% Denmark to 36% Italy). The most commonly used sedation scale was the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Score (RASS) (N=220, 42%) (range 81% UK to 0% Denmark, Cyprus where most ICUs used the Ramsay score). In most ICUs, selection of sleep medication (N=265, 51%) and assessment of effect (N=309, 59%) was performed by physicians and nurses based on collaborative discussion. In a minority of ICUs (N=161, 31%), decisions and assessments were made by physicians alone. The most commonly used (in all countries) non-pharmacological intervention to promote sleep was reducing ICU staff noise (N=473, 91%) (range 100% Denmark, Norway to 78% Canada). Only 95 ICUs (18%) used earplugs on a frequent basis (range 0% Greece, Cyprus, Denmark to 57% Sweden). Propofol was the drug used most commonly for sedation (N=359, 69%) (range 96% Sweden to 29% Canada). Chloral hydrate was used by only 63 (12%) ICUs (range 0% Greece, Cyprus, Denmark, Italy to 56% Germany). Sedation scales were used on a routine basis by 77% of the 522 ICUs. Participants scored nursing autonomy for sleep and sedation management as moderate; median score of 5 (scale of 0 to 10), range 7 (Canada, Greece, Sweden) to 4 (Norway, Poland). Nursing influence on sleep and sedation decisions was perceived considerable; median score 8, range 9 (Denmark) to 5 (Poland).
Conclusions We found considerable across country variation in sleep promotion and sedation management practices though most have adopted a sedation scale as recommended in professional society guidelines. Most ICUs in all countries used a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to promote sleep. Most units reported inter-professional decision-making with nurses perceived to have substantial influence on sleep/sedation decisions.

Calcium Channel Blocker Use and Risk of Prostate Cancer by TMPRSS2:ERG Gene Fusion Status

BACKGROUND: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) may affect prostate cancer (PCa) growth by various mechanisms including those related to androgens. The fusion of the androgen-regulated gene TMPRSS2 and the oncogene ERG (TMPRSS2:ERG or T2E) is common in PCa, and prostate tumors that harbor the gene fusion are believed to represent a distinct disease subtype. We studied the association of CCB use with the risk of PCa, and molecular subtypes of PCa defined by T2E status.

METHODS: Participants were residents of King County, Washington, recruited for population-based case-control studies (1993-1996 or 2002-2005). Tumor T2E status was determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization using tumor tissue specimens from radical prostatectomy. Detailed information on use of CCBs and other variables was obtained through in-person interviews. Binomial and polytomous logistic regression were used to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS: The study included 1,747 PCa patients and 1,635 age-matched controls. A subset of 563 patients treated with radical prostatectomy had T2E status determined, of which 295 were T2E positive (52%). Use of CCBs (ever vs. never) was not associated with overall PCa risk. However, among European-American men, users had a reduced risk of higher-grade PCa (Gleason scores ≥7: adjusted OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.95). Further, use of CCBs was associated with a reduced risk of T2E positive PCa (adjusted OR = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.19-0.78), but was not associated with T2E negative PCa.

CONCLUSIONS: This study found suggestive evidence that use of CCBs is associated with reduced relative risks for higher Gleason score and T2E positive PCa. Future studies of PCa etiology should consider etiologic heterogeneity as PCa subtypes may develop through different causal pathways.