Who's really hypertensive? - Quality control issues in the assessment of blood pressure for randomized trials

The characterization of blood pressure in treatment trials assessing the benefits of blood pressure lowering regimens is a critical factor for the appropriate interpretation of study results. With numerous operators involved in the measurement of blood pressure in many thousands of patients being screened for entry into clinical trials, it is essential that operators follow pre-defined measurement protocols involving multiple measurements and standardized techniques. Blood pressure measurement protocols have been developed by international societies and emphasize the importance of appropriate choice of cuff size, identification of Korotkoff sounds, and digit preference. Training of operators and auditing of blood pressure measurement may assist in reducing the operator-related errors in measurement. This paper describes the quality control activities adopted for the screening stage of the 2nd Australian National Blood Pressure Study (ANBP2). ANBP2 is cardiovascular outcome trial of the treatment of hypertension in the elderly that was conducted entirely in general practices in Australia. A total of 54 288 subjects were screened; 3688 previously untreated subjects were identified as having blood pressure >140/90 mmHg at the initial screening visit, 898 (24%) were not eligible for study entry after two further visits due to the elevated reading not being sustained. For both systolic and diastolic blood pressure recording, observed digit preference fell within 7 percentage points of the expected frequency. Protocol adherence, in terms of the required minimum blood pressure difference between the last two successive recordings, was 99.8%. These data suggest that adherence to blood pressure recording protocols and elimination of digit preferences can be achieved through appropriate training programs and quality control activities in large multi-centre community-based trials in general practice. Repeated blood pressure measurement prior to initial diagnosis and study entry is essential to appropriately characterize hypertension in these elderly patients.

Ergonomic issues in team lifting

In this article we review and critique the current body of scientific knowledge regarding the use of team lifting including: (a) psychophysical studies of team lifting capacity, and (b) studies of manual handling, patient handling, and stretcher carriage performed by lifting teams. The consensus of the research literature is that team-lifting capacity is greater than the lifting capacity of an individual, but that the capacity of lifting teams is less than the summed capacity of individual team members. Further, biomechanical, psychophysical, and physiological stress tends to be reduced compared to the equivalent lifts and transfers performed by individuals. However, the stress associated with team lifting depends on a broad range of individual team member, load, task and environmental factors, which can interact in unexpected ways. Caution is therefore recommended against making broad assumptions regarding the use of team lifting. Future studies are needed to examine how effort and load are distributed among lifting team members, with emphasis on identifying factors that may increase the risk of injury.

Safety issues in functional capacity evaluation: Findings from a trial of a new approach for evaluating clients with chronic back pain

Although safety is recognized as a critical issue in functional capacity evaluations (FCEs), it has rarely been investigated. This paper reports on the findings of a study which examined safety aspects of a new approach to FCE. Fourteen rehabilitation clients with chronic back pain participated in the study. Aspects examined included the pre-FCE screening procedures, the monitoring of performance and safety during the FCE, and the end of FCE measures and follow-up procedures. Support was found for the screening procedures of the approach, particularly blood pressure measurement, and for the combined approach to monitoring of the persons performance from biomechanical, physiological and psychophysical perspectives. Issues for FCE safety in general are identified and discussed, including the importance of screening procedures to determine readiness for FCEs and the issue of load handling in FCEs, especially in relation to clients with chronic back pain.

Issues in Australian Foreign Policy : January to June 2005

No abstract

E-Government, targeting and data profiling: Policy and ethical issues of differential treatment

Networked information and communication technologies are rapidly advancing the capacities of governments to target and separately manage specific sub-populations, groups and individuals. Targeting uses data profiling to calculate the differential probabilities of outcomes associated with various personal characteristics. This knowledge is used to classify and sort people for differentiated levels of treatment. Targeting is often used to efficiently and effectively target government resources to the most disadvantaged. Although having many benefits, targeting raises several policy and ethical issues. This paper discusses these issues and the policy responses governments may take to maximise the benefits of targeting while ameliorating the negative aspects.

Issues in training in clinical psychology in Australia: Interplay between training goals and legal standards of practice

Training models in clinical psychology vary across regions, as do the laws that regulate professional practice in psychology. Standards for practice and for entry into professional practice may endure past the point of utility in the face of changing health-care systems and evolving international considerations. Herein the authors review aspects of the Australian 4-year training model, including qualifications for entry to the profession, supervision, and the influence of the profession and the universities in maintaining and in changing to a new training model. Aspects of training in clinical psychology in Australia are also discussed, and the Australian and New Zealand accreditation models are contrasted. Suggestions on ways to move forward are offered.