James Parkinson (1755-1824): A pioneer of child care

James Parkinson (1755-1824) of Parkinson's disease, is well recognized as a pioneer of clinical neurology; and is even more famous as a founder of modem palaeontology. We have reviewed from primary sources his extensive contributions to clinical child care and his pioneering advocacy for child welfare, protection and safety. His writings, outreach and advocacy for children's health characterizes him as one whose influence was an important springboard from which evolved the modern specialty of paediatrics. Parkinson was one of the first to write on child-rearing practices and in this context antedated Benjamin Spock by 150 years. Parkinson was a pioneer of child safety and the prevention of childhood trauma. He wrote of the resuscitation of near-drowned children and of first aid for injured children. This critical analysis reviews his pioneering description of child abuse and the development of post-abuse hydrocephalus. He wrote the datum description (in English) of the pathophysiology and pathology of appendicitis in children, of fatal rabies in children and highlighted the risk of death even when the biting dog was not clinically rabid. His advocacy for social reform for children's welfare was courageous and pioneering. James Parkinson, hitherto unacknowledged, was a significant founder of the evolving discipline of paediatrics and child health.

A review of telehealth

Telehealth is an exciting new technique for improving access to specialist care, especially in underserviced areas. As with any new health care intervention, proper evaluations must be carried out to ensure that limited health care resources are employed appropriately. Evidence suggests that the most successful telehealth initiatives are those that have focussed on organisational and deployment issues, rather than on the technology itself. In the right circumstances, telehealth offers a cost-effective alternative to the traditional methods of health care delivery Copyright (C) 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Factors influencing job valuation: a comparative study of critical care and mon-critical care nurses

This study sought to identify the relationship between three predictor variables. perceived collaboration with medical staff, autonomy and independent actions and an outcome. the value hospital nurses placed on their work. In total 189 critical care and 366 non-critical care nurses completed a mailed survey. Critical cure nurses perceived themselves to have a mure collaborative relationship with the medical staff. described performing actions independent of medical orders more frequently and perceived their jobs to have more value than non-critical care nurses. However the latter group perceived themselves to have more autonomy in their work. Within both groups collaboration and autonomy were significantly, but weak to moderately correlated with job valuation. Simply expanding the work hospital nurses do is unlikely to result in nurses valuing their jobs more. however promoting an environment of respect and sharing between the medical and nursing staff and supporting nurses when they act in an autonomous fashion may positively influence nurses' perceptions of their work. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

How well do general practitioners deliver palliative care? A systematic review

General practitioners (GPs) deliver the majority of palliative care to patients in the last year of life. This article seeks to examine the nature of GP care, perceptions of the GPs themselves and others of that care, the adequacy of palliative care training, issues relating to accessibility of GPs to palliative care patients, and strategies that may be of use in encouraging more effective delivery of palliative care by GPs. Medline and PubMed databases from 1966 to 2000 were searched, and 135 references identified. Sixty-six of these described studies relevant to GP palliative care. GPs value this part of their work. Most of the time, patients appreciate the contribution the GP makes to palliative care particularly if the GP is accessible, takes time to listen, allows patient and carer to ventilate their feelings, and is seen to be making efforts made regarding symptom relief. However, reports from bereaved relatives suggest that palliative care is performed less well in the community than in other settings. GPs express discomfort about their competence to perform palliative care adequately. They tend to miss symptoms which are not treatable by them, or which are less common. However, with appropriate specialist support and facilities, GPs have been shown to deliver sound and effective care. GP comfort working with specialist teams increases with exposure to this form of patient management, as does the understanding of the potential other team members have in contributing to the care of the patient. Formal arrangements engaging GPs to work with specialist teams have been shown to improve functional outcomes, patient satisfaction, improve effective use of resources and improve effective physician behaviour in other areas of medicine. Efforts by specialist services to develop formal involvement of GPs in the care of individual patients, may be an effective method of improving GP palliative care skills and appreciation of the roles specialist services can play.