Differences in analgesia in opioid naïve and tolerant patients with sciatic nerve blockade following elective foot and ankle surgery

1.1 Introduction and Purpose: Adequate postoperative analgesia in the opioid tolerant with chronic non-malignant pain is challenging. Multimodal pain relief regimens include regional anesthesia but opioid tolerant patients report increased postoperative pain and opioid consumption. This study compared analgesia in opioid naïve and tolerant patients receiving postoperative sciatic nerve blockade for foot and ankle surgery. 1.2 Method: Preoperative pain scores, trauma, maintenance and intraoperative opioid doses and following postoperative sciatic nerve blockade, patient self-reported pain scores and opioid consumption at discharge from the post-anesthesia unit and 24 hours were recorded. 1.3 Results: 191 patients enrolled. 40.3% were opioid tolerant and 33% had lower extremity trauma. Preoperative, immediate and delayed postoperative pain scores and intraoperative, immediate and 24 hour postoperative consumption of opioids were increased in opioid tolerant patients. Trauma and continuous infusion in opioid naïve and tolerant groups did not result in differences in 24 hour opioid consumption. 1.4 Limitations: Small subgroups and use of the pain score limited the accuracy of results. 1.5 Conclusion: Opioid tolerant patients require greater analgesic doses following sciatic nerve blockade for foot and ankle surgery. 24 hour opioid consumption for opioid naïve and tolerant patients is neither influenced by lower extremity injury nor continuous infusion.

Effects of Training and E-Mail Feedback on Behavior Therapists' Use of Instructive Feedback

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Three Generations of FPGA DAQ Development for the ATLAS Pixel Detector

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Experientialist Epistemology and Classification Theory: Embodied and Dimensional Classification

What theoretical framework can help in building, maintaining and evaluating networked knowledge organization resources? Specifically, what theoretical framework makes sense of the semantic prowess of ontologies and peer-to-peer sys- tems, and by extension aids in their building, maintenance, and evaluation? I posit that a theoretical work that weds both for- mal and associative (structural and interpretive) aspects of knowledge organization systems provides that framework. Here I lay out the terms and the intellectual constructs that serve as the foundation for investigative work into experientialist classifi- cation theory, a theoretical framework of embodied, infrastructural, and reified knowledge organization. I build on the inter- pretive work of scholars in information studies, cognitive semantics, sociology, and science studies. With the terms and the framework in place, I then outline classification theory s critiques of classificatory structures. In order to address these cri- tiques with an experientialist approach an experientialist semantics is offered as a design commitment for an example: metadata in peer-to-peer network knowledge organization structures.

Foundational, First-Order, and Second-Order Classification Theory

Both basic and applied research on the construction, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation of classification schemes is called classification theory. If we employ Ritzer’s metatheoretical method of analysis on the over one-hundred year-old body of literature, we can see categories of theory emerge. This paper looks at one particular part of knowledge organization work, namely classification theory, and asks 1) what are the contours of this intellectual space, and, 2) what have we produced in the theoretical reflection on con- structing, implementing, and evaluating classification schemes? The preliminary findings from this work are that classification theory can be separated into three kinds: foundational classification theory, first-order classification theory, and second-order classification theory, each with its own concerns and objects of study.

Investigating the Roles and Requirements, Manifestations and Management of Metadata in the Creation of Reliable and Preservation of Authentic Electronic Entities Created by Dynamic, Interactive and Experiential Systems: Report on the Work and Findings of the Interpares 2 Description Cross Domain Group

Metadata that is associated with either an information system or an information object for purposes of description, administration, legal requirements, technical functionality, use and usage, and preservation, plays a critical role in ensuring the creation, management, preservation and use and re-use of trustworthymaterials, including records. Recordkeeping1 metadata, of which one key type is archival description, plays a particularly important role in documenting the reliability and authenticity of records and recordkeeping systemsas well as the various contexts (legal-administrative, provenancial, procedural, documentary, and technical) within which records are created and kept as they move across space and time. In the digital environment, metadata is also the means by which it is possible to identify how record components – those constituent aspects of a digital record that may be managed, stored and used separately by the creator or the preserver – can be reassembled to generate an authentic copy of a record or reformulated per a user’s request as a customized output package.Issues relating to the creation, capture, management and preservation of adequate metadata are, therefore, integral to any research study addressing the reliability and authenticity of digital entities, regardless of the community, sector or institution within which they are being created. The InterPARES 2 Description Cross-Domain Group (DCD) examined the conceptualization, definitions, roles, and current functionality of metadata and archival description in terms of requirements generated by InterPARES 12. Because of the needs to communicate the work of InterPARES in a meaningful way across not only other disciplines, but also different archival traditions; to interface with, evaluate and inform existing standards, practices and other research projects; and to ensure interoperability across the three focus areas of InterPARES2, the Description Cross-Domain also addressed its research goals with reference to wider thinking about and developments in recordkeeping and metadata. InterPARES2 addressed not only records, however, but a range of digital information objects (referred to as “entities” by InterPARES 2, but not to be confused with the term “entities” as used in metadata and database applications) that are the products and by-products of government, scientific and artistic activities that are carried out using dynamic, interactive or experiential digital systems. The nature of these entities was determined through a diplomatic analysis undertaken as part of extensive case studies of digital systems that were conducted by the InterPARES 2 Focus Groups. This diplomatic analysis established whether the entities identified during the case studies were records, non-records that nevertheless raised important concerns relating to reliability and authenticity, or “potential records.” To be determined to be records, the entities had to meet the criteria outlined by archival theory – they had to have a fixed documentary format and stable content. It was not sufficient that they be considered to be or treated as records by the creator. “Potential records” is a new construct that indicates that a digital system has the potential to create records upon demand, but does not actually fix and set aside records in the normal course of business. The work of the Description Cross-Domain Group, therefore, addresses the metadata needs for all three categories of entities.Finally, since “metadata” as a term is used today so ubiquitously and in so many different ways by different communities, that it is in peril of losing any specificity, part of the work of the DCD sought to name and type categories of metadata. It also addressed incentives for creators to generate appropriate metadata, as well as issues associated with the retention, maintenance and eventual disposition of the metadata that aggregates around digital entities over time.