L'incontinence urinaire chez des personnes âgées hospitalisées en unité de gériatrie: est-ce vraiment une priorité pour les infirmières [Urinary incontinence in hospitalized geriatric patients : is it really a priority for nurses?].

INTRODUCTION: urinary incontinence (UI) is a phenomenon with high prevalence in hospitalized elderly patients, effecting up to 70% of patients requiring long term care. However, despite the discomfort it causes and its association with functional decline, it seems to be given insufficient attention by nurses in geriatric care. OBJECTIVES: to assess the prevalence of urinary incontinence in geriatric patients at admission and the level of nurse involvement as characterized by the explicit documentation of UI diagnosis in the patient's record, prescription of nursing intervention, or nursing actions related to UI. METHODS: cross-sectional retrospective chart review. One hundred cases were randomly selected from those patients 65 years or older admitted to the geriatric ward of a university hospital. The variables examined included: total and continence scores on the Measure of Functional Independence (MIF), socio-demographic variables, presence of a nursing diagnosis in the medical record, prescription of or documentation of a nursing intervention related to UI. RESULTS: the prevalence of urinary incontinence was 72 % and UI was positively correlated with a low MIF score, age and status of awaiting placement. Of the examined cases, nursing diagnosis of UI was only documented in 1.4 % of cases, nursing interventions were prescribed in 54 % of cases, and at least one nursing intervention was performed in 72 % of cases. The vast majority of the interventions were palliative. DISCUSSION: the results on the prevalence of IU are similar to those reported in several other studies. This is also the case in relation to nursing interventions. In this study, people with UI were given the same care regardless of their MIF score MIF, age or gender. One limitation of this study is that it is retrospective and therefore dependent on the quality of the nursing documentation. CONCLUSIONS: this study is novel because it examines UI in relation to nursing interventions. It demonstrates that despite a high prevalence of UI, the general level of concern for nurses remains relatively low. Individualized care is desirable and clinical innovations must be developed for primary and secondary prevention of UI during hospitalization.

Population based screening - the difficulty of how to do more good than harm and how to achieve it.

Screening people without symptoms of disease is an attractive idea. Screening allows early detection of disease or elevated risk of disease, and has the potential for improved treatment and reduction of mortality. The list of future screening opportunities is set to grow because of the refinement of screening techniques, the increasing frequency of degenerative and chronic diseases, and the steadily growing body of evidence on genetic predispositions for various diseases. But how should we decide on the diseases for which screening should be done and on recommendations for how it should be implemented? We use the examples of prostate cancer and genetic screening to show the importance of considering screening as an ongoing population-based intervention with beneficial and harmful effects, and not simply the use of a test. Assessing whether screening should be recommended and implemented for any named disease is therefore a multi-dimensional task in health technology assessment. There are several countries that already use established processes and criteria to assess the appropriateness of screening. We argue that the Swiss healthcare system needs a nationwide screening commission mandated to conduct appropriate evidence-based evaluation of the impact of proposed screening interventions, to issue evidence-based recommendations, and to monitor the performance of screening programmes introduced. Without explicit processes there is a danger that beneficial screening programmes could be neglected and that ineffective, and potentially harmful, screening procedures could be introduced.

The interplay between radiation and the immune system in the field of post-radical pneumonitis and fibrosis and why it is important to understand it.

A discussion on the importance and pathogenesis of radiation-induced pneumonitis and fibrosis is provided, with a special focus on the role of the immune system. The need to understand this interaction is highlighted in view of emerging therapeutic potential.

Small access (30F) clinical central venous smart cannulation: is it adequate?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of 45F vs. 36F smartcanula in CPB with gravity drainage alone. METHODS: Twenty patients were randomly assigned to two groups receiving for venous drainage a smartcanula which is collapsed over a mandrel for trans-atrial insertion into the inferior vena cava and expanded in situ to either 45F or 36F. RESULTS: Valve replacement/repair was realized in 7/10 and/or CABG in 6/10 for 36F (69+/-13 years) vs. 5/10 and 5/10, respectively, for 45F (63+/-11 years: NS). Body weight and surface area (BSA) were 83+/-9 kg (1.9+/-0.2 m2, max 2.2 m2) for 36F vs. 79+/-6 kg: NS (1.9+/-0.1 m2 (NS), max 2.1 m2) for 45F. Insertion and access orifice diameter (area) was 6 mm and 10 mm (78.5 mm2) for the 36F vs. 6 mm and 13 mm (132 mm2) for the 45F (+69%). Calculated target pump flow (2.4 l/min/m2) was 4.7+/-0.4 l/min for 36F vs. 4.5+/-0.3 l/min for 45F. Achieved pump flow accounted for 5.0+/-0.3 l/min for 36F (8% above target) vs. 4.8+/-0.3 l/min for 45F (8% above target): NS. The water balance during the pump run (clear volume added minus hemofilter and urine output) was 2.2+/-0.3 l for 36F vs. 2.0 l for 45F: NS. CONCLUSION: Due to its 'open' wall (the vena cava provides the seal), its reduced wall thickness (range: 0.0-0.4 mm), and its self-expanding design, the 36F smartcanula requiring a 30F access orifice has sufficient drainage capacity by gravity alone for full CPB in adults with a BSA up to 2.2 mm2.

What is the Omega-Loop Gastric Bypass and Why is it Criticized?

The omega-loop gastric bypass (OLGBP), also called "mini-gastric bypass" or "single-anastomosis" gastric bypass is a form of gastric bypass where a long, narrow gastric pouch is created and anastomosed to the jejunum about 200- 250 cm from the angle of Treitz in an omega loop fashion, thereby avoiding a jejuno-jejunostomy.Proponents of the OLGBP claim that it is a safer and simpler operation than the traditional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP), easier to teach, that gives the same results in terms of weight loss than the RYGBP. One randomized study comparing the two techniques showed similar results after five years.The OLGBP is criticized because it creates an anastomosis between the gastric pouch and the jejunum where a large amount of biliopancreatic juices travel, thereby creating a situation where reflux of the latter into the stomach and distal esophagus is likely to develop. Such a situation has clearly been associated, in several animal studies, with an increased incidence of gastric cancer, especially at or close to the gastro-jejunostomy, and with an increased risk of lower esophageal cancer. In clinical practice, omega-loop gastrojejunostomies such as those used for reconstruction after gastric resection for benign disease or distal gastric cancer have been associated with the so called classical anastomotic cancer, linked to biliary reflux into the stomach, despite the fact that epidemiological studies about this do not show uniform results. Although no evidence at the present time links OLGBP to an increased risk of gastric cancer in the human, this possibility raises a concern among many bariatric surgeons, especially in the view that bariatric surgery is performed in relatively young patients with a long life expectancy, hence prone to develop cancer if indeed the risk is increased. Another arguments used against the OLGBP is that the jejuno-jejunostomy in the traditional RYGBP is easy to perform and associated with virtually no complication.Supporters of the OLGBP claim that the liquid that refluxes into the stomach after their procedure is not pure bile and pancreatic juice, but a combination of those with jejunal secretions, and that the latter is not as harmful. We would urge the proponents of the OLGBP to undertake the necessary animal studies to show that their assumption is indeed true before the procedure is performed widely, possibly leading to the development of hundreds of late gastric or esophageal carcinoma in the bariatric population. In the meantime, we strongly believe that RYGBP should remain the gold standard in gastric bypass surgery for morbid obesity.

"Pied de Charcot": un diagnostic à ne pas manquer [Charcot osteoarthropathy: don't miss it!].

Charcot neuropathic osteoarthropathy (CNO) is a destructive process affecting the bone and joint structure of diabetic patients and resulting from peripheral neuropathy. It is a limb threatening condition resulting in dramatic deformities associated with severe morbi-mortality. The diagnosis is mostly made by the observation of inflammatory signs and higlight the importance of prompt foot evaluation. Imaging studies may help confirm the diagnosis and the severity of the condition but lack of specificity. The goal of the treatment is to maintain or achieve structural stability of the foot and ankle to prevent further deformity and plantar dislocation. The scientific evidences aren't strong enough to recommend bisphosphonates or acute surgical treatment. Surgery is unanimusly recommended to prevent secondary ulceration.

Communication skills training in oncology: it works!

While the previous chapter by L. Fallowfield and V. Jenkins focuses on different communication skills training (CST) concepts currently being utilized, this chapter reviews and comments the scientific evidence of the impact of CST on improving communication skills. The aim of this chapter is not to provide a complete review of the evidence-this has already been done in systematic reviews-but to discuss the scientific evidence and reflect on the available results and relevant topics for further investigations.

Information from single-cell bacterial biosensors: what is it good for?

Bacterial reporter cells (i.e. strains engineered to produce easily measurable signals in response to one or more chemical targets) can principally be used to quantify chemical signals and analytes, physicochemical conditions and gradients on a microscale (i.e. micrometer to submillimeter distances), when the reporter signal is determined in individual cells. This makes sense, as bacterial life essentially thrives in microheterogenic environments and single-cell reporter information can help us to understand the microphysiology of bacterial cells and its importance for macroscale processes like pollutant biodegradation, beneficial bacteria-eukaryote interactions, and infection. Recent findings, however, showed that clonal bacterial populations are essentially always physiologically, phenotypically and genotypically heterogeneous, thus emphasizing the need for sound statistical approaches for the interpretation of reporter response in individual bacterial cells. Serious attempts have been made to measure and interpret single-cell reporter gene expression and to understand variability in reporter expression among individuals in a population.