The development of the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care (QuIRC): a measure of best practice for facilities for people with longer term mental health problems

BACKGROUND: Despite the progress over recent decades in developing community mental health services internationally, many people still receive treatment and care in institutional settings. Those most likely to reside longest in these facilities have the most complex mental health problems and are at most risk of potential abuses of care and exploitation. This study aimed to develop an international, standardised toolkit to assess the quality of care in longer term hospital and community based mental health units, including the degree to which human rights, social inclusion and autonomy are promoted. METHOD: The domains of care included in the toolkit were identified from a systematic literature review, international expert Delphi exercise, and review of care standards in ten European countries. The draft toolkit comprised 154 questions for unit managers. Inter-rater reliability was tested in 202 units across ten countries at different stages of deinstitutionalisation and development of community mental health services. Exploratory factor analysis was used to corroborate the allocation of items to domains. Feedback from those using the toolkit was collected about its usefulness and ease of completion. RESULTS: The toolkit had excellent inter-rater reliability and few items with narrow spread of response. Unit managers found the content highly relevant and were able to complete it in around 90 minutes. Minimal refinement was required and the final version comprised 145 questions assessing seven domains of care. CONCLUSIONS: Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative evidence directed the development of a robust and comprehensive international quality assessment toolkit for units in highly variable socioeconomic and political contexts

Pandemic influenza control in Europe and the constraints resulting from incoherent public health laws.

Background With the emergence of influenza H1N1v the world is facing its first 21st century global pandemic. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and avian influenza H5N1 prompted development of pandemic preparedness plans. National systems of public health law are essential for public health stewardship and for the implementation of public health policy[1]. International coherence will contribute to effective regional and global responses. However little research has been undertaken on how law works as a tool for disease control in Europe. With co-funding from the European Union, we investigated the extent to which laws across Europe support or constrain pandemic preparedness planning, and whether national differences are likely to constrain control efforts. Methods We undertook a survey of national public health laws across 32 European states using a questionnaire designed around a disease scenario based on pandemic influenza. Questionnaire results were reviewed in workshops, analysing how differences between national laws might support or hinder regional responses to pandemic influenza. Respondents examined the impact of national laws on the movements of information, goods, services and people across borders in a time of pandemic, the capacity for surveillance, case detection, case management and community control, the deployment of strategies of prevention, containment, mitigation and recovery and the identification of commonalities and disconnects across states. Results Results of this study show differences across Europe in the extent to which national pandemic policy and pandemic plans have been integrated with public health laws. We found significant differences in legislation and in the legitimacy of strategic plans. States differ in the range and the nature of intervention measures authorized by law, the extent to which borders could be closed to movement of persons and goods during a pandemic, and access to healthcare of non-resident persons. Some states propose use of emergency powers that might potentially override human rights protections while other states propose to limit interventions to those authorized by public health laws. Conclusion These differences could create problems for European strategies if an evolving influenza pandemic results in more serious public health challenges or, indeed, if a novel disease other than influenza emerges with pandemic potential. There is insufficient understanding across Europe of the role and importance of law in pandemic planning. States need to build capacity in public health law to support disease prevention and control policies. Our research suggests that states would welcome further guidance from the EU on management of a pandemic, and guidance to assist in greater commonality of legal approaches across states.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: Results from the global valve-in-valve registry.

BACKGROUND Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with a failed surgical bioprosthesis and may obviate the need for reoperation. We evaluated the clinical results of this technique using a large, worldwide registry. METHODS AND RESULTS The Global Valve-in-Valve Registry included 202 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves (aged 77.7±10.4 years; 52.5% men) from 38 cardiac centers. Bioprosthesis mode of failure was stenosis (n=85; 42%), regurgitation (n=68; 34%), or combined stenosis and regurgitation (n=49; 24%). Implanted devices included CoreValve (n=124) and Edwards SAPIEN (n=78). Procedural success was achieved in 93.1% of cases. Adverse procedural outcomes included initial device malposition in 15.3% of cases and ostial coronary obstruction in 3.5%. After the procedure, valve maximum/mean gradients were 28.4±14.1/15.9±8.6 mm Hg, and 95% of patients had ≤+1 degree of aortic regurgitation. At 30-day follow-up, all-cause mortality was 8.4%, and 84.1% of patients were at New York Heart Association functional class I/II. One-year follow-up was obtained in 87 patients, with 85.8% survival of treated patients. CONCLUSIONS The valve-in-valve procedure is clinically effective in the vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves. Safety and efficacy concerns include device malposition, ostial coronary obstruction, and high gradients after the procedure.

Proteger la Salud frente al cambio climático, objetivo de la estrategia andaluza ante el calentamiento global de la Tierra

Boletín semanal para profesionales sanitarios de la Secretaría General de Salud Pública y Participación Social de la Consejería de Salud