Substance use disorder treatment programs in Switzerland and the USA: Program characteristics and 1-year outcomes

AIM: This study compared matched samples of substance use disorder (SUD) patients in Swiss and United States (US) residential treatment programs and examined the relationship of program characteristics to patients' substance use and psychosocial functioning at a 1-year follow-up. DESIGN AND SETTING: The study used a prospective, naturalistic design and a sample of 10 public programs in the German-speaking part of Switzerland and 15 US public treatment programs. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 358 male patients in Swiss programs were matched on age, marital status and education with 358 male patients in US programs. A total of 160 Swiss and 329 US patient care staff members also participated. MEASUREMENT: Patients completed comparable inventories at admission, discharge and 1-year follow-up to assess their substance use and psychological functioning and receipt of continuing care. Staff members reported on program characteristics and their beliefs about substance use. FINDINGS: Compared to Swiss patients, US patients had more severe substance use and psychological problems at intake and although they did not differ on abstinence and remission at follow-up, had somewhat poorer outcomes in other areas of functioning. Swiss programs were longer and included more individual treatment sessions; US programs included more group sessions and were more oriented toward a disease model of treatment. Overall, length of program, treatment intensity and 12-step orientation were associated with better 1-year outcomes for patients in both Swiss and US programs. CONCLUSIONS: The sample of Swiss and US programs studied here differed in patient and treatment characteristics; however, in general, there were comparable associations between program characteristics and patients' 1-year outcomes. These findings suggest that associations between treatment processes and patients' outcomes may generalize from one cultural context to another.

Family satisfaction with critical care: measurements and messages

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Family satisfaction in the ICU reflects the extent to which perceived needs and expectations of family members of critically ill patients are met by healthcare professionals. Here, we present recently developed tools to assess family satisfaction, with a special focus on their psychometric properties. Assessing family satisfaction, however, is not of much use if it is not followed by interpretation of the results and, if needed, consecutive measures to improve care of the patients and their families, or improvement in communication and decision-making. Accordingly, this review will outline recent findings in this field. Finally, possible areas of future research are addressed. RECENT FINDINGS: To assess family satisfaction in the ICU, several domains deserve attention. They include, among others, care of the patient, counseling and emotional support of family members, information and decision-making. Overall, communication between physicians or nurses and members of the family remains a key topic, and there are many opportunities to improve. They include not only communication style, timing and appropriate wording but also, for example, assessments to see if information was adequately received and also understood. Whether unfulfilled needs of individual members of the family or of the family as a social system result in negative long-term sequels remains an open question. SUMMARY: Assessing and analyzing family satisfaction in the ICU ultimately will support healthcare professionals in their continuing effort to improve care of critically ill patients and their families.

Gender inequity in the provision of care for hip disease: population-based cross-sectional study

Objectives To examine gender differences along the care pathway to total hip replacement. Methods We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study of 26,046 individuals aged 35 years and over in Avon and Somerset. Participants completed a questionnaire asking about care provision at five milestones on the pathway to total hip replacement. Those reporting hip disease were invited to a clinical examination. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) [95% confidence intervals (CI)] for provision of care to women compared with men. Results 3169 people reported hip pain, 2018 were invited for clinical examination, and 1405 attended (69.6%). After adjustment for age and disease severity, women were less likely than men to have consulted their general practitioner (OR 0.78, 95%-CI 0.61–1.00), as likely as men to have received drug therapy for hip pain in the previous year (OR 0.96, 95%-CI 0.74–1.24), but less likely to have been referred to specialist care (OR 0.53, 95%-CI 0.40–0.70), to have consulted an orthopaedic surgeon (OR 0.50, 95%-CI 0.32–0.78), or to be on a waiting list for total hip replacement (OR 0.41, 95%-CI 0.20–0.87). Differences remained in the 746 people who had sought care from their general practitioner, and after adjustment for willingness and fitness for surgery. Conclusions There are gender inequalities in provision of care for hip disease in England, which are not fully accounted for by gender differences in care seeking and treatment preferences. Differences in referral to specialist care by general practitioners might unwittingly contribute to this inequity. Accurate information about availability, benefits and risks of hip replacement for providers and patients, and continuing education to ensure that clinicians interpret and correct patients' assumptions could help reduce inequalities.

Critical incident monitoring in paediatric and adult critical care: from reporting to improved patient outcomes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Critical incident reporting alone does not necessarily improve patient safety or even patient outcomes. Substantial improvement has been made by focusing on the further two steps of critical incident monitoring, that is, the analysis of critical incidents and implementation of system changes. The system approach to patient safety had an impact on the view about the patient's role in safety. This review aims to analyse recent advances in the technique of reporting, the analysis of reported incidents, and the implementation of actual system improvements. It also explores how families should be approached about safety issues. RECENT FINDINGS: It is essential to make as many critical incidents as possible known to the intensive care team. Several factors have been shown to increase the reporting rate: anonymity, regular feedback about the errors reported, and the existence of a safety climate. Risk scoring of critical incident reports and root cause analysis may help in the analysis of incidents. Research suggests that patients can be successfully involved in safety. SUMMARY: A persisting high number of reported incidents is anticipated and regarded as continuing good safety culture. However, only the implementation of system changes, based on incident reports, and also involving the expertise of patients and their families, has the potential to improve patient outcome. Hard outcome criteria, such as standardized mortality ratio, have not yet been shown to improve as a result of critical incident monitoring.

Perinatal care at the limit of viability between 22 and 26 completed weeks of gestation in Switzerland. 2011 revision of the Swiss recommendations

Perinatal care of pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery and of preterm infants born at the limit of viability (22-26 completed weeks of gestation) requires a multidisciplinary approach by an experienced perinatal team. Limited precision in the determination of both gestational age and foetal weight, as well as biological variability may significantly affect the course of action chosen in individual cases. The decisions that must be taken with the pregnant women and on behalf of the preterm infant in this context are complex and have far-reaching consequences. When counselling pregnant women and their partners, neonatologists and obstetricians should provide them with comprehensive information in a sensitive and supportive way to build a basis of trust. The decisions are developed in a continuing dialogue between all parties involved (physicians, midwives, nursing staff and parents) with the principal aim to find solutions that are in the infant's and pregnant woman's best interest. Knowledge of current gestational age-specific mortality and morbidity rates and how they are modified by prenatally known prognostic factors (estimated foetal weight, sex, exposure or nonexposure to antenatal corticosteroids, single or multiple births) as well as the application of accepted ethical principles form the basis for responsible decision-making. Communication between all parties involved plays a central role. The members of the interdisciplinary working group suggest that the care of preterm infants with a gestational age between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks should generally be limited to palliative care. Obstetric interventions for foetal indications such as Caesarean section delivery are usually not indicated. In selected cases, for example, after 23 weeks of pregnancy have been completed and several of the above mentioned prenatally known prognostic factors are favourable or well informed parents insist on the initiation of life-sustaining therapies, active obstetric interventions for foetal indications and provisional intensive care of the neonate may be reasonable. In preterm infants with a gestational age between 24 0/7 and 24 6/7 weeks, it can be difficult to determine whether the burden of obstetric interventions and neonatal intensive care is justified given the limited chances of success of such a therapy. In such cases, the individual constellation of prenatally known factors which impact on prognosis can be helpful in the decision making process with the parents. In preterm infants with a gestational age between 25 0/7 and 25 6/7 weeks, foetal surveillance, obstetric interventions for foetal indications and neonatal intensive care measures are generally indicated. However, if several prenatally known prognostic factors are unfavourable and the parents agree, primary non-intervention and neonatal palliative care can be considered. All pregnant women with threatening preterm delivery or premature rupture of membranes at the limit of viability must be transferred to a perinatal centre with a level III neonatal intensive care unit no later than 23 0/7 weeks of gestation, unless emergency delivery is indicated. An experienced neonatology team should be involved in all deliveries that take place after 23 0/7 weeks of gestation to help to decide together with the parents if the initiation of intensive care measures appears to be appropriate or if preference should be given to palliative care (i.e., primary non-intervention). In doubtful situations, it can be reasonable to initiate intensive care and to admit the preterm infant to a neonatal intensive care unit (i.e., provisional intensive care). The infant's clinical evolution and additional discussions with the parents will help to clarify whether the life-sustaining therapies should be continued or withdrawn. Life support is continued as long as there is reasonable hope for survival and the infant's burden of intensive care is acceptable. If, on the other hand, the health car...

[Neuromonitoring and neuroprotection in cardiac anaesthesia. Nationwide survey conducted by the Cardiac Anaesthesia Working Group of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine]

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this nationwide survey carried out in department of cardiac anesthesia in Germany was to identify current practice with regard to neuromonitoring und neuroprotection. METHODOLOGY: The data are based on a questionnaire sent out to all departments of cardiac anesthesia in Germany between October 2007 und January 2008. The anonymized questionnaire contained 26 questions about the practice of preoperative evaluation of cerebral vessels, intra-operative use of neuromonitoring, the nature und application of cerebral protective measures, perfusion management during cardiopulmonary bypass, postoperative evaluation of neurological status, and training in the field of cerebral monitoring. RESULTS: Of the 80 mailed questionnaires 55% were returned and 90% of department evaluated cerebral vessels preoperatively with duplex ultrasound. The methods used for intra-operative neuromonitoring are electroencephalography (EEG, 60%) for type A dissections (38.1%), for elective surgery on the thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aorta (34.1% and 31.6%, respectively) and in carotid surgery (43.2%) near infrared spectroscopy (40%), evoked potentials (30%) and transcranial Doppler sonography (17.5%), with some centers using combined methods. In most departments the central nervous system is not subjected to monitoring during bypass surgery, heart valve surgery, or minimally invasive surgery. Cerebral protective measures used comprise patient cooling on cardio-pulmonary bypass (CPB 100%), extracorporeal cooling of the head (65%) and the administration of corticosteroids (58%), barbiturates (50%) and antiepileptic drugs (10%). Neuroprotective anesthesia consists of administering inhalation anesthetics (32.5%; sevoflurane 76.5%) and intravenous anesthesia (20%; propofol and barbiturates each accounting for 46.2%). Of the departments 72.5% cool patients as a standard procedure for surgery involving cardiovascular arrest and 37.5% during all surgery using CPB. In 84.6% of department CPB flow equals calculated cardiac output (CO) under normothermia, while the desired mean arterial pressure (MAP) varies between 60 and 70 mmHg (43.9%) and between 50 and 60 mmHg (41.5%), respectively. At body temperatures less than 18 degrees C CPB flow is reduced below the calculated CO (70%) while 27% of departments use normothermic flow rates. The preferred MAP under hypothermia is between 50 and 60 mmHg (59%). The results of intra-operative neuromonitoring are documented on the anesthesia record (77%). In 42.5% of the departments postoperative neurological function is estimated by the anesthesiologist. Continuing education sessions pertaining to neuromonitoring are organized on a regular basis in 32.5% of the departments and in 37.5% individual physicians are responsible for their own neuromonitoring education. CONCLUSION: The present survey data indicate that neuromonitoring and neuroprotective therapy during CPB is not standardized in cardiac anesthesiology departments in Germany. The systemic use of available methods to implement multimodal neuromonitoring would be desirable.

Awareness of headache and of National Headache Society activities among primary care physicians - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND Headache is one of the most common symptoms in primary care. To improve the quality of headache diagnosis and management with the largest possible benefit for the general population, headache and pain societies around the world have recently been devoting more attention to headache in primary care.The aim of the study was to investigate the potential contribution that national societies can make toward raising the awareness of primary headaches in general practice. FINDINGS In a qualitative telephone survey, targeting primary care practices (PCP), we asked about the frequency of headache patients in their practices and inquired about their treatment and referral strategies.A total of 1000 telephone interviews with PCP have been conducted. Three-hundred and fifty physicians have been directly interviewed, 95% of them see headache patients every week, 23% daily. Direct MRI referral is done by 84%. Sixty-two per cent of the physicians knew the Swiss headache society, 73% were interested in further education about headaches. CONCLUSION The survey yielded information about the physicians' awareness of the Swiss Headache Society and its activities, and about their desire for continuing education in the area of headache. National headache societies should work to improve the cooperation between headache specialists and PCP, aiming for a better care for our patients with headache.