Is it safe to increase diabetic retinopathy screening intervals in patients with no/background diabetic retinopathy?

Patients who present with background DR should continue to be screened annually as a high prportion of these patients develop sight threatening DR (12%). A low prportion of patients with no DR at baseline were referred for STDR (1.3%). Out of the 51 patients in this category referred only 1 required laser. The authors suggest that patients graded R0M0 could be screened biannually.

Is it safe to increase diabetic retinopathy screening intervals in patients with no background diabetic retinopathy?

Introduction. A 4 year retrospective follow up of 996 patients who pre-sented with no DR and 500 with background DR at baseline digital DR screening in 2006. Purpose. To evaluate the safety of increasing screening intervals in patients with no diabetic retinopathy (DR) or with background DR.Methods. A 4 year retrospective follow up of 996 patients who presented with no DR and 500 with background DR at baseline digital DR screening in 2006.results. Background DR Group: Of the 500 subjects that had back-ground DR in 2006, 231 were referred for DR, with an average DR routine referral rate of 12% (46 subjects) per year. nodrgrouP. Of the 996 patients who had no DR at baseline, 51 were referred over the 4 years for sight threatening DR (STDR), of these 45 patients have definite STDR confirmed by ophthalmological examination. 78% of these had type 2 diabetes and mean age at referral was 60 years (25-87). Mean diabetes duration was 10.7 years (3-32), with a mean HbA1c of 7.8% (5.7-11.3%). Eight patients (0.9%) were referred in the first year, 9 (0.9%) in the second year, 19 (1.9%) in the third year and 15 (1.5%) in the fourth year. 86% of referrals were for maculopathy, and all had observable retinopathy and none required ophthalmology clinic assessment or laser treatment.If biannual screening was adopted for patients with no DR at baseline, allowing for patients who subsequently develop background DR and would then revert to annual screening, a total of 7 (0.7%) patients would not have been appropriately referred for STDR and would have waited a further year for identification. None of the 51 referrals across the 4 years required laser treatment apart from just one patient who developed PDR in year 4 (2010) and had background since 2007.conclusIons. It could be recommended that it is safe to screen pa-tients with no DR biannually due to the low risk of developing STDR. However, patients who present with background DR should continue to be screened annually as there is a significant proportion developing STDR and would not be identified at an appropriate screening interval.

Should topical opioid analgesics be regarded as effective and safe when applied to chronic cutaneous lesions?

Objectives: The induction of analgesia for many chronic cutaneous lesions requires treatment with an opioid analgesic. In many patients suffering with these wounds such drugs are either contraindicated or shunned because of their association with death. There are now case reports involving over 100 patients with many different types of chronic superficial wounds, which suggest that the topical application of an opioid in a suitable gel leads to a significant reduction in the level of perceived pain. Key findings: Some work has been undertaken to elucidate the mechanisms by which such a reduction is achieved. To date there have been no proven deleterious effects of such an analgesic system upon wound healing. Although morphine is not absorbed through the intact epidermis, an open wound provides no such barrier and for large wounds drug absorption can be problematic. However, for most chronic cutaneous lesions, where data has been gathered, the blood levels of the drug applied ranges from undetectable to below that required for a systemic effect. Summary If proven, the use of opioids in this way would provide adequate analgesia for a collection of wounds, which are difficult to treat in patients who are often vulnerable. Proof of this concept is now urgently required. © 2011 Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

“I thought I’d be safe there”:pre-empting blame in the talk of women reporting rape

One routine “common sense” means of explaining sexual violence is the ideologically facilitated tendency to blame the victim, and previous research has identified patterns of victim-blaming in the talk of perpetrators of rape, and also in that of the professionals who deal with rape in their day-to-day work. This article focuses on the discursive resources drawn on in police interviews by rape victims themselves as they attempt to account for their own behaviour in relation to the attack. It identifies and describes points within interviewees’ talk where they produce “accounts” (Potter and Wetherell, 1987), and considers what these tell us about the participants’ shared understanding of what is relevant to the on-going talk. Occasions when there is evidence of a mis-match in the understanding of the participants will also be discussed. The analyses illustrate that for the accounts of interviewees to be heard as relevant, a number of prevalent and problematic themes of victim-blaming must be assumed. Interviewees anticipate and pre-empt implications that various aspects of their own behaviour contributed to their attack, and interviewers vary in the level of skill they display at negotiating these shared understandings.

Pharmacology and the safe prescribing of drugs

Understanding the pharmacological principles and safe use of drugs is just as important in surgical practice as in any other medical specialty. With an ageing population with often multiple comorbidities and medications, as well as an expanding list of new pharmacological treatments, it is important that surgeons understand the implications of therapeutic drugs on their daily practice. The increasing emphasis on high quality and safe patient care demands that doctors are aware of preventable adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and interactions, try to minimize the potential for medication errors, and consider the benefits and harms of medicines in their patients. This chapter examines these aspects from the view of surgical practice and expands on the implications of some of the most common medical conditions and drug classes in the perioperative period. The therapeutic care of surgical patients is obvious in many circumstances – for example, antibacterial prophylaxis, thromboprophylaxis, and postoperative analgesia. However, the careful examination of other drug therapies is often critical not only to the sustained treatment of the associated medical conditions but to the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing surgery. The benefit–harm balance of many therapies may be fundamentally altered by the stress of an operation in one direction or the other; this is not a decision that should wait until the anaesthetist arrives for a preoperative assessment or one that should be left to junior medical or nursing staff on the ward.