Hallux rigidus: Arthroplasty or arthrodesis. What technique produces better results?

Hallux rígidus (HR) affects the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) between 35% and 60% of the population over 65 years and there are multiple ways of treatment. Depending on the radiological stage where you find the deformity determines the procedure to be performed; in the early stages cheilectomy techniques and corrective osteotomy is performed while the more advanced ratings, the surgeon chooses destructive techniques considered as arthrodesis and arthroplasty. This final of degree project aims to focus on 1 MTPJ destructive techniques to clarify which of the procedures generates better results by a number of parameters; outcomes of the American Orthopaedic Foot scale and Ankle Society Hallux metatarsophalangeal Interphalangeal-scale (AOFAS), range of motion (ROM) of the 1ºAMTF, radiological classification. As for the implant arthroplasty technique, this article offers information on material and design that generates better relating to patient characteristics such as age, inflammatory joint diseases, viability and durability of the implant results. The conclusion from this review is that the values obtained in the arthrodesis according AOFAS decrease due to loss of mobility, but both techniques have similar values of effectiveness and concludes with the decision that the technique used is determined taking into account various factors and patient characteristics. Keywords: Hallux rígidus; (Hallux Rígidus) and surgery treatment; Hallux Rígidus arthrodesis; Hallux Rígidus arthroplasty; Hallux Rígidus (arthroplasty and arthrodesis).

Quality of life in institutionalized elderly undergoing an active aging program

Living with quality is a growing concern of the old population. There is an increasing institutionalization of the elderly, and it is in this context that active aging programs assume relevance, allowing the elderly the contact with experiences that allow them to age with quality of life, by maintaining their autonomy and promoting their physical, mental and emotional well-being. This study aims to assess the quality of life of institutionalized elderly undergoing to an active aging program. Methods: We have developed a semi-experimental study that considers the quantitative methodology in which the following instruments were used to measure the quality of life: Eurohis-Qol-8 (Pereira, Melo, Gameiro, & Canavarro, 2011) and Whoqol-Old (Vilar et al., 2010), to which sociodemographic and clinical questions were added. Assessments were made in two different moments, before and after the intervention program, in a sample of 37 institutionalized elderly. Results: Concerning the assessment of quality of life related to health (Eurohis-Qol-8), significant higher scores were obtained in the second moment (p = 0.004). Regarding the quality of life related to the elderly significant better scores were also obtained in the second assessment (p = 0.001). Conclusions: The results obtained allow us to conclude that using either of the measuring scales of Eurohis-Qol-8 or Whoqol-old, there is a perceived improvement in quality of life in those using the active aging program. Thus, institutionalized elderly must be the main target in the design and implementation of active aging programs.

Guía de práctica clínica para la enfermedad hepática grasa no alcohólica

Objetivo: Brindar una guía de práctica clínica basada con la evidencia más reciente para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la Enfermedad Hepática Grasa No alcohólica teniendo en cuenta la efectividad y seguridad de las intervenciones dirigidas a pacientes, personal asistencial, administrativo y entes gubernamentales de cualquier servicio de atención en Colombia. Materiales y métodos: Esta guía fue desarrollada por un equipo multidisciplinario con apoyo de la Asociación Colombiana de Gastroenterología, el Grupo Cochrane ITS y el Instituto de Investigaciones Clínicas de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Se desarrollaron preguntas clínicas relevantes y se realizó la búsqueda de guías nacionales e internacionales en bases de datos especializadas. Las guías existentes fueron evaluadas en términos de calidad y aplicabilidad. Una guía cumplió los criterios de adaptación, por lo que se decidió adaptar 3 preguntas clínicas. El Grupo Cochrane realizó la búsqueda sistemática de la literatura. Las tablas de evidencia y recomendaciones fueron realizadas con base a la metodología GRADE. Las recomendaciones de la guía fueron socializadas en una reunión de expertos con entes gubernamentales y pacientes. Resultados: Se desarrolló una guía de práctica clínica basada en la evidencia para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la Enfermedad Hepática Grasa No alcohólica en Colombia Conclusiones: El diagnóstico y manejo oportuno de la Enfermedad Hepática Grasa No alcohólica contribuirá a disminuir la carga de la enfermedad en Colombia y las enfermedades asociadas

Lessons learnt : complementing good clinical renal questions with an appropriate research strategy

The purpose of this article is to present lessons learnt by nurses when conducting research to encourage colleagues to ask good clinical research questions. This is accomplished by presenting a study designed to challenge current practice which included research flaws. The longstanding practice of weighing renal patients at 0600 hours and then again prior to receiving haemodialysis was examined. Nurses believed that performing the assessment twice, often within a few hours, was unnecessary and that patients were angry when woken to be weighed. An observational study with convenience sampling collected data from 46 individuals requiring haemodialysis, who were repeatedly sampled to provide 139 episodes of data. Although the research hypotheses were rejected, invaluable experience was gained, with research and clinical practice lessons learnt, along with surprising findings.

ShARe/CLEF eHealth Evaluation Lab 2013, Task 3: Information retrieval to address patients' questions when reading clinical reports

This paper presents the results of task 3 of the ShARe/CLEF eHealth Evaluation Lab 2013. This evaluation lab focuses on improving access to medical information on the web. The task objective was to investigate the effect of using additional information such as the discharge summaries and external resources such as medical ontologies on the IR effectiveness. The participants were allowed to submit up to seven runs, one mandatory run using no additional information or external resources, and three each using or not using discharge summaries.

Breast cancer genetics: Unsolved questions and open perspectives in an expanding clinical practice

Breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the United Kingdom, with a lifetime risk of one in nine in women. Only 5-10% of all cancers is thought to be due to strongly penetrant inherited predisposing genes, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2. However, other less penetrant genes, including some autosomal recessive genes, are likely to be of etiological importance in other families. This review addresses the current knowledge of breast cancer susceptibility genes and explores the possibilities for future developments. Features of tumor pathology, prognosis, and the scope for targeted treatments in mutation carriers are discussed, and the management of known carriers and those at increased risk for developing breast cancer are evaluated. Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility may become widely available in the future, and has important ethical and management implications. (C) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Computer-based summative assessment of clinical reasoning in clerkships: A mixed-method comparison of key feature problems with case-based multiple choice questions

Background: It is yet unclear if there are differences between using electronic key feature problems (KFPs) or electronic case-based multiple choice questions (cbMCQ) for the assessment of clinical decision making. Summary of Work: Fifth year medical students were exposed to clerkships which ended with a summative exam. Assessment of knowledge per exam was done by 6-9 KFPs, 9-20 cbMCQ and 9-28 MC questions. Each KFP consisted of a case vignette and three key features (KF) using “long menu” as question format. We sought students’ perceptions of the KFPs and cbMCQs in focus groups (n of students=39). Furthermore statistical data of 11 exams (n of students=377) concerning the KFPs and (cb)MCQs were compared. Summary of Results: The analysis of the focus groups resulted in four themes reflecting students’ perceptions of KFPs and their comparison with (cb)MCQ: KFPs were perceived as (i) more realistic, (ii) more difficult, (iii) more motivating for the intense study of clinical reasoning than (cb)MCQ and (iv) showed an overall good acceptance when some preconditions are taken into account. The statistical analysis revealed that there was no difference in difficulty; however KFP showed a higher discrimination and reliability (G-coefficient) even when corrected for testing times. Correlation of the different exam parts was intermediate. Conclusions: Students perceived the KFPs as more motivating for the study of clinical reasoning. Statistically KFPs showed a higher discrimination and higher reliability than cbMCQs. Take-home messages: Including KFPs with long menu questions into summative clerkship exams seems to offer positive educational effects.

Information needs of clinical teams: analysis of questions received by the Clinical Informatics Consult Service

Objectives: To examine the types of questions received by Clinical Informatics Consult Service (CICS) librarians from clinicians on rounds and to analyze the number of clearly differentiated viewpoints provided in response.

Development and use of clinical guidelines

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the development and use of clinical guidelines as a tool for decision making in clinical practice. Nurses have always developed and used tools to guide clinical decision making related to interventions in practice. Since Florence Nightingale (Nightingale 1860) gave us ‘notes’ on nursing in the late 1800s, nurses have continued to use tools, such as standards, policies and procedures, protocols, algorithms, clinical pathways and clinical guidelines, to assist them in making appropriate decisions about patient care that eventuate in the best desired patient outcomes. Clinical guidelines have enjoyed growing popularity as a comprehensive tool for synthesising clinical evidence and information into user-friendly recommendations for practice. Historically, clinical guidelines were developed by individual experts or groups of experts by consensus, with no transparent process for the user to determine the validity and reliability of the recommendations. The acceptance of the evidence-based practice (EBP) movement as a paradigm for clinical decision making underscores the imperative for clinical guidelines to be systematically developed and based on the best available research evidence. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of choosing from an abundance of guidelines of variable quality, or developing new guidelines. Where do you start? How do you find an existing guideline to fit your practice? How do you know if a guideline is evidence-based, valid and reliable? Should you apply an existing guideline in your practice or develop a new guideline? How do you get clinicians to use the guidelines? How do you know if using the guideline will make any difference in care delivery or patient outcomes? Whatever the choice, the challenge lies in choosing or developing a clinical guideline that is credible as a decision-making tool for the delivery of quality, efficient and effective care. This chapter will address the posed questions through an exploration of the ins and outs of clinical guidelines, from development to application to evaluation.

An explorative qualitative analysis of participants' experience of using kava versus placebo in an RCT. (Clinical report)

Many randomised controlled trials (RCT) have been conducted using Piper methysticum (kava), however no qualitative research exploring the experience of taking kava during a clinical trial has previously been reported. ---------- Patients and methods: A qualitative research component (in the form of semi structured and open ended written questions) was incorporated into an RCT to explore the experiences of those participating in a clinical trial of kava. The written questions were provided to participants at weeks 2 and 3 (after randomisation, after each controlled phase). The researcher and participants were blinded as to whether they were taking kava or placebo. Two open ended questions were posed to elucidate their experiences from taking either kava or placebo. Thematic analysis was undertaken and researcher triangulation employed to ensure analytical rigour. Key themes after the kava phases were a reduction in anxiety and stress, and calming or relaxing mental effects. Other themes related to improvement in sleep and in somatic anxiety symptoms. ---------- Results: Kava use did not cause any serious adverse reactions although a few respondents reported nausea or other gastrointestinal side effects. This represents the first documented qualitative investigation of the experience of taking kava during a clinical trial. The primary themes involved anxiolytic and calming effects, with only a minor theme reflecting side effects. Our exploratory qualitative data was consistent with the significant quantitative results revealed in the study and provides additional support to suggest the trial results did not exclude any important positive or negative effects (at least as experienced by the trial participants).

A model for integrating clinical care and basic science research, and pitfalls of performing complex research projects for addressing a clinical challenge

The collaboration of clinicians with basic science researchers is crucial for addressing clinically relevant research questions. In order to initiate such mutually beneficial relationships, we propose a model where early career clinicians spend a designated time embedded in established basic science research groups, in order to pursue a postgraduate qualification. During this time, clinicians become integral members of the research team, fostering long term relationships and opening up opportunities for continuing collaboration. However, for these collaborations to be successful there are pitfalls to be avoided. Limited time and funding can lead to attempts to answer clinical challenges with highly complex research projects characterised by a large number of "clinical" factors being introduced in the hope that the research outcomes will be more clinically relevant. As a result, the complexity of such studies and variability of its outcomes may lead to difficulties in drawing scientifically justified and clinically useful conclusions. Consequently, we stress that it is the basic science researcher and the clinician's obligation to be mindful of the limitations and challenges of such multi-factorial research projects. A systematic step-by-step approach to address clinical research questions with limited, but highly targeted and well defined research projects provides the solid foundation which may lead to the development of a longer term research program for addressing more challenging clinical problems. Ultimately, we believe that it is such models, encouraging the vital collaboration between clinicians and researchers for the work on targeted, well defined research projects, which will result in answers to the important clinical challenges of today.

Clinical indicators of quality for Australian residential aged care facilities : establishing reliability, validity, and quality thresholds

Background: In response to the need for more comprehensive quality assessment within Australian residential aged care facilities, the Clinical Care Indicator (CCI) Tool was developed to collect outcome data as a means of making inferences about quality. A national trial of its effectiveness and a Brisbane-based trial of its use within the quality improvement context determined the CCI Tool represented a potentially valuable addition to the Australian aged care system. This document describes the next phase in the CCI Tool.s development; the aims of which were to establish validity and reliability of the CCI Tool, and to develop quality indicator thresholds (benchmarks) for use in Australia. The CCI Tool is now known as the ResCareQA (Residential Care Quality Assessment). Methods: The study aims were achieved through a combination of quantitative data analysis, and expert panel consultations using modified Delphi process. The expert panel consisted of experienced aged care clinicians, managers, and academics; they were initially consulted to determine face and content validity of the ResCareQA, and later to develop thresholds of quality. To analyse its psychometric properties, ResCareQA forms were completed for all residents (N=498) of nine aged care facilities throughout Queensland. Kappa statistics were used to assess inter-rater and test-retest reliability, and Cronbach.s alpha coefficient calculated to determine internal consistency. For concurrent validity, equivalent items on the ResCareQA and the Resident Classification Scales (RCS) were compared using Spearman.s rank order correlations, while discriminative validity was assessed using known-groups technique, comparing ResCareQA results between groups with differing care needs, as well as between male and female residents. Rank-ordered facility results for each clinical care indicator (CCI) were circulated to the panel; upper and lower thresholds for each CCI were nominated by panel members and refined through a Delphi process. These thresholds indicate excellent care at one extreme and questionable care at the other. Results: Minor modifications were made to the assessment, and it was renamed the ResCareQA. Agreement on its content was reached after two Delphi rounds; the final version contains 24 questions across four domains, enabling generation of 36 CCIs. Both test-retest and inter-rater reliability were sound with median kappa values of 0.74 (test-retest) and 0.91 (inter-rater); internal consistency was not as strong, with a Chronbach.s alpha of 0.46. Because the ResCareQA does not provide a single combined score, comparisons for concurrent validity were made with the RCS on an item by item basis, with most resultant correlations being quite low. Discriminative validity analyses, however, revealed highly significant differences in total number of CCIs between high care and low care groups (t199=10.77, p=0.000), while the differences between male and female residents were not significant (t414=0.56, p=0.58). Clinical outcomes varied both within and between facilities; agreed upper and lower thresholds were finalised after three Delphi rounds. Conclusions: The ResCareQA provides a comprehensive, easily administered means of monitoring quality in residential aged care facilities that can be reliably used on multiple occasions. The relatively modest internal consistency score was likely due to the multi-factorial nature of quality, and the absence of an aggregate result for the assessment. Measurement of concurrent validity proved difficult in the absence of a gold standard, but the sound discriminative validity results suggest that the ResCareQA has acceptable validity and could be confidently used as an indication of care quality within Australian residential aged care facilities. The thresholds, while preliminary due to small sample size, enable users to make judgements about quality within and between facilities. Thus it is recommended the ResCareQA be adopted for wider use.

Clinical education for nephrology nurse practitioner candidates in Australia : a consensus statement

Objectives: To develop recommendations for the clinical education required to prepare Australian Nurse Practitioner candidates for advanced and extended practice in nephrology settings. Methods: Using the Delphi research technique a consensus statement was developed over a nine month period. All endorsed and candidate Nephrology Nurse Practitioners (NNP) were invited to participate as the expert panel. The Delphi research technique uses a systematic and iterative process. The expert panel were asked to generate a list of items which were then circulated to all NNPs. They were asked to determine their degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement using a 5-point Likert scale There was opportunity for free-text comments to be provided if desired. Results from each round were collated; the document was refined and circulated to the experts for a subsequent round. Consensus was demonstrated after three Delphi rounds. Results: The consensus statement comprises four components explaining the role and membership of the mentorship team, the setting and location of NNP clinical education, learning strategies to support the NNP, and outcomes of NNP clinical education. Demographic questions in the final survey revealed information about the qualifications, years of experience, and practice location of Australian NNPs. Conclusions: The consensus statement is not prescriptive but it will inform NNP candidates, university course providers and mentors about the expected extended nephrology specific clinical education that will enable the NNP to provide advanced nursing care for patients regardless of the stage of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the practice setting.