Health problems in elderly patients during the first post-stroke year

BACKGROUND: A wide range of health problems has been reported in elderly post-stroke patients. AIM: The aim of this study was to analyse the prevalence and timing of health problems identified by patient interviews and scrutiny of primary health care and municipality elderly health care records during the first post-stroke year. METHODS: A total of 390 consecutive patients, ≥65 years, discharged alive from hospital after a stroke event, were followed for 1 year post-admission. Information on the health care situation during the first post-stroke year was obtained from primary health care and municipal elderly health care records and through interviews with the stroke survivors, at 1 week after discharge, and 3 and 12 months after hospital admission. RESULTS: More than 90% had some health problem at some time during the year, while based on patient record data only 4-8% had problems during a given week. The prevalence of interview-based health problems was generally higher than record-based prevalence, and the ranking order was moderately different. The most frequently interview-reported problems were associated with perception, activity, and tiredness, while the most common record-based findings indicated pain, bladder and bowel function, and breathing and circulation problems. There was co-occurrence between some problems, such as those relating to cognition, activity, and tiredness. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all patients had a health problem during the year, but few occurred in a given week. Cognitive and communication problems were more common in interview data than record data. Co-occurrence may be used to identify subtle health problems.

Lessons learned from stakeholders in a facilitation intervention targeting neonatal health in Quang Ninh province, Vietnam

BACKGROUND: In northern Vietnam the Neonatal health - Knowledge Into Practice (NeoKIP, Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN44599712) trial has evaluated facilitation as a knowledge translation intervention to improve neonatal survival. The results demonstrated that intervention sites, each having an assigned group including local stakeholders supported by a facilitator, lowered the neonatal mortality rate by 50% during the last intervention year compared with control sites. This process evaluation was conducted to identify and describe mechanisms of the NeoKIP intervention based on experiences of facilitators and intervention group members. METHODS: Four focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with all facilitators at different occasions and 12 FGDs with 6 intervention groups at 2 occasions. Fifteen FGDs were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, translated into English, and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes and 17 sub-themes emerged from the 3 FGDs with facilitators, and 5 themes and 18 sub-themes were identified from the 12 FGDs with the intervention groups mirroring the process of, and the barriers to, the intervention. Facilitators and intervention group members concurred that having groups representing various organisations was beneficial. Facilitators were considered important in assembling the groups. The facilitators functioned best if coming from the same geographical area as the groups and if they were able to come to terms with the chair of the groups. However, the facilitators' lack of health knowledge was regarded as a deficit for assisting the groups' assignments. FGD participants experienced the NeoKIP intervention to have impact on the knowledge and behaviour of both intervention group members and the general public, however, they found that the intervention was a slow and time-consuming process. Perceived facilitation barriers were lack of money, inadequate support, and the function of the intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative process evaluation contributes to explain the improved neonatal survival and why this occurred after a latent period in the NeoKIP project. The used knowledge translation intervention, where facilitators supported multi-stakeholder coalitions with the mandate to impact upon attitudes and behaviour in the communes, has low costs and potential for being scaled-up within existing healthcare systems.

Diagnosis and treatment of mucormycosis in patients with hematological malignancies: guidelines from the 3rd European Conference on Infections in Leukemia (ECIL 3)

Mucormycosis is an emerging cause of infectious morbidity and mortality in patients with hematologic malignancies. However, there are no recommendations to guide diagnosis and management. The European Conference on Infections in Leukemia assigned experts in hematology and infectious diseases to develop evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of mucormycosis. The guidelines were developed using the evidence criteria set forth by the American Infectious Diseases Society and the key recommendations are summarized here. In the absence of validated biomarkers, the diagnosis of mucormycosis relies on histology and/or detection of the organism by culture from involved sites with identification of the isolate at the species level (no grading). Antifungal chemotherapy, control of the underlying predisposing condition, and surgery are the cornerstones of management (level A II). Options for first-line chemotherapy of mucormycosis include liposomal amphotericin B and amphotericin B lipid complex (level B II). Posaconazole and combination therapy of liposomal amphotericin B or amphotericin B lipid complex with caspofungin are the options for second line-treatment (level B II). Surgery is recommended for rhinocerebral and skin and soft tissue disease (level A II). Reversal of underlying risk factors (diabetes control, reversal of neutropenia, discontinuation/taper of glucocorticosteroids, reduction of immunosuppressants, discontinuation of deferroxamine) is important in the treatment of mucormycosis (level A II). The duration of antifungal chemotherapy is not defined but guided by the resolution of all associated symptoms and findings (no grading). Maintenance therapy/secondary prophylaxis must be considered in persistently immunocompromised patients (no grading).