Informed consent : the review of the law of negligence and the utility of reference to NHMRC guidelines

Although rarely referred to in litigation in the years that have followed the Ipp Review Report, there may well be some merit in more frequent judicial reference to the NHMRC guidelines for medical practitioners on providing information to patients 2004.

Reference bias : presentation of extreme health states prior to EQ-VAS improves health-related quality of life scores. A randomised crossover trial.

Background: Clinical practice and clinical research has made a concerted effort to move beyond the use of clinical indicators alone and embrace patient focused care through the use of patient reported outcomes such as healthrelated quality of life. However, unless patients give consistent consideration to the health states that give meaning to measurement scales used to evaluate these constructs, longitudinal comparison of these measures may be invalid. This study aimed to investigate whether patients give consideration to a standard health state rating scale (EQ-VAS) and whether consideration of good and poor health state descriptors immediately changes their selfreport. Methods: A randomised crossover trial was implemented amongst hospitalised older adults (n = 151). Patients were asked to consider descriptions of extremely good (Description-A) and poor (Description-B) health states. The EQ-VAS was administered as a self-report at baseline, after the first descriptors (A or B), then again after the remaining descriptors (B or A respectively). At baseline patients were also asked if they had considered either EQVAS anchors. Results: Overall 106/151 (70%) participants changed their self-evaluation by ≥5 points on the 100 point VAS, with a mean (SD) change of +4.5 (12) points (p < 0.001). A total of 74/151 (49%) participants did not consider the best health VAS anchor, of the 77 who did 59 (77%) thought the good health descriptors were more extreme (better) then they had previously considered. Similarly 85/151 (66%) participants did not consider the worst health anchor of the 66 who did 63 (95%) thought the poor health descriptors were more extreme (worse) then they had previously considered. Conclusions: Health state self-reports may not be well considered. An immediate significant shift in response can be elicited by exposure to a mere description of an extreme health state despite no actual change in underlying health state occurring. Caution should be exercised in research and clinical settings when interpreting subjective patient reported outcomes that are dependent on brief anchors for meaning. Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (#ACTRN12607000606482) http://www.anzctr. org.au

The changing face of practice for developing perception : action skill in cricket

The use of bowling machines is common practice in cricket. In an ideal world all batters would face real bowlers in practice sessions, but this is not always possible, for many reasons. The clear advantage of using bowling machines is that they alleviate the workload required from bowlers (Dennis, Finch & Farhart, 2005) and provide relatively consistent and accurate ball delivery which may not be otherwise available to many young batters. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many, if not most of the world’s greatest players use these methods within their training schedules. For example, Australian internationals, Michael Hussey and Matthew Hayden extensively used bowling machines (Hussey & Sygall, 2007). Bowling machines enable batsmen to practice for long periods, developing their endurance and concentration. However, despite these obvious benefits, in recent times the use of bowling machines has been questioned by sport scientists, coaches, ex- players and commentators. For example, Hussey’s batting coach comments “…we never went near a bowling machine in [Michael’s] first couple of years, I think there’s something to that …” (Hussey & Sygall, 2007, p. 119). This chapter will discuss the efficacy of using bowling machines with reference to research findings, before reporting new evidence that provides support for an alternative, innovative and possibly more representative practice design. Finally, the chapter will provide advice for coaches on the implications of this research, including a case study approach to demonstrate the practical use of such a design.