Search

This paper is a statement of the American Geriatrics Society's (AGS) core policy priorities and the Society's positions on federal programs and policies that support older Americans as articulated to the new administration. Among the AGS priorities discussed in this paper are health reform, Medicare, and Medicaid. The AGS is committed to leveraging its expertise to inform regulatory and legislative policy proposals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, the past decade has seen rapid growth in treatment centers providing specialty care to patients with eating disorders. Much of this growth has been in higher levels of care, including hospital‐based and residential treatment. Despite this expansion, there remains lack of agreement regarding the most important components of care, such as staff training or specifics of treatment delivery. Additionally there is no consensus on how best to assess outcome and compare performance across programs. This leaves patients, families, public and private insurance programs, and policy makers with limited information to help facilitate treatment decisions. The present paper considers implications of these changes in the eating disorder treatment landscape and examines two ideas that, if implemented, may enhance the quality of eating disorder care. First, we explore the proposal to develop a network of centers of excellence in eating disorder treatment and the value this may have for improving overall treatment quality. This idea was discussed at an expert meeting held at SAMSHA in 2017 regarding issues important to the field following passage of the 21st Century Cures Act. Second, we consider the potential utility of a study using the Delphi method to promote expert consensus regarding clinical outcome assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper aims to contribute to the discussion about patient‐centred care in surgery. It is contended here that the paradigm shift towards patient‐centred decision‐making in health care does not mean that patient values alone (or those of their proxies) should, uncritically, be the lead decision makers in determining surgical care. Methods: In support of that contention, three clarifications to our conception of autonomy will be offered. Results: First, autonomy may not be best positioned as the lead principle guiding healthcare decision‐making. Second, arguably, our traditional understanding of autonomy, as it might be applied to health care, is incomplete. Third, where autonomy is vested is contentious, and proxy decision makers can further complicate the decision‐making process. Conclusion: It will be argued that an approach of inclusive, non‐coercive and reflective dialogue seeking a consensual decision amongst all those affected is more appropriate for moral decision‐making in surgery. This dialogue is set in the actual reality of the patient's illness. During the discourse, each participant has equal rights to contribute and to be heard, equal duties not to coerce and equal co‐responsibilities to share the perspectives of others in the discourse, with an aim to reach consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This article explores the complicated and often‐contradictory notions of choice at play in complex care management (CCM) programmes in the US healthcare safety net. Drawing from longitudinal data collected over two years of ethnographic fieldwork at urban safety‐net clinics, our study examines the CCM goal of transforming frequent emergency department (ED) utilisers into ‘active’ patients who will reduce their service utilisation and thereby contribute to a more rational, cost‐effective healthcare system. By considering our data alongside philosopher Annemarie Mol's (2008) conceptualisation of the competing logics of choice and care, we argue that these premises often undermine CCM teams' efforts to support patients and provide the care they need – not only to prevent medical crises, but to overcome socio‐economic barriers as well. We assert that while safety‐net CCM programmes are held accountable for the degree to which their patients successfully transform into self‐managing, cost‐effective actors, much of the care CCM staff provide in fact involves attempts to intervene on structural obstacles that impinge on patient choice. CCM programmes thus struggle between an economic imperative to get patients to make better health choices and a moral imperative to provide care in the face of systemic societal neglect. (A virtual abstract of this paper can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_979cmCmR9rLrKuD7z0ycA). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

. Carruthers BM, van de Sande MI, De Meirleir KL, Klimas NG, Broderick G, Mitchell T, Staines D, Powles ACP, Speight N, Vallings R, Bateman L, Baumgarten-Austrheim B, Bell DS, Carlo-Stella N, Chia J, Darragh A, Jo D, Lewis D, Light AR, Marshall-Gradisbik S, Mena I, Mikovits JA, Murovska M, Pall ML, Stevens S (Independent, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Independent, Calgary, AB, Canada; Department of Physiology and Medicine, Vrije University of Brussels, Himmunitas Foundation, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Medicine,University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and Miami Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Honorary Consultant for NHS at Peterborough/Cambridge, Lowestoft, Suffolk, UK; Gold Coast Public Health Unit, Southport, Queensland; Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia; Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University and St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Independent, Durham, UK; Howick Health and Medical Centre, Howick, New Zealand; Fatigue Consultation Clinic, Salt Lake Regional Medical Center; Internal Medicine, Family Practice, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; ME/CFS Center, Oslo University Hospital HF, Norway; Department of Paediatrics, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY; Independent, Pavia, Italy; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, University of California, Los Angeles, CA; EV Med Research, Lomita, CA, USA; University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland; Pain Clinic, Konyang University Hospital, Daejeon, Korea; Donvale Specialist Medical Centre, Donvale, Victoria, Australia; Departments or Anesthesiology, Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia; Department of Medicina Nuclear, Clinica Las Condes, Santiago, Chile; Whittemore Peterson Institute, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA; Miwa Naika Clinic, Toyama, Japan; A. Kirchenstein Institute of Microbiology and Virology, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia; Department of Biochemistry & Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, Portland, OR; Department of Sports Sciences, University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA USA). Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria (Review). J Intern Med 2011; 270: 327-338. The label 'chronic fatigue syndrome' (CFS) has persisted for many years because of the lack of knowledge of the aetiological agents and the disease process. In view of more recent research and clinical experience that strongly point to widespread inflammation and multisystemic neuropathology, it is more appropriate and correct to use the term 'myalgic encephalomyelitis' (ME) because it indicates an underlying pathophysiology. It is also consistent with the neurological classification of ME in the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD G93.3). Consequently, an International Consensus Panel consisting of clinicians, researchers, teaching faculty and an independent patient advocate was formed with the purpose of developing criteria based on current knowledge. Thirteen countries and a wide range of specialties were represented. Collectively, members have approximately 400 years of both clinical and teaching experience, authored hundreds of peer-reviewed publications, diagnosed or treated approximately 50 000 patients with ME, and several members coauthored previous criteria. The expertise and experience of the panel members as well as PubMed and other medical sources were utilized in a progression of suggestions/drafts/reviews/revisions. The authors, free of any sponsoring organization, achieved 100% consensus through a Delphi-type process. The scope of this paper is limited to criteria of ME and their application. Accordingly, the criteria reflect the complex symptomatology. Operational notes enhance clarity and specificity by providing guidance in the expression and interpretation of symptoms. Clinical and research application guidelines promote optimal recognition of ME by primary physicians and other healthcare providers, improve the consistency of diagnoses in adult and paediatric patients internationally and facilitate clearer identification of patients for research studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical research needs to be more useful to patients, clinicians, and other decision makers. To meet this need, more research should focus on patient-centered outcomes, compare viable alternatives, and be responsive to individual patients' preferences, needs, pathobiology, settings, and values. These features, which make comparative effectiveness research (CER) fundamentally patient-centered, challenge researchers to adopt or develop methods that improve the timeliness, relevance, and practical application of clinical studies. In this paper, we describe 10 priority areas that address 3 critical needs for research on patient-centered outcomes (PCOR): (1) developing and testing trustworthy methods to identify and prioritize important questions for research; (2) improving the design, conduct, and analysis of clinical research studies; and (3) linking the process and outcomes of actual practice to priorities for research on patient-centered outcomes. We argue that the National Institutes of Health, through its clinical and translational research program, should accelerate the development and refinement of methods for CER by linking a program of methods research to the broader portfolio of large, prospective clinical and health system studies it supports. Insights generated by this work should be of enormous value to PCORI and to the broad range of organizations that will be funding and implementing CER. Clin Trans Sci 2011; Volume 4: 188-198 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper models the predicted impact of tobacco price increases proposed in the United States and Australia during 2009 on smoking prevalence in 2010 while taking account of the effects of financial stress among smokers on cessation rates. Two models of smoking prevalence were developed for each country. In model 1, prevalence rates were determined by price elasticity estimates. In model 2 price elasticity was moderated by financial stress. Each model was used to estimate smoking prevalence in 2010 in Australia and the United States. Proposed price increases resulted in a 1.89% and 7.84% decrease in smoking participation among low socio-economic status (SES) groups in the United States and Australia, respectively. Model 1 overestimated the number of individuals expected to quit in both the United States (0.13% of smokers) and Australia (0.36% of smokers) by failing to take account of the differential effects of the tax on financially stressed smokers. The proportion of low-income smokers under financial stress increased in both countries in 2010 (by 1.06% in the United States and 3.75% in Australia). The inclusion of financial stress when modelling the impact of price on smoking prevalence suggests that the population health returns of increased cigarette price will diminish over time. As it is likely that the proportion of low-income smokers under financial stress will also increase in 2010, future population-based approaches to reducing smoking will need to address this factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Tradition has led us to believe that a heavily sedated patient is a comfortable, settled, compliant patient for whom sedation will improve outcome. The current move witnessed in clinical practice today of limiting sedation has led health care in recent years to question the benefit and necessity of routine, continuous sedation for all patients requiring mechanical ventilation. However, as a result there has been a rise in the amount of agitation being reported as being experienced by patients with the daily withdrawal of sedation. AIMS: The purpose of this paper is to review current arguments for and against perserving with agitation versus re-sedating, when it presents during the daily sedation breaks. FINDINGS: Of the literature reviewed, the question to re-sedate the mechanically ventilated agitated patient during sedation breaks remains an issue of contention. Although there is evidence focusing on the psychological effects of long-term sedation and sedation breaks specifically, the complex nature of critical illness in some cases means that individualized care is of paramount importance and in-depth assessment is crucial when deciding to re-sedate in the face of undetermined agitation. Agitation has been closely linked with several incidents that can be detrimental to patient safety, such as removal of lines and unplanned self-extubation. CONCLUSION: The recommendations of this review are that nurses should re-commence sedation if the patient becomes agitated following a sedation break. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is discussion of a new middle‐range theory of patient safety goal priming via safety culture communication. Bedside nurses are key to safe care, but there is little theory about how organizations can influence nursing behavior through safety culture to improve patient safety outcomes. We theorize patient safety goal priming via safety culture communication may support organizations in this endeavor. According to this theory, hospital safety culture communication activates a previously held patient safety goal and increases the perceived value of actions nurses can take to achieve that goal. Nurses subsequently prioritize and are motivated to perform tasks and risk assessment related to achieving patient safety. These efforts continue until nurses mitigate or ameliorate identified risks and hazards during the patient care encounter. Critically, this process requires nurses to have a previously held safety goal associated with a repertoire of appropriate actions. This theory suggests undergraduate educators should foster an outcomes focus emphasizing the connections between nursing interventions and safety outcomes, hospitals should strategically structure patient safety primes into communicative activities, and organizations should support professional development including new skills and the latest evidence supporting nursing practice for patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]