Search

BACKGROUND: This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care. METHODS: Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL. RESULTS: Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

BACKGROUND: This is Part 3 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses organizational aspects of care. METHODS: Experts in management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. RESULTS: Components of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on best current available evidence for organizational aspects of an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and include discussion of less common aspects of care for the surgical patient, including end-of-life issues. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications and costs for a large number of elective surgical procedures. A similar, structured approach appears to improve outcomes, including mortality, for patients undergoing high-risk emergency general surgery, and specifically emergency laparotomy. These are the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of these patients using an ERAS approach. METHODS: Experts in aspects of management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on non-emergency patients when appropriate. The Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. The guideline has been divided into two parts: Part 1-Preoperative Care and Part 2-Intraoperative and Postoperative management. This paper provides guidelines for Part 1. RESULTS: Twelve components of preoperative care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on the best available evidence for an ERAS approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Initial management is particularly important for patients with sepsis and physiological derangement. These guidelines should be used to improve outcomes for these high-risk patients.

Libraries continue to spearhead initiatives to incentivize instructors to adopt, adapt, and create open educational resources (OER). However, these programs often do not explicitly require educators to preserve the OER they create. Drawing on an analysis of semi-structured interviews with six experts, this article presents considerations for libraries interested in preserving OER and recommendations for OER librarians who are new to digital preservation. The study makes an argument for why and how libraries could begin to preserve OER. Future areas of investigation include better understanding how OER repositories preserve such resources and how consortia models can support this work.

Through their affiliation with an institution of higher education, undergraduate students are able to access a range of research materials and, as a result, enter the scholarly conversation and build upon existing research. This ability to access information that others cannot is called information privilege. This article builds upon Char Booth's work on information privilege to present library outreach as a way to raise awareness about the disparity in information access and to encourage students to consider how their own scholarship and sharing practices impact others. The article presents one approach for facilitating information privilege outreach with undergraduate students. (A list of notes is included.)

Background: This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care. Methods: Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL. Results: Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process. Conclusions: These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pharmacy Practice (1886-3655) is the property of Centro de Investigaciones y Publicaciones Farmaceuticas S.L. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective:To develop a depression screening model that can be replicated by other community pharmacists, conduct a depression screening in a community pharmacy, identify and appropriately refer patients with symptoms consistent with depression. Design: Uncontrolled study. Setting: Four supermarkets in the Kansas City, Kans. and Mo.. metropolitan area, on January 25, 2003. Participants: 18 supermarket shoppers, 6 community pharmacists, and 4 psychiatric pharmacy specialists. Intervention: Identification of symptoms consistent with major depressive disorder (MDD). Main outcome measures: The feasibility and effectiveness of developed depression screening; identify and appropriately refer patients with symptoms consistent with depression. Results: The depression screening model was tested as a pilot project to evaluate its feasibility and effectiveness. The mean (&plusmin; SD) total score on the 10-item Harvard Department of Psychiatry/National Depression Screening Day Scale (HANDS) tool was 5.8 &plusmin; 5.0. Overall, of 18 total participants, 14 were unlikely to have symptoms of MDD, 3 had symptoms consistent with MDD (including 1 reporting recent suicidal thinking), and 1 had symptoms strongly consistent with MDD. Patients followed the pharmacist's referral recommendations in all cases. Conclusion: The HANDS tool is easily used in community pharmacy as a screening form. With training, community pharmacists are capable of performing screenings and referring patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by Wiggers-Portal et al to a letter to the editor about their article "Accuracy and pharmacist perceptions of community-based automated blood pressure machines," by Wiggers-Porta et al which appeared in the "Journal of the American Pharmacists Association" is presented.

The article presents the results of a study to examine the accuracy of blood pressure machines and pharmacists' perceptions in 30 community pharmacies in Kansas City, Kansas. It notes that the assessments used both automated blood pressure machines and manual sphygmomanometer to measure blood pressures according to American Heart Association guidelines. The findings showed that none of the blood pressure machines was considered inaccurate but pharmacists' perceptions of their accuracy differed with the results.

Objectives: To determine factors that affect nonparticipation in an employee diabetes program and factors that may increase participation in future employee health programs. Methods: Participants in this cross-sectional study were adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, 18 to 80 years of age, who were covered by employer insurance but chose not to participate in an employer-sponsored diabetes program. Potential factors affecting program participation were assessed through a face-to- face or mailed survey. Results: Of 204 employees or their dependents eligible for the diabetes program, 75 (37%) chose not to participate. Among the nonparticipants, 46 (61%) were eligible for this study. A total of 22 surveys were collected for a 48% response rate. The majority of those individuals surveyed (91%) were aware of the diabetes program and had been notified by mail (42%) or phone (29%). Of those surveyed, 33% did not believe that program incentives had been sufficiently explained to them. Work schedule was not found to be a determinant of participation. More than one-half (52%) of responders identified satisfaction with their current diabetes management as the most notable reason for nonparticipation in the employee diabetes program. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the primary reason for program nonparticipation was patient satisfaction with current physician management of their diabetes. In the future, companies offering health programs should emphasize that the program is being offered to supplement and complement current disease state management, not to replace it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care., Methods: Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS ® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS ® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL., Results: Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process., Conclusions: These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS ® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies., (© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Société Internationale de Chirurgie.)