Search

BackgroundAugmented reality (AR) has benefits and feasibility in emergency medicine, especially in the clinical care of patients, in operating rooms and inpatient facilities, and in the education and training of emergency care providers, but current research on this topic is sparse. ObjectiveThe primary objective is to evaluate the short-term and long-term effectiveness of the use of AR in the treatment of patients with anaphylactic shock. The secondary objectives are to evaluate the safety in the treatment of patients with anaphylactic shock, evaluate the short-term and long-term effectiveness of stress management in this process, and determine the experiences and attitudes towards the use of AR in education. MethodsThe study will be conducted in 3 phases. In the first phase, we will develop and test the scenario for simulation of anaphylactic shock and the evaluation scale for assessing the effect of the intervention. In the second phase, a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial will be conducted. In the third phase, the use of AR in teaching the management of anaphylactic shock using focus groups will be evaluated qualitatively. All participants will participate in a 1-day training program consisting of a lecture on emergency care and anaphylactic shock as well as exercises in manual dexterity (aspiration, airway management, alternative airway management, artificial respiration, chest compressions, safe defibrillation, oxygen application, use of medication during emergency care). The test group will also focus on education about anaphylactic shock in AR (the intervention). The main outcome will be the evaluation of the participants' performance in coping with a simulated scenario of anaphylactic shock using a high-fidelity simulator (simulator with high levels of realism) and a standardized patient in an educational and clinical environment. The study will be conducted with primary care physicians. ResultsA scenario for the simulation with a high-fidelity simulator and standardized patient has already been developed. For the time being, we are developing an evaluation scale and starting to recruit participants. We plan to complete the recruitment of participants by the end of December 2020, start the randomized controlled trial in January 2021, and finish 1 year later. The first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2021. ConclusionsThis will be the first study to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of AR in medical teaching. Specifically, it will be based on a clinical case of anaphylactic shock at the primary care level. With our study, we also want to evaluate the translation of these educational results into clinical practice and assess their long-term impact. Trial RegistrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN58047410; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN58047410 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)PRR1-10.2196/22460

BackgroundProviding patients with cancer who are undergoing systemic therapy with useful information about symptom management is essential to prevent unnecessary deterioration of quality of life. ObjectiveThe aim was to evaluate whether use of an app for symptom management was associated with any change in patient quality of life or use of health resources. MethodsOutpatients with early stage breast cancer receiving systemic therapy were recruited at the Institute of Oncology in Ljubljana, Slovenia. Patients who received systemic therapy between December 2017 and March 2018 (control group) and between April 2018 and September 2018 (intervention group) were eligible. All patients received standard care, but only those in the intervention group were asked to use mPRO Mamma, an Android-based smartphone app, in addition. The app supported daily tracking of 50 symptoms, allowed users to grade their symptom severity (as mild, moderate, or severe), and also provided in-depth descriptions and recommendations based on reported symptom level. Patient-reported outcomes in both groups were assessed through the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core (C-30) and breast cancer (BR-23) questionnaires, as well as a questionnaire about health resources use. The primary outcomes were the difference in the global quality of life between groups and the difference in summary score of the EORTC C-30 questionnaire between groups after 3 time periods (the first week of treatment, the first treatment cycle, and the entire treatment). The secondary outcome was the use of health resources (doctor visits and hospitalizations) in each time period. Other scales were used for exploratory analysis. ResultsThe mean difference between the intervention group (n=46) and the control group (n=45) in global quality of life (adjusted for baseline and type of surgery) after the first week was 10.1 (95% CI 1.8 to 18.5, P=.02). The intervention group summary scores were significantly higher than those of the control group after the first week (adjusted mean difference: 8.9, 95% CI 3.1 to 14.7, P=.003) and at the end of treatment (adjusted mean difference: 10.6, 95% CI 3.9 to 17.3, P=.002). Use of health resources was not statistically significant between the groups in either the first week (P=.12) or the first treatment cycle (P=.13). Exploratory analysis findings demonstrated clinically important improvements (indicated by EORTC C-30 or BR-23 scale scores)—social, physical, role, and cognitive function were improved while pain, appetite loss, and systemic therapy side effects were reduced. ConclusionsUse of the app enabled patients undergoing systemic therapy for early stage breast cancer to better cope with symptoms which was demonstrated by a better global quality of life and summary score after the first week and by a better summary score at the end of treatment in the intervention group compared to those of the control group, but no change in the use of health resources was demonstrated.

Not much is known about the fall risk among the adult population of those who rarely visit doctors. We wanted to determine the prevalence of increased fall risk in a population of family practice non-attenders and the factors associated with it.

Introduction: Research on models of integrated health care for hypertension and diabetes is one of the priority issues in the world. There is a lack of knowledge about how integrated care is implemented in practice. Our study assessed its implementation in six areas: identification of patients, treatment, health education, self-management support, structured collaboration and organisation of care. Methods: This was a mixed methods study based on a triangulation method using quantitative and qualitative data. It took place in different types of primary health care organisations, in one urban and two rural regions of Slovenia. The main instrument for data collection was the Integrated Care Package (ICP) Grid, assessed through four methods: 1) a document analysis (of a current health policy and available protocols; 2) observation of the infrastructure of health centres, organisation of work, patient flow, interaction of patients with health professionals; 3) interview with key informants and 4) review of medical documentation of selected patients. Results: The implementation of the integrated care in Slovenia was assessed with the overall ICP score of 3.7 points (out of 5 possible points). The element Identification was almost fully implemented, while the element Self-management support was weakly implemented. Discussion: The implementation of the integrated care of patients with diabetes and/ or hypertension in Slovenian primary health care organisations achieved high levels of implementation. However, some week points were identified. Conclusion: Integrated care of the chronic patients in Slovenia is already provided at high levels, but the area of self-management support could be improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present retrospective study was undertaken to investigate the association of relative dose intensity (RDI) with the outcome of patients with advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) receiving ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) and escalated BEACOPP regimens (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone). A total of 114 patients with HL treated between 2004 and 2013 were enrolled for evaluation. The association of variables with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was analysed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. The median age of patients was 39 years, and the majority were male and had stage IV disease. A total of 54 patients received ABVD and 60 received BEACOPP chemotherapy with 24 and four deaths, respectively. Patients in the BEACOPP group were significantly younger with lower Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and better performance status in comparison with the ABVD group, making the comparison of groups not possible. In the ABVD group, RDI was not significantly associated with OS (P=0.590) or PFS (P=0.354) in a multivariate model where age was controlled. The low number of events prevented this analysis in the BEACOPP group. The age of patients was strongly associated with both OS and PFS; all statistically significant predictors for OS and PFS from univariate analyses (chemotherapy regimen, CCI, RDI, performance status) lost their effect in multivariate analyses where age was controlled. Based on these observations, it was concluded that RDI was not associated with OS or PFS after age is controlled, neither in all patients combined nor in the ABVD group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]