Gatekeeper Improves Voluntary Contractility in Patients With Fecal Incontinence

Background. Gatekeeper (GK) has shown to be safe and effective in patients with fecal incontinence (FI). We aimed to understand its mechanism of action by comparing pre- and post-implant change in the external anal sphincter (EAS) contractility. Methods. Study of EAS contractility was conducted in 16 FI females (median age = 69 years) before and after implant of 6 GK prostheses. Muscle tension (Tm), expressed in millinewtons per centimeter squared, mN(cm2) 121, was calculated using the equation Tm = P(ri)(tm) 121, where P is the average maximum squeeze pressure and ri and tm the inner radius and thickness of the EAS, respectively. The effect of a predefined set of covariates on Tm was tested by restricted maximum likelihood models. Results. Compared with baseline, despite unchanged tm (2.7 [2.5-2.8] vs 2.5 [2.2-2.8] mm; P =.31 mm), a significant increase in P (median = 45.8 [26.5-75.8] vs 60.4 [43.1-88.1] mm Hg; P =.017), and ri (12.4 [11.5-13.4] vs 18.7 [17.3-19.6] mm; P <.001) resulted in an increase in Tm (233.2 [123.8-303.2] vs 490.8 [286.9-562.4] mN(cm2) 121; P <.001) at 12 months after GK implant. Twelve-month follow-up improvements were also observed on Cleveland Clinic FI score (8-point median decrease; P =.0001), St Marks FI score (10-point median decrease; P <.0001), and American Medical Systems score (39-point median decrease; P <.0001). Restricted maximum likelihood models showed that years of onset of FI was negatively associated with change in Tm (P =.048). Conclusions. GK-related EAS compression positively influences muscle contractility by increasing ri, with consequent increase in Tm (length-tension relationship). Further studies are needed to confirm the long-term effectiveness of GK

An application of computer conferencing in dental education

A computer conference was used as an instructional tool in a dental school course on health education. Second year students (N = 84) were divided into 17 groups to design community education programs. A student from each group participated in the conference to electronically discuss their program with peers. The conference operated for 52 days. The 28 conference topics were displayed 1028 times. There were 279 conferencing uses lasting 8125 min (135.4 h); a mean of 29.1 min/use. Mean responses per students was 25. Mean student terminal time was 7.8 h. Instructor terminal time was 20.8 h; 5.4 h were spent managing the conference. Of the available conferencing funds ($440.00),$218.35 was expended with students using $168.24. Mean dollars spent per student was$9.90. Quantitative evaluation of participation was based on: (a) number of individual responses made compared to mean responses; (b) timely item placement on the conference; and (c) the percentage of responses made in other students' items. Student evaluation of conferencing was positive and acknowledged the value of computer skills.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/29804/1/0000150.pd

Integrated Personal Health Records: Transformative Tools for Consumer-Centric Care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Integrated personal health records (PHRs) offer significant potential to stimulate transformational changes in health care delivery and self-care by patients. In 2006, an invitational roundtable sponsored by Kaiser Permanente Institute, the American Medical Informatics Association, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality was held to identify the transformative potential of PHRs, as well as barriers to realizing this potential and a framework for action to move them closer to the health care mainstream. This paper highlights and builds on the insights shared during the roundtable.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>While there is a spectrum of dominant PHR models, (standalone, tethered, integrated), the authors state that only the integrated model has true transformative potential to strengthen consumers' ability to manage their own health care. Integrated PHRs improve the quality, completeness, depth, and accessibility of health information provided by patients; enable facile communication between patients and providers; provide access to health knowledge for patients; ensure portability of medical records and other personal health information; and incorporate auto-population of content. Numerous factors impede widespread adoption of integrated PHRs: obstacles in the health care system/culture; issues of consumer confidence and trust; lack of technical standards for interoperability; lack of HIT infrastructure; the digital divide; uncertain value realization/ROI; and uncertain market demand. Recent efforts have led to progress on standards for integrated PHRs, and government agencies and private companies are offering different models to consumers, but substantial obstacles remain to be addressed. Immediate steps to advance integrated PHRs should include sharing existing knowledge and expanding knowledge about them, building on existing efforts, and continuing dialogue among public and private sector stakeholders.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Integrated PHRs promote active, ongoing patient collaboration in care delivery and decision making. With some exceptions, however, the integrated PHR model is still a theoretical framework for consumer-centric health care. The authors pose questions that need to be answered so that the field can move forward to realize the potential of integrated PHRs. How can integrated PHRs be moved from concept to practical application? Would a coordinating body expedite this progress? How can existing initiatives and policy levers serve as catalysts to advance integrated PHRs?</p

Birth after caesarean study – planned vaginal birth or planned elective repeat caesarean for women at term with a single previous caesarean birth: protocol for a patient preference study and randomised trial

Background: For women who have a caesarean section in their preceding pregnancy, two care policies for birth are considered standard: planned vaginal birth and planned elective repeat caesarean. Currently available information about the benefits and harms of both forms of care are derived from retrospective and prospective cohort studies. There have been no randomised trials, and recognising the deficiencies in the literature, there have been calls for methodologically rigorous studies to assess maternal and infant health outcomes associated with both care policies. The aims of our study are to assess in women with a previous caesarean birth, who are eligible in the subsequent pregnancy for a vaginal birth, whether a policy of planned vaginal birth after caesarean compared with a policy of planned repeat caesarean affects the risk of serious complications for the woman and her infant. Methods/Design Design: Multicentred patient preference study and a randomised clinical trial. Inclusion Criteria: Women with a single prior caesarean presenting in their next pregnancy with a single, live fetus in cephalic presentation, who have reached 37 weeks gestation, and who do not have a contraindication to a planned VBAC. Trial Entry & Randomisation: Eligible women will be given an information sheet during pregnancy, and will be recruited to the study from 37 weeks gestation after an obstetrician has confirmed eligibility for a planned vaginal birth. Written informed consent will be obtained. Women who consent to the patient preference study will be allocated their preference for either planned VBAC or planned, elective repeat caesarean. Women who consent to the randomised trial will be randomly allocated to either the planned vaginal birth after caesarean or planned elective repeat caesarean group. Treatment Groups: Women in the planned vaginal birth group will await spontaneous onset of labour whilst appropriate. Women in the elective repeat caesarean group will have this scheduled for between 38 and 40 weeks. Primary Study Outcome: Serious adverse infant outcome (death or serious morbidity). Sample Size: 2314 women in the patient preference study to show a difference in adverse neonatal outcome from 1.6% to 3.6% (p = 0.05, 80% power).Jodie M Dodd, Caroline A Crowther, Janet E Hiller, Ross R Haslam and Jeffrey S Robinso