Using a Powered Bone Marrow Biopsy System Results in Shorter Procedures, Causes Less Residual Pain to Adult Patients, and Yields Larger Specimens

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In recent years, a battery-powered bone marrow biopsy system was developed and cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to allow health care providers to access the bone marrow space quickly and efficiently. A multicenter randomized clinical trial was designed for adult patients to determine if the powered device had advantages over traditional manually-inserted needles in regard to length of procedure, patient pain, complications, user satisfaction, and pathological analysis of the specimens.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Adult patients requiring marrow sampling procedures were randomized for a Manual or Powered device. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores were captured immediately following the procedure and 1 and 7 days later. Procedure time was measured and core specimens were submitted to pathology for grading.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Ten sites enrolled 102 patients into the study (Powered, n = 52; Manual, n = 50). Mean VAS scores for overall procedural pain were not significantly different between the arms (3.8 ± 2.8 for Powered, 3.5 ± 2.3 for Manual [p = 0.623]). A day later, more patients who underwent the Powered procedure were pain-free (67%) than those patients in the Manual group (33%; p = 0.003). One week later, there was no difference (83% for Powered patients; 76% for Manual patients.) Mean procedure time was 102.1 ± 86.4 seconds for the Powered group and 203.1 ± 149.5 seconds for the Manual group (p < 0.001). Pathology assessment was similar in specimen quality, but there was a significant difference in the specimen volume between the devices (Powered: 36.8 ± 21.2 mm³; Manual: 20.4 ± 9.0 mm³; p = 0.039). Two non-serious complications were experienced during Powered procedures (4%); but none during Manual procedures (p = 0.495).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results of this first trial provide evidence that the Powered device delivers larger-volume bone marrow specimens for pathology evaluation. In addition, bone marrow specimens were secured more rapidly and subjects experienced less intermediate term pain when the Powered device was employed. Further study is needed to determine if clinicians more experienced with the Powered device will be able to use it in a manner that significantly reduces needle insertion pain; and to compare a larger sample of pathology specimens obtained using the Powered device to those obtained using traditional manual biopsy needles.</p

Would you be surprised if this patient died?: Preliminary exploration of first and second year residents' approach to care decisions in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND: How physicians approach decision-making when caring for critically ill patients is poorly understood. This study aims to explore how residents think about prognosis and approach care decisions when caring for seriously ill, hospitalized patients. METHODS: Qualitative study where we conducted structured discussions with first and second year internal medicine residents (n = 8) caring for critically ill patients during Medical Intensive Care Unit Ethics and Discharge Planning Rounds. Residents were asked to respond to questions beginning with "Would you be surprised if this patient died?" RESULTS: An equal number of residents responded that they would (n = 4) or would not (n = 4) be surprised if their patient died. Reasons for being surprised included the rapid onset of an acute illness, reversible disease, improving clinical course and the patient's prior survival under similar circumstances. Residents reported no surprise with worsening clinical course. Based on the realization that their patient might die, residents cited potential changes in management that included clarifying treatment goals, improving communication with families, spending more time with patients and ordering fewer laboratory tests. Perceived or implied barriers to changes in management included limited time, competing clinical priorities, "not knowing" a patient, limited knowledge and experience, presence of diagnostic or prognostic uncertainty and unclear treatment goals. CONCLUSIONS: These junior-level residents appear to rely on clinical course, among other factors, when assessing prognosis and the possibility for death in severely ill patients. Further investigation is needed to understand how these factors impact decision-making and whether perceived barriers to changes in patient management influence approaches to care

Code Status Discussions Between Attending Hospitalist Physicians and Medical Patients at Hospital Admission

BackgroundBioethicists and professional associations give specific recommendations for discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).ObjectiveTo determine whether attending hospitalist physicians' discussions meet these recommendations.DesignCross-sectional observational study on the medical services at two hospitals within a university system between August 2008 and March 2009.ParticipantsAttending hospitalist physicians and patients who were able to communicate verbally about their medical care.Main measuresWe identified code status discussions in audio-recorded admission encounters via physician survey and review of encounter transcripts. A quantitative content analysis was performed to determine whether discussions included elements recommended by bioethicists and professional associations. Two coders independently coded all discussions; Cohen's kappa was 0.64-1 for all reported elements.Key resultsAudio-recordings of 80 patients' admission encounters with 27 physicians were obtained. Eleven physicians discussed code status in 19 encounters. Discussions were more frequent in seriously ill patients (OR 4, 95% CI 1.2-14.6), yet 66% of seriously ill patients had no discussion. The median length of the code status discussions was 1 min (range 0.2-8.2). Prognosis was discussed with code status in only one of the encounters. Discussions of patients' preferences focused on the use of life-sustaining interventions as opposed to larger life goals. Descriptions of CPR as an intervention used medical jargon, and the indication for CPR was framed in general, as opposed to patient-specific scenarios. No physician quantitatively estimated the outcome of or provided a recommendation about the use of CPR.ConclusionsCode status was not discussed with many seriously ill patients. Discussions were brief, and did not include elements that bioethicists and professional associations recommend to promote patient autonomy. Local and national guidelines, research, and clinical practice changes are needed to clarify and systematize with whom and how CPR is discussed at hospital admission

Ensuring competency in end-of-life care: controlling symptoms

BACKGROUND: Palliative medicine is assuming an increasingly important role in patient care. The Education for Physicians in End-of-life Care (EPEC) Project is an ambitious program to increase core palliative care skills for all physicians. It is not intended to transmit specialty level competencies in palliative care. METHOD: The EPEC Curriculum was developed to be a comprehensive syllabus including trainer notes, multiple approaches to teaching the material, slides, and videos of clinical encounters to trigger discussion are provided. The content was developed through a combination of expert opinion, participant feedback and selected literature review. Content development was guided by the goal of teaching core competencies not included in the training of generalist and non-palliative medicine specialist physicians. RESULTS: Whole patient assessment forms the basis for good symptom control. Approaches to the medical management of pain, depression, anxiety, breathlessness (dyspnea), nausea/vomiting, constipation, fatigue/weakness and the symptoms common during the last hours of life are described. CONCLUSION: While some physicians will have specialist palliative care services upon which to call, most in the world will need to provide the initial approaches to symptom control at the end-of-life

Changes in global groundwater organic carbon driven by climate change and urbanization

YesClimate change and urbanization can increase pressures on groundwater resources, but little is known about how groundwater quality will change. Here, we rely on a global synthesis (n = 9,404) to reveal the drivers of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), which is an important component of water chemistry and substrate for microorganisms which control many biogeochemical reactions. Groundwater ions, local climate and land use explained ~ 31% of observed variability in groundwater DOC, whilst aquifer age explained an additional 16%. We identify a 19% increase in DOC associated with urban land cover. We predict major groundwater DOC increases following changes in precipitation and temperature in key areas relying on groundwater. Climate change and conversion of natural or agricultural areas to urban areas will decrease groundwater quality and increase water treatment costs, compounding existing threats to groundwater resources