A Comparison of Women’s Travel to Mammography Services and Average Week Day Trip Length

Long travel distances/times to a mammography service may act as a barrier that hinders women from seeking screening mammography on a recommended schedule. Average weekday trip length data from the New South Wales Travel Survey was compared with the average distance women travelled to a mammography service, the difference was tested using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. The distance travelled to mammography services was statistically greater than the average week day trip length from the New South Wales Travel Survey (4.3 km, 95% CI 3.3 to 5.9 kms, p,0.001). This study has identified that within New South Wales there is a significant difference between average week day trip length travel and client travel to mammography services. Therefore, highlighting that women are undertaking a greater than normal travel burden to access mammography services. The comparison of normal weekday travel and travel to mammography services has enabled the burden of travel to mammography services to be identified. Reducing the burden of travel to mammography services is pivotal to increasing the utilization of mammography services and reducing the inequalities in health comes

The role of informal dimensions of safety in high-volume organisational routines:an ethnographic study of test results handling in UK general practice

Abstract Background The handling of laboratory, imaging and other test results in UK general practice is a high-volume organisational routine that is both complex and high risk. Previous research in this area has focused on errors and harm, but a complementary approach is to better understand how safety is achieved in everyday practice. This paper ethnographically examines the role of informal dimensions of test results handling routines in the achievement of safety in UK general practice and how these findings can best be developed for wider application by policymakers and practitioners. Methods Non-participant observation was conducted of high-volume organisational routines across eight UK general practices with diverse organisational characteristics. Sixty-two semi-structured interviews were also conducted with the key practice staff alongside the analysis of relevant documents. Results While formal results handling routines were described similarly across the eight study practices, the everyday structure of how the routine should be enacted in practice was informally understood. Results handling safety took a range of local forms depending on how different aspects of safety were prioritised, with practices varying in terms of how they balanced thoroughness (i.e. ensuring the high-quality management of results by the most appropriate clinician) and efficiency (i.e. timely management of results) depending on a range of factors (e.g. practice history, team composition). Each approach adopted created its own potential risks, with demands for thoroughness reducing productivity and demands for efficiency reducing handling quality. Irrespective of the practice-level approach adopted, staff also regularly varied what they did for individual patients depending on the specific context (e.g. type of result, patient circumstances). Conclusions General practices variably prioritised a legitimate range of results handling safety processes and outcomes, each with differing strengths and trade-offs. Future safety improvement interventions should focus on how to maximise practice-level knowledge and understanding of the range of context-specific approaches available and the safeties and risks inherent in each within the context of wider complex system conditions and interactions. This in turn has the potential to inform new kinds of proactive, contextually appropriate approaches to intervention development and implementation focusing on the enhanced deliberation of the safety of existing high-volume routines

Analysis of Outcomes in Ischemic vs Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation A Report From the GARFIELD-AF Registry

IMPORTANCE Congestive heart failure (CHF) is commonly associated with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), and their combination may affect treatment strategies and outcomes

Implementation of Recommendations on the Use of Corticosteroids in Severe COVID-19

Importance: Research diversity and representativeness are paramount in building trust, generating valid biomedical knowledge, and possibly in implementing clinical guidelines. Objectives: To compare variations over time and across World Health Organization (WHO) geographic regions of corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19; secondary objectives were to evaluate the association between the timing of publication of the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial (June 2020) and the WHO guidelines for corticosteroids (September 2020) and the temporal trends observed in corticosteroid use by region and to describe the geographic distribution of the recruitment in clinical trials that informed the WHO recommendation. Design, setting, and participants: This prospective cohort study of 434 851 patients was conducted between January 31, 2020, and September 2, 2022, in 63 countries worldwide. The data were collected under the auspices of the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC)-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Analyses were restricted to patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 (a subset of the ISARIC data set). Exposure: Corticosteroid use as reported to the ISARIC-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Main outcomes and measures: Number and percentage of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received corticosteroids by time period and by WHO geographic region. Results: Among 434 851 patients with confirmed severe or critical COVID-19 for whom receipt of corticosteroids could be ascertained (median [IQR] age, 61.0 [48.0-74.0] years; 53.0% male), 174 307 (40.1%) received corticosteroids during the study period. Of the participants in clinical trials that informed the guideline, 91.6% were recruited from the United Kingdom. In all regions, corticosteroid use for severe COVID-19 increased, but this increase corresponded to the timing of the RECOVERY trial (time-interruption coefficient 1.0 [95% CI, 0.9-1.2]) and WHO guideline (time-interruption coefficient 1.9 [95% CI, 1.7-2.0]) publications only in Europe. At the end of the study period, corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19 was highest in the Americas (5421 of 6095 [88.9%]; 95% CI, 87.7-90.2) and lowest in Africa (31 588 of 185 191 [17.1%]; 95% CI, 16.8-17.3). Conclusions and relevance: The results of this cohort study showed that implementation of the guidelines for use of corticosteroids in the treatment of severe COVID-19 varied geographically. Uptake of corticosteroid treatment was lower in regions with limited clinical trial involvement. Improving research diversity and representativeness may facilitate timely knowledge uptake and guideline implementation