The effects of intrauterine infusion of peanut oil on endometrial health, salivary cortisol and interovulatory period in mares

Intrauterine infusion of peanut oil at Day 10 post-ovulation has been reported to prolong dioestrus in mares. However, the effects of peanut oil treatment on the endometrium and whether the technique is painful have not been assessed. The objectives of this study were, (i) to determine the effect of intrauterine infusion of peanut oil on endometrial health, (ii) to determine whether use of intrauterine peanut oil is painful and (iii) to confirm that peanut oil causes prolonged dioestrus. Six mares aged 3–12 years old were used in a cross-over design with each mare administered both 1 ml of intrauterine peanut oil and a sham treatment on different oestrous cycles. The effect of intrauterine infusion of 1 ml peanut oil or sham treatment were measured using interovulatory period, uterine fluid accumulation as determined by transrectal ultrasonography, serum progesterone levels, endometrial Kenney biopsy scores and histological features, endometrial eosinophil numbers and salivary cortisol measurements. The individual mare response to intrauterine infusion of peanut oil was variable. Peanut oil infusion did not statistically prolong the luteal phase, nor elevate salivary cortisol levels but did cause superficial erosion of the endometrial surface epithelium in all mares and significantly increased eosinophil numbers in the endometrium (P = 0.0068). The Kenney grade for biopsies from 2/6 mares worsened transiently following infusion. In conclusion, intra-uterine peanut oil does not statistically increase the duration of the luteal phase but results in an inflammatory response and increase in endometrial eosinophil numbers suggesting treatment may be associated with a hypersensitivity-type reaction. Those contemplating using peanut oil to suppress oestrus should also be aware of the legislative and regulatory implications

Does “Hidden Undercuffing” Occur Among Obese Patients? Effect of Arm Sizes and Other Predictors of the Difference Between Wrist and Upper Arm Blood Pressures

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2010;12:82–88. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Arm size can affect the accuracy of blood pressure (BP) measurement, and “undercuffing” of large upper arms is likely to be a growing problem. Therefore, the authors investigated the relationship between upper arm and wrist readings. Upper arm and wrist circumferences and BP were measured in 261 consecutive patients. Upper arm auscultation and wrist BP was measured in triplicate, rotating measurements every 30 seconds between sites. Upper arm BP was 131.9±20.6/71.6±12.6 mm Hg in an obese population (body mass index, 30.6±6.6 kg/m 2 ) with mean upper arm size of 30.7±5.1 cm. Wrist BP was higher (2.6±9.2 mm Hg and 4.9±6.6 mm Hg, respectively, P <.001); however, there was moderate concordance for the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) strata (κ value=0.27–0.71), and the difference was ≥5 mm Hg in 72% of the patients. The authors conclude that there was poor concordance between arm and wrist BP measurement and found no evidence that “hidden undercuffing” was associated with obesity; therefore, they do not support routine use of wrist BP measurements.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78621/1/j.1751-7176.2009.00222.x.pd

Meeting the needs of rural families in times of crisis

In 2003 qualitative research investigated the role of Rural Family Support Worker (RFSW) within Central Queensland. Catalyst for the study was the perception that Departmental funding criteria were not keeping abreast of community needs and expectations. The findings from this project offer an ideal opportunity to review the funder/ purchaser/provider model in practice in Australia. Key issues arising are: the appropriateness of this model for service delivery in rural communities and its effectiveness in meeting the expectations of all the stakeholders connected to the Rural Family Support (RFS) system. This paper examines views espoused in the literature and perspectives put forward by a range of Human Service Sector Professionals, Departmental staff, clients of the RFSWs and the RFSWs themselves. It identifies areas where a more proactive and collaborative approach between contractual partners will ensure the RFS program can better meet the needs of rural families in times of crisis