Integrating Palliative and Critical Care: Evaluation of a Quality-Improvement Intervention

Rationale: Palliative care in the intensive care unit (ICU) is an important focus for quality improvement

Mapping the Future for Research in Emergency Medicine Palliative Care: A Research Roadmap

BACKGROUND: The intersection of Emergency Medicine (EM) and Palliative Care (PC) has been recognized as an essential area of focus, with evidence suggesting that increased integration improves outcomes. This has resulted in increased research in EM PC. No current framework exists to help guide investigation and innovation. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to convene a working group to develop a roadmap that would help provide focus and prioritization for future research. METHODS: Participants were identified based on clinical, operation, policy and research expertise in both EM and PC, and spanned physician, nursing, social work and patient perspectives. The research roadmap setting process consisted of three distinct phases that were time staggered over 12 months, and facilitated through three live video convenings, asynchronous input via an online document, and a series of smaller video convenings of workgroups focused on specific topics. RESULTS: Gaps in the literature were identified and informed the four key areas for future research. Consensus was reached on these domains and the associated research questions in each domain to help guide future study. The key domains included work focused on the value imperative for PC in the Emergency setting, models of care delivery, disparities, and measurement of impact and efficacy. Additionally, the group identified key methodological considerations for doing work at the intersection of EM and PC. CONCLUSION: There are several key domains and associated questions that can help guide future research in ED PC. Focus on these areas, and answering these questions, offers the potential to improve the emergency care of patients with palliative care needs

Consensus Report of the Coalition for Clinical Research—Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose

The Coalition for Clinical Research—Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Scientific Board, a group of nine academic clinicians and scientists from the United States and Europe, convened in San Francisco, California, on June 11–12, 2008, to discuss the appropriate uses of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and the measures necessary to accurately assess the potential benefit of this practice in noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Thirteen consultants from the United States, Europe, and Canada from academia, practice, and government also participated and contributed based on their fields of expertise. These experts represent a range of disciplines that include adult endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, health education, mathematics, statistics, psychology, nutrition, exercise physiology, and nursing. This coalition was organized by Diabetes Technology Management, Inc. Among the participants, there was consensus that: protocols assessing the performance of SMBG in noninsulin treated T2DM must provide the SMBG intervention subjects with blood glucose (BG) goals and instructions on how to respond to BG data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs);intervention subjects in clinical trials of SMBG-driven interventions must aggressively titrate their therapeutic responses or lifestyle changes in response to hyperglycemia;control subjects in clinical trials of SMBG must be isolated from SMBG-driven interventions and not be contaminated by physician experience with study subjects receiving a SMBG intervention;the best endpoints to measure in a clinical trial of SMBG in T2DM include delta Hemoglobin A1c levels, hyperglycemic events, hypoglycemic events, time to titrate noninsulin therapy to a maximum necessary dosage, and quality of life indices;either individual randomization or cluster randomization may be appropriate methods for separating control subjects from SMBG intervention subjects, provided that precautions are taken to avoid bias and that the sample size is adequate;treatment algorithms for assessing SMBG in T2DM may include a dietary, exercise, and/or medication intervention, which are all titratable according to the SMBG values;the medical literature contains very little information about the performance of SMBG in T2DM from RCTs in which treatment algorithms were used for dysglycemic values; andresearch on the performance of SMBG in T2DM based on sound scientific principles and clinical practices is needed at this time

Consensus report of the coalition for clinical research— self-monitoring of blood glucose

The Coalition for Clinical Research—Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Scientific Board, a group of nine academic clinicians and scientists from the United States and Europe, convened in San Francisco, California, on June 11–12, 2008, to discuss the appropriate uses of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and the measures necessary to accurately assess the potential benefit of this practice in noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Thirteen consultants from the United States, Europe, and Canada from academia, practice, and government also participated and contributed based on their fields of expertise. These experts represent a range of disciplines that include adult endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, health education, mathematics, statistics, psychology, nutrition, exercise physiology, and nursing. This coalition was organized by Diabetes Technology Management, Inc. Among the participants, there was consensus that: 1. protocols assessing the performance of SMBG in noninsulin treated T2DM must provide the SMBG intervention subjects with blood glucose (BG) goals and instructions on how to respond to BG data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); 2. intervention subjects in clinical trials of SMBG-driven interventions must aggressively titrate their therapeutic responses or lifestyle changes in response to hyperglycemia; 3. control subjects in clinical trials of SMBG must be isolated from SMBG-driven interventions and not be contaminated by physician experience with study subjects receiving a SMBG intervention; 4. the best endpoints to measure in a clinical trial of SMBG in T2DM include delta Hemoglobin A1c levels, hyperglycemic events, hypoglycemic events, time to titrate noninsulin therapy to a maximum necessary dosage, and quality of life indices; 5. either individual randomization or cluster randomization may be appropriate methods for separating control subjects from SMBG intervention subjects, provided that precautions are taken to avoid bias and that the sample size is adequate; 6. treatment algorithms for assessing SMBG in T2DM may include a dietary, exercise, and/or medication intervention, which are all titratable according to the SMBG values; 7. the medical literature contains very little information about the performance of SMBG in T2DM from RCTs in which treatment algorithms were used for dysglycemic values; and 8. research on the performance of SMBG in T2DM based on sound scientific principles and clinical practices is needed at this time