Attitudes and Practices about Tobacco Smoking at a Jesuit University: Cura personalis or Individual Rights?

Purpose: This study examined opinions about tobacco use on campus from the perspectives of students and faculty on a Jesuit university, Regis University, in Denver, Colorado. Participants: Students, Faculty and Staff of Regis University were invited to participate in a survey during the fall of 2014. Method: An exploratory descriptive survey methodology using Chi-square statistics for bivariate comparisons and qualitative content analyses were utilized for this study. Results: The survey had a 27% response rate. Undergraduates comprised 56% of the sample, with 27% graduate students, and 17% faculty/staff. Eighty-eight percent of respondents reported that the presence of second hand smoke (SHS) on campus bothered them as did 83% of not current smokers. Nineteen percent of current smokers reported that walking through smoke is disagreeable. Comments from respondents revealed support for as well as against a smoking ban on campus. Conclusions: The majority of respondents support a complete ban on tobacco smoking on campus, and compared to a 2009 survey of Regis University faculty, staff, and student, support for a complete ban on smoking on campus has increased, while the rate of current daily smoking has decreased on campus. However, there is clearly tension between the concept of cura personalis and the belief in freedom and individual rights among the respondents on this campus

Enhancing Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure Through Simple Prognostication Tools: A Comparison of the Surprise Question, the Number of Previous Heart Failure Hospitalizations, and the Seattle Heart Failure Model for Predicting 1-Year Survival

Background: Score-based survival prediction in patients with advanced heart failure (HF) is complicated. Easy-to-use prognostication tools could inform clinical decision-making and palliative care delivery. Objective: To compare the prognostic utility of the Seattle HF model (SHFM), the surprise question (SQ), and the number of HF hospitalizations (NoH) within the last 12 months for predicting 1-year survival in patients with advanced HF. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from a cluster-randomized controlled trial of advanced HF patients, predominantly with reduced ejection fraction. Primary outcome was the prognostic discrimination of SHFM, SQ (“Would you be surprised if this patient were to die within 1 year?”) answered by HF cardiologists, and NoH, assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Optimal cut-offs were calculated using Youden’s index (SHFM: <86% predicted 1-year survival; NoH ≥ 2). Results: Of 535 subjects, 82 (15.3%) had died after 1-year of follow-up. SHFM, SQ, and NoH yielded a similar area under the ROC curve [SHFM: 0.65 (0.60–0.71 95% CI); SQ: 0.58 (0.54–0.63 95% CI); NoH: 0.56 (0.50–0.62 95% CI)] and similar sensitivity [SHFM: 0.76 (0.65–0.84 95% CI); SQ: 0.84 (0.74–0.91 95% CI); NoH: 0.56 (0.45–0.67 95% CI)]. As compared to SHFM, SQ had lower specificity [SQ: 0.33 (0.28–0.37 95% CI) vs. SHFM: 0.55 (0.50–0.60 95% CI)] while NoH had similar specificity [0.56 (0.51–0.61 95% CI)]. SQ combined with NoH showed significantly higher specificity [0.68 (0.64–0.73 95% CI)]. Conclusion: SQ and NoH yielded comparable utility to SHFM for 1-year survival prediction among advanced HF patients, are easy-to-use and could inform bedside decision-making

Blood pressure measurements in the ankle are not equivalent to blood pressure measurements in the arm

Background. Blood pressure (BP) is often measured on the ankle in the emergency department (ED), but this has never been shown to be an acceptable alternative to measurements performed on the arm.Objective. To establish whether the differences between arm and ankle non-invasive BP measurements were clinically relevant (i.e. a difference of ≥10 mmHg).Methods. This was a prospective cross-sectional study in an urban ED making use of a convenience sample of 201 patients (18 - 50 years of age) who were not in need of emergency medical treatment. BP was measured in the supine position on both arms and ankles with the correct size cuff according to the manufacturer’s guidelines. The arm and ankle BP measurements were compared.Results. There was a clinically and statistically significant difference between arm and ankle systolic BP (SBP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) (–13 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) –28 - 1 mmHg and –5 mmHg, 95% CI –13 - 4 mmHg, respectively), with less difference in diastolic BP (DBP) (2 mmHg, 95% CI –7 - 10 mmHg). Only 37% of SBP measurements and 83% of MAP measurements were within an error range of 10 mmHg, while 95% of DBP measurements agreed within 10 mmHg. While the average differences (or the bias) were generally not large, large variations in individual patients (indicating poor precision) made the prediction of arm BP from ankle measurements unreliable.Conclusion. Ankle BP cannot be used as a substitute for arm BP in the ED

Facilitating Functional Conversational Skills in Aphasia: An Experimental Analysis of a Generalization Training Procedure

TB

An electronic family health history tool to identify and manage patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundColorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Approximately 3-10% of the population has an increased risk for colorectal cancer due to family history and warrants more frequent or intensive screening. Yet, &lt; 50% of that high-risk population receives guideline-concordant care. Systematic collection of family health history and decision support may improve guideline-concordant screening for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. We seek to test the effectiveness of a web-based, systematic family health history collection tool and decision support platform (MeTree) to improve risk assessment and appropriate management of colorectal cancer risk among patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs primary care practices.MethodsIn this ongoing randomized controlled trial, primary care providers at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and the Madison VA Medical Center are randomized to immediate intervention or wait-list control. Veterans are eligible if assigned to enrolled providers, have an upcoming primary care appointment, and have no conditions that would place them at increased risk for colorectal cancer (such as personal history, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease). Those with a recent lower endoscopy (e.g. colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy) are excluded. Immediate intervention patients put their family health history information into a web-based platform, MeTree, which provides both patient- and provider-facing decision support reports. Wait-list control patients access MeTree 12 months post-consent. The primary outcome is the risk-concordant colorectal cancer screening referral rate obtained via chart review. Secondary outcomes include patient completion of risk management recommendations (e.g. colonoscopy) and referral for genetic consultation. We will also conduct an economic analysis and an assessment of providers' experience with MeTree clinical decision support recommendations to inform future implementation efforts if the intervention is found to be effective.DiscussionThis trial will assess the feasibility and effectiveness of patient-collected family health history linked to decision support to promote risk-appropriate screening in a large healthcare system such as the Department of Veterans Affairs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02247336 . Registered on 25 September 2014

The Effects of a Time-Delay Procedure on Comprehension of Verb-Noun Commands in Severe Aphasia

TB