Patients' experiences and perceived causes of persisting discomfort following day surgery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of this study was to describe patients' experiences and perceived causes of persisting discomfort following day surgery. Earlier research has mainly covered symptoms and signs during a recovery period of up to one month, and not dealt with patients' perceptions of what causes persisting, longer-term discomfort.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study is a part from a study carried out during the period May 2006 to May 2007 with a total of 298 day surgery patients. Answers were completed by 118 patients at 48 hours, 110 at seven days and 46 at three months to one open-ended question related to discomfort after day surgery constructed as follows: <it>If you are still experiencing discomfort related to the surgery, what is the reason, in your opinion</it>? Data was processed, quantitatively and qualitatively. Descriptive, inferential, correlation and content analyses were performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The results suggest that patients suffer from remaining discomfort e.g. pain and wound problem, with effects on daily life following day surgery up to three months. Among patients' perceptions of <it>factors leading to discomfort </it>may be <it>wrongful or suboptimal treatment</it>, <it>type of surgery </it>or <it>insufficient access to provider/information.</it></p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results have important implications for preventing and managing discomfort at home following day surgery, and for nursing interventions to help patients handle the recovery period better.</p

Oxygen for relief of dyspnoea in mildly- or non-hypoxaemic patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of palliative oxygen for relief of dyspnoea in cancer patients. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for randomised controlled trials, comparing oxygen and medical air in cancer patients not qualifying for home oxygen therapy. Abstracts were reviewed and studies were selected using Cochrane methodology. The included studies provided oxygen at rest or during a 6-min walk. The primary outcome was dyspnoea. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) were used to combine scores. Five studies were identified; one was excluded from meta-analysis due to data presentation. Individual patient data were obtained from the authors of the three of the four remaining studies (one each from England, Australia, and the United States). A total of 134 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Oxygen failed to improve dyspnoea in mildly- or non-hypoxaemic cancer patients (SMD=−0.09, 95% confidence interval −0.22 to 0.04; P=0.16). Results were stable to a sensitivity analysis, excluding studies requiring the use of imputed quantities. In this small meta-analysis, oxygen did not provide symptomatic benefit for cancer patients with refractory dyspnoea, who would not normally qualify for home oxygen therapy. Further study of the use of oxygen in this population is warranted given its widespread use

Field Guide to ePortfolio: Why it Matters for Learning

The Field Guide to Eportfolio, a publication produced by more than fifty members of the eportfolio field, provides an authoritative and representative account of the eportfolio idea. It combines entries on what we think are the most important dimensions of the eportfolio concept in the United States with case studies from other countries serving as examples of many of those dimensions. This publication intends to be both an authoritative guide for how to understand eportfolio in the context of higher education as well as an attempt to break new ground. The Field Guide can be considered authoritative for these four key reasons: 1. It has been assembled by the Association for Authentic, Experiential and Evidence- Based Learning (AAEEBL), which is based in the United States and serves as a leading professional association in the global eportfolio field. 2. The Field Guide is a culmination of thinking about the portfolio/eportfolio concept over the past four decades. 3. The authors who contributed to this book represent the most current thinking about eportfolios. 4. The Field Guide is cosponsored by leading groups of eportfolio practitioners and scholars in the field: Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), International Journal of ePortfolio (IJeP), and Eportfolio Action and Communication Community of Practice (EPAC)