The Doctor and the Law: A Practical Guide for the Canadian Physician, 3rd Edition

Book review of The Doctor and the Law: A Practical Guide for the Canadian Physician, 3rd Edition by H.E. Emson and published by Butterworths (Markham, Ont.), 1995. (282 pp.

Leiomyosarcoma of the inferior vena cava: Clinical experience with four cases

BACKGROUND: Leiomyosarcoma of the inferior vena cava is a rare tumor that presents in an insidious manner with non-specific symptoms. Given its rarity, there are no consensus guidelines to its management. The aim of this study was to report the clinical experience in the management of patients presenting to our institution during a 12 year period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four patients with leiomyosarcomas of the inferior vena cava were managed at our institution during the period reviewed. Patient details were identified through a search of the pathology department computerized database, and case notes were retrospectively reviewed to obtain details of presentation and management. RESULTS: There were 3 females and 1 male with a mean age of 59 years. All tumors were identified within 2 months of first symptoms. Three of the 4 had localized tumors whilst 1 patient had lung metastases at presentation. The three patients with resectable tumors underwent radical surgical excision of the tumor, and two patients had postoperative radiotherapy. One patient died of recurrence at 7 months, and another at 30 months. The third patient is currently well and disease free at 16 months. The fourth patient with metastatic disease was treated with chemotherapy alone and survived 36 months. CONCLUSION: Leiomyosarcoma of the inferior vena cava is an uncommon tumor that presents with non-specific symptoms. At the time of presentation, tumors are usually large and resection is challenging but probably offers the best opportunity for long-term survival

Willingness of children and adolescents to have a COVID-19 vaccination: Results of a large whole schools survey in England.

BackgroundVaccine hesitancy has affected COVID-19 adult vaccination programs in many countries. Data on hesitancy amongst child and adolescent populations is largely confined to parent opinion. We investigated the characteristics of vaccine hesitant children and adolescents using results from a large, school-based self-report survey of the willingness to have a COVID-19 vaccination in students aged 9 -18 years in England.MethodsData from the OxWell Student Survey on mental health, life experiences and behaviours were used, collected from four counties across England. Local authority partners recruited schools. The vaccine hesitancy question gave six response options and were clustered to inform delivery: eager and willing were categorised as vaccination 'opt-in', don't know and not bothered categorised as 'undecided', and unwilling and anti-vaccination categorised as 'opt-out'. We conducted a multinomial regression to determine associations between vaccine hesitancy and sociodemographic, health behaviour and social connection variables.Findings27,910 students from 180 schools answered the vaccine hesitancy question between 14th May and 21st July 2021, of whom 13984 (50.1%) would opt-in to take a vaccination, 10322 (37.0%) were undecided, and 3604 (12.9%) would opt-out. A lower percentage of younger students reported that they would opt-in to vaccination, for example, 35.7% of 9-year-olds and 51.3% of 13-year-olds compared to 77.8% of 17-year-olds would opt-in to take a vaccination. Students who were 'opt-out' or 'undecided' (a combined 'vaccine hesitant' group) were more likely to come from deprived socioeconomic contexts with higher rates of home rental versus home ownership and their school locations were more likely to be in areas of greater deprivation. They were more likely to smoke or vape, spend longer on social media, feel that they did not belong in their school community but had lower levels of anxiety and depression. The vaccine hesitant students- the undecided and opt-out groups- were similar in profile, although the opt-out students had higher reported confirmed or probable previous COVID-19 infection than the opt-in group, whereas those undecided, did not.InterpretationIf government vaccination strategies move towards vaccinating younger school-aged students, efforts to increase vaccination uptake may be necessary. Compared with students who would opt-in, those who were vaccine hesitant had greater indicators of social deprivation and felt a lack of community cohesion by not feeling a sense of belonging at their school. There were indications that those students who would opt-out had higher levels of marginalisation and mistrust. If programmes are rolled out, focus on hesitant younger students will be important, targeting more marginalised and deprived young people with information from trusted sources utilising social media; improving access to vaccination centres with provision both in and outside school; and addressing fears and worries about the effects of the vaccine. The main limitation of this study is that the participant group may not be wholly representative of England or the UK, which may bias population-level estimates of willingness to be vaccinated.FundingThe Westminster Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre

A web-based clinical decision tool to support treatment decision-making in psychiatry: a pilot focus group study with clinicians, patients and carers

Background. Treatment decision tools have been developed in many fields of medicine, including psychiatry, however benefits for patients have not been sustained once the support is withdrawn. We have developed a web-based computerised clinical decision support tool (CDST), which can provide patients and clinicians with continuous, up-to-date, personalised information about the efficacy and tolerability of competing interventions. To test the feasibility and acceptability of the CDST we conducted a focus group study, aimed to explore the views of clinicians, patients and carers. Methods. The CDST was developed in Oxford. To tailor treatments at an individual level, the CDST combines the best available evidence from the scientific literature with patient preferences and values, and with patient medical profile to generate personalised clinical recommendations. We conducted three focus groups comprising of three different participant types: consultant psychiatrists, participants with mental health diagnosis and/or experience of caring for someone with a mental health diagnosis, and primary care practitioners and nurses. Each 1-hour focus group started with a short visual demonstration of the CDST. To standardise the discussion during the focus groups, we used the same topic guide that covered themes relating to the acceptability and usability of the CDST. Focus groups were recorded and any identifying participant details were anonymised. Data were analysed thematically and managed using the Framework method and the constant comparative method. Results. The focus groups took place in Oxford between October 2016 and January 2017. Overall 31 participants attended (12 consultants, 11 primary care practitioners and 8 patients or carers). The main themes that emerged related to CDST applications in clinical practice, communication, conflicting priorities and record keeping. CDST was considered a useful clinical decision support, with recognised value in promoting clinician-patient collaboration and contributing to the development of personalised medicine. One major benefit of the CDST was perceived to be the open discussion about the possible side-effects of medications. Participants from all the three groups, however, universally commented that the terminology and language presented on the CDST were too medicalised, potentially leading to ethical issues around consent to treatment. Conclusions. The CDST can improve communication pathways between patients, carers and clinicians, identifying care priorities and providing an up-to-date platform for implementing evidence-based practice, with regard to prescribing practices

Research priorities in pediatric parenteral nutrition: a consensus and perspective from ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN

We acknowledge all the authors of the ESPGHAN/ESPR/ESPEN/CSPEN pediatric parenteral nutrition guidelines for their contributions and vote (Christian Braegger, University Children’s Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland; Jiri Bronsky, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic; Cristina Campoy, Department of Paediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Granada, Granada, Spain; Magnus Domellof, Department of Clinical Sciences, Pediatrics, Umeå University, Sweden; Nicholas Embleton, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Mary Fewtrell, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK; Natasa Fidler, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Axel Franz, University Children’s Hospital, Tuebingen, Germany; Oliver Goulet, University Sordonne-Paris-Cite; Paris-Descartes Medical School, Paris, France; Corina Hartmann, Schneider Children’s Medical Center of Israel, Petach Tikva, Israel and Carmel Medical Center, Israel; Susan Hill, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK; Iva Hojsak, Children’s Hospital Zagreb, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, University of J. J. Strossmayer School of Medicine Osijek, Croatia; Sylvia Iacobelli, CHU La Reunion, Saint Pierre, France; Frank Jochum, Ev. Waldkrankenhaus Spandau, Berlin, Germany; Koen Joosten, Department of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery, Intensive Care, Erasmus MC Sophia Children’s Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Sanja Kolacek, Children’s Hospital, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia; Alexandre Lapillone, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France; Szimonetta Lohner, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pecs, Pecs, Hungary; Dieter Mesotten, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Walter Mihatsch, Ulm University, Ulm, and Helios Hospital, Pforzheim, Germany; Francis Mimouni, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, The Wilf Children’s Hospital, the Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, and the Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; Christian Molgaard, Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, and Paediatric Nutrition Unit, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Sissel Moltu, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Antonia Nomayo, Ev. Waldkrankenhaus Spandau, Berlin, Germany; John Puntis, The General Infirmary at Leeds, Leeds, UK; Arieh Riskin, Bnai Zion Medical Center, Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Haifa, Israel; Miguel Saenz de Pipaon, Department of Neonatology, La Paz University Hospital, Red de Salud Materno Infantil y Desarrollo e SAMID, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; Raanan Shamir, Schneider Children’s Medical Center of Israel, Petach Tikva, Israel; Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; Peter Szitanyi, General University Hospital, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic; Merit Tabbers, Emma Children’s Hospital, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Chris van den Akker, Emma Children’s Hospital, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Hans van Goudoever, Emma Children’s Hospital, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Sacha Verbruggen, Department of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery, Intensive Care, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children’s Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Cai Wei, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China; Weihui Yan, Department of Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China) and the members of the ESPR Section on Nutrition, Gastroenterology and Metabolism (Fredrik Ahlsson, Uppsala University Children’s Hospital and Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Sertac Arslanoglu, Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey; Wolfgang Bernhard, Department of Neonatology, Children’s Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Eberhard-Karls- University, Tübingen, Germany; Janet Berrington, Newcastle Neonatal Service, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Signe Bruun, Hans Christian Andersen Hospital for Children and Adolescents, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Christoph Fusch, Department of Pediatrics, Paracelsus Medical School, General Hospital of Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany; Shalabh Garg, South Tees Hospitals, Middlesborough, UK; Maria Gianni, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Ann Hellstrom, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Claus Klingenberg, Department of Pediatrics and Adolescence Medicine, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway; Helen Mactier, Neonatal Unit, Princess Royal Maternity Hospital, Glasgow, UK; Neena Modi, Section of Neonatal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Chelsea and Westminster Campus, Imperial College London, London, UK; Niels Rochow, Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Paola Rogerro, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Umberto Simeoni, Division of Pediatrics, CHUV & University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; Atul Singhal, Paediatric Nutrition, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.; Ulrich Thome, Department of Neonatology, Universitatsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; Anne Twomey, Department of Neonatology, The National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland; Mireille Vanpee, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Gitte Zachariassen, Hans Christian Andersen Hospital for Children and Adolescents, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark) for their vote.Parenteral nutrition is used to treat children that cannot be fully fed by the enteral route. While the revised ESPGHAN/ ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN pediatric parenteral nutrition guidelines provide clear guidance on the use of parenteral nutrition in neonates, infants, and children based on current available evidence, they have helped to crystallize areas where research is lacking or more studies are needed in order to refine recommendations. This paper collates and discusses the research gaps identified by the authors of each section of the guidelines and considers each nutrient or group of nutrients in turn, together with aspects around delivery and organization. The 99 research priorities identified were then ranked in order of importance by clinicians and researchers working in the field using a survey methodology. The highest ranked priority was the need to understand the relationship between total energy intake, rapid catch-up growth, later metabolic function, and neurocognitive outcomes. Research into the optimal intakes of macronutrients needed in order to achieve optimal outcomes also featured prominently. Identifying research priorities in PN should enable research to be focussed on addressing key issues. Multicentre trials, better definition of exposure and outcome variables, and long-term metabolic and developmental follow-up will be key to achieving this

Utilisation of an operative difficulty grading scale for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background A reliable system for grading operative difficulty of laparoscopic cholecystectomy would standardise description of findings and reporting of outcomes. The aim of this study was to validate a difficulty grading system (Nassar scale), testing its applicability and consistency in two large prospective datasets. Methods Patient and disease-related variables and 30-day outcomes were identified in two prospective cholecystectomy databases: the multi-centre prospective cohort of 8820 patients from the recent CholeS Study and the single-surgeon series containing 4089 patients. Operative data and patient outcomes were correlated with Nassar operative difficultly scale, using Kendall’s tau for dichotomous variables, or Jonckheere–Terpstra tests for continuous variables. A ROC curve analysis was performed, to quantify the predictive accuracy of the scale for each outcome, with continuous outcomes dichotomised, prior to analysis. Results A higher operative difficulty grade was consistently associated with worse outcomes for the patients in both the reference and CholeS cohorts. The median length of stay increased from 0 to 4 days, and the 30-day complication rate from 7.6 to 24.4% as the difficulty grade increased from 1 to 4/5 (both p < 0.001). In the CholeS cohort, a higher difficulty grade was found to be most strongly associated with conversion to open and 30-day mortality (AUROC = 0.903, 0.822, respectively). On multivariable analysis, the Nassar operative difficultly scale was found to be a significant independent predictor of operative duration, conversion to open surgery, 30-day complications and 30-day reintervention (all p < 0.001). Conclusion We have shown that an operative difficulty scale can standardise the description of operative findings by multiple grades of surgeons to facilitate audit, training assessment and research. It provides a tool for reporting operative findings, disease severity and technical difficulty and can be utilised in future research to reliably compare outcomes according to case mix and intra-operative difficulty