Results of the 1977 southern California pismo clam survey

A Pismo clam, Tivela stultorum, survey was conducted in January 1977 on selected southern California beaches. Effort and catch information was collected through clammer interviews. Estimates for the two day survey were 1,596 clammers spending 2,506 hours to take 6,139 clams. Comparisons were made between the 1977 survey results and previous surveys. Clams were collected for length and age studies. Compliance to the 4.5-inch (114.3 mm) minimum size limit appeared to be good. (15pp.

Results of the 1976 southern California pismo clam census

A Pismo clam, Tivela stultorum, census was conducted in January 1976 on selected southern California beaches. Effort and catch information was collected through clamer interviews. Estimates for January 17 on beaches sampled were 3,296 clammer-hours, 2,170 clammers, and 10,739 legal clams (4.5 inches or larger) harvested. Clams were collected for age and growth studies. Samples of clams from the Long Beach to Newport Beach pier area demonstrate the fastest growth rates of any Pismo clams reported in the literature. Clams begin to be recruited to the fishery at age 40 months. (14pp.) The 1974 year class was the largest on beaches sampled. Recruitment to the fishery will be poor for the 1976-77 and 1977-78 seasons and clamming will be dependent on large older clams

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the management of pain in older people - a summary report.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to develop an update of the evidence-based guidelines for the management of pain in older people. DESIGN: Review of evidence since 2010 using a systematic and consensus approach is performed. RESULTS: Recognition of the type of pain and routine assessment of pain should inform the use of specific environmental, behavioural and pharmacological interventions. Individualised care plans and analgesic protocols for specific clinical situations, patients and health care settings can be developed from these guidelines. CONCLUSION: Management of pain must be considered as an important component of the health care provided to all people, regardless of their chronological age or severity of illness. By clearly outlining areas where evidence is not available, these guidelines may also stimulate further research. To use the recommended therapeutic approaches, clinicians must be familiar with adverse effects of treatment and the potential for drug interactions

Predictors of persistent postoperative opioid use following colectomy: a population‐based cohort study from England

This retrospective cohort study on adults undergoing colectomy from 2010 to 2019 used linked primary (Clinical Practice Research Datalink), and secondary (Hospital Episode Statistics) care data to determine the prevalence of persistent postoperative opioid use following colectomy, stratified by pre-admission opioid exposure, and identify associated predictors. Based on pre-admission opioid exposure, patients were categorised as opioid-naïve, currently exposed (opioid prescription 0–6 months before admission) and previously exposed (opioid prescription within 7–12 months before admission). Persistent postoperative opioid use was defined as requiring an opioid prescription within 90 days of discharge, along with one or more opioid prescriptions 91–180 days after hospital discharge. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to obtain odds ratios for predictors of persistent postoperative opioid use. Among the 93,262 patients, 15,081 (16.2%) were issued at least one opioid prescription within 90 days of discharge. Of these, 6791 (45.0%) were opioid-naïve, 7528 (49.9%) were currently exposed and 762 (5.0%) were previously exposed. From the whole cohort, 7540 (8.1%) developed persistent postoperative opioid use. Patients with pre-operative opioid exposure had the highest persistent use: 5317 (40.4%) from the currently exposed group; 305 (9.8%) from the previously exposed group; and 1918 (2.5%) from the opioid-naïve group. The odds of developing persistent opioid use were higher among individuals who used long-acting opioid formulations in the 180 days before colectomy than those who used short-acting formulations (odds ratio 3.41 (95%CI 3.07–3.77)). Predictors of persistent opioid use included: previous opioid exposure; high deprivation index; multiple comorbidities; use of long-acting opioids; white race; and open surgery. Minimally invasive surgical approaches were associated with lower odds of persistent opioid use and may represent a modifiable risk factor

The use of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and recovery: international consensus statement on efficacy and safety

Intravenous lidocaine is used widely for its effect on postoperative pain and recovery but it can be, and has been, fatal when used inappropriately and incorrectly. The risk‐benefit ratio of i.v. lidocaine varies with type of surgery and with patient factors such as comorbidity (including pre‐existing chronic pain). This consensus statement aims to address three questions. First, does i.v. lidocaine effectively reduce postoperative pain and facilitate recovery? Second, is i.v. lidocaine safe? Third, does the fact that i.v. lidocaine is not licensed for this indication affect its use? We suggest that i.v. lidocaine should be regarded as a ‘high‐risk’ medicine. Individual anaesthetists may feel that, in selected patients, i.v. lidocaine may be beneficial as part of a multimodal peri‐operative pain management strategy. This approach should be approved by hospital medication governance systems, and the individual clinical decision should be made with properly informed consent from the patient concerned. If i.v. lidocaine is used, we recommend an initial dose of no more than 1.5 mg.kg‐1, calculated using the patient’s ideal body weight and given as an infusion over 10 min. Thereafter, an infusion of no more than 1.5 mg.kg‐1.h‐1 for no longer than 24 h is recommended, subject to review and re‐assessment. Intravenous lidocaine should not be used at the same time as, or within the period of action of, other local anaesthetic interventions. This includes not starting i.v. lidocaine within 4 h after any nerve block, and not performing any nerve block until 4 h after discontinuing an i.v. lidocaine infusion

Characterising the evidence base for advanced clinical practice in the UK: a scoping review protocol

Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Introduction A global health workforce crisis, coupled with ageing populations, wars and the rise of non-communicable diseases is prompting all countries to consider the optimal skill mix within their health workforce. The development of advanced clinical practice (ACP) roles for existing non-medical cadres is one potential strategy that is being pursued. In the UK, National Health Service (NHS) workforce transformation programmes are actively promoting the development of ACP roles across a wide range of non-medical professions. These efforts are currently hampered by a high level of variation in ACP role development, deployment, nomenclature, definition, governance and educational preparation across the professions and across different settings. This scoping review aims to support a more consistent approach to workforce development in the UK, by identifying and mapping the current evidence base underpinning multiprofessional advanced level practice in the UK from a workforce, clinical, service and patient perspective. Methods and analysis This scoping review is registered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/tzpe5). The review will follow Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and involves a multidisciplinary and multiprofessional team, including a public representative. A wide range of electronic databases and grey literature sources will be searched from 2005 to the present. The review will include primary data from any relevant research, audit or evaluation studies. All review steps will involve two or more reviewers. Data extraction, charting and summary will be guided by a template derived from an established framework used internationally to evaluate ACP (the Participatory Evidence-Informed Patient-Centred Process-Plus framework). Dissemination The review will produce important new information on existing activity, outcomes, implementation challenges and key areas for future research around ACP in the UK, which, in the context of global workforce transformations, will be of international, as well as local, significance. The findings will be disseminated through professional and NHS bodies, employer organisations, conferences and research papers.Health Education England (DN384826— Evaluation for HEE ACP Programme—Current Evidence Based for Advanced Level Practice within Health and Related Environments)

Characterising the outcomes, impacts and implementation challenges of advanced clinical practice roles in the UK: A scoping review

Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Objectives In response to demographic and health system pressures, the development of non-medical advanced clinical practice (ACP) roles is a key component of National Health Service workforce transformation policy in the UK. This review was undertaken to establish a baseline of evidence on ACP roles and their outcomes, impacts and implementation challenges across the UK. Design A scoping review was undertaken following JBI methodological guidance. Methods 13 online databases (Medline, CINAHL, ASSIA, Embase, HMIC, AMED, Amber, OT seeker, PsycINFO, PEDro, SportDiscus, Osteopathic Research and PenNutrition) and grey literature sources were searched from 2005 to 2020. Data extraction, charting and summary was guided by the PEPPA-Plus framework. The review was undertaken by a multi-professional team that included an expert lay representative. Results 191 papers met the inclusion criteria (any type of UK evidence, any sector/setting and any profession meeting the Health Education England definition of ACP). Most papers were small-scale descriptive studies, service evaluations or audits. The papers reported mainly on clinical aspects of the ACP role. Most papers related to nursing, pharmacy, physiotherapy and radiography roles and these were referred to by a plethora of different titles. ACP roles were reported to be achieving beneficial impacts across a range of clinical and health system outcomes. They were highly acceptable to patients and staff. No significant adverse events were reported. There was a lack of cost-effectiveness evidence. Implementation challenges included a lack of role clarity and an ambivalent role identity, lack of mentorship, lack of continuing professional development and an unclear career pathway. Conclusion This review suggests a need for educational and role standardisation and a supported career pathway for advanced clinical practitioners (ACPs) in the UK. Future research should: (i) adopt more robust study designs, (ii) investigate the full scope of the ACP role and (iii) include a wider range of professions and sectors.Health Education England (DN384826— Evaluation for HEE ACP Programme—Current Evidence Based for Advanced Level Practice within Health and Related Environments)

Hydromorphone for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND Opioid drugs, including hydromorphone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for hydromorphone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.This review is part of an update of a previous review, Hydromorphone for acute and chronic pain that was withdrawn in 2013 because it needed updating and splitting to be more specific for different pain conditions. This review focuses only on neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), via the CRSO; MEDLINE via Ovid; and EMBASE via Ovid from inception to 17 November 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing hydromorphone (at any dose, by any route of administration, or in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). MAIN RESULTS Searches identified seven publications relating to four studies. We excluded three studies. One post hoc (secondary) analysis of a study published in four reports assessed the efficacy of hydromorphone in neuropathic pain, satisfied our inclusion criteria, and was included in the review. The single included study had an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal design with 94 participants who were successfully switched from oral morphine to oral hydromorphone extended release (about 60% of those enrolled). These participants were then randomised to continuing hydromorphone for 12 weeks or tapering down the hydromorphone dose to placebo. The methodological quality of the study was generally good, but we judged the risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as unclear, and for study size as high.Since we identified only one study for inclusion, we were unable to carry out any analyses. The included study did not report any of our prespecified primary outcomes, which relate to the number of participants achieving moderate or substantial levels of pain relief. It did report a slightly larger increase in average pain intensity for placebo in the randomised withdrawal phase than for continuing with hydromorphone. It also reported the number of participants who withdrew due to lack of efficacy in the randomised withdrawal phase, which may be an indicator of efficacy. However, in addition to using an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal study design, there was an unusual choice of imputation methods for withdrawals (about 50% of participants); the evidence was of very low quality and inadequate to make a judgement on efficacy. Adverse events occurred in about half of participants with hydromorphone, the most common being constipation and nausea. A similar proportion of participants experienced adverse events with placebo, the most common being opioid withdrawal syndrome (very low quality evidence). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity. One in eight participants withdrew while taking hydromorphone during the conversion and titration phase, despite participants being opioid-tolerant (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study with few participants, it did not report clinically useful efficacy outcomes, and it was a post hoc analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that hydromorphone has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition

Corrigendum to Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the management of pain in older people – a summary report

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1177/2049463720976155.]