What Matters to Us:Impact of Telemedicine During the Pandemic in the Care of Patients With Sarcoma Across Scotland

In Scotland, approximately 350 sarcoma cases are diagnosed per year and treated in one of the five specialist centers. Many patients are required to travel long distances to access specialist care. The COVID-19 pandemic brought a number of rapid changes into the care for patients with cancer, with increasing utilization of telemedicine. We aimed to evaluate how the utilization of telemedicine affects professionals and patients across Scotland and care delivery, at the Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre Sarcoma Unit. Between June 8 and August 25, 2020, we invited patients and professional sarcoma multidisciplinary team members to participate in separate online anonymous survey questionnaires, to assess their attitudes toward telemedicine. Data were extracted, and descriptive statistics were performed. Patient satisfaction (n = 64) with telemedicine was high (mean = 9.4/10) and comparable with traditional face-to-face appointments (mean = 9.5/10). Patients were receptive to the use of telemedicine in certain situations, with patients strongly opposed to being told bad news via telemedicine (88%). Providers recommended the use of telemedicine in certain patient populations and reported largely equivalent workloads when compared with traditional consultations. Providers reported that telemedicine should be integrated into regular practice (66%), with patients echoing this indicating a preference for a majority of telemedicine appointments (57%). Telemedicine in sarcoma care is favorable from both clinician and patient perspectives. Utilization of telemedicine for patients with rare cancers such as sarcomas is an innovative approach to the delivery of care, especially considering the time and financial pressures on patients who often live a distance away from specialist centers. Patients and providers are keen to move toward a more flexible, mixed system of care

Extracranial and Intracranial Vasculopathy With “Moyamoya Phenomenon” in Association With Alagille Syndrome

Background: Alagille syndrome (AGS) is an autosomal-dominant, multisystem disorder caused by mutations in the JAG1 gene.Case Description: A 34-year-old man was referred to our service 10 years ago with focal seizures with impaired awareness and transient slurred speech. He had a 5-year history of intermittent left monocular low-flow retinopathy. He has a family history of AGS. General examination revealed mild hypertension, aortic regurgitation, and livedo reticularis. Neurological examination was normal.Investigations: He had mild hyperlipidaemia and persistently-positive lupus anticoagulant consistent with primary anti-phospholipid syndrome. Color Doppler ultrasound revealed low velocity flow in a narrowed extracranial left internal carotid artery (ICA). MR and CT angiography revealed a diffusely narrowed extracranial and intracranial left ICA. Formal cerebral angiography confirmed severe left ICA narrowing consistent with a left ICA “vasculopathy” and moyamoya phenomenon. Transthoracic echocardiogram revealed a bicuspid aortic valve and aortic incompetence. Molecular genetic analysis identified a missense mutation (A211P) in exon 4 of the JAG1 gene, consistent with AGS.Discussion: AGS should be considered in young adults with TIAs/stroke and unexplained extracranial or intracranial vascular abnormalities, and/or moyamoya phenomenon, even in the absence of other typical phenotypic features. Gene panels should include JAG1 gene testing in similar patients

Understanding uncertainties in future Colorado River streamflow

Artículo -- Universidad de Costa Rica. Centro de Investigaciones Geofísicas, 2014The Colorado River is the primary water source for more than 30 million people in the United States and Mexico. Recent studies that project streamflow changes in the Colorado River all project annual declines, but the magnitude of the projected decreases range from less than 10% to 45% by the mid-twenty-first century. To understand these differences, we address the questions the management community has raised: Why is there such a wide range of projections of impacts of future climate change on Colorado River streamflow, and how should this uncertainty be interpreted? We identify four major sources of disparities among studies that arise from both methodological and model differences. In order of importance, these are differences in 1) the global climate models (GCMs) and emission scenarios used; 2) the ability of land surface and atmospheric models to simulate properly the high-elevation runoff source areas; 3) the sensitivities of land surface hydrology models to precipitation and temperature changes; and 4) the methods used to statistically downscale GCM scenarios. In accounting for these differences, there is substantial evidence across studies that future Colorado River streamflow will be reduced under the current trajectories of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions because of a combination of strong temperature-induced runoff curtailment and reduced annual precipitation. Reconstructions of preinstrumental streamflows provide additional insights; the greatest risk to Colorado River streamflows is a multidecadal drought, like that observed in paleoreconstructions, exacerbated by a steady reduction in flows due to climate change. This could result in decades of sustained streamflows much lower than have been observed in the ~100 years of instrumental record.Universidad de Costa Rica. Centro de Investigaciones GeofísicasLamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia UniversityUCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias Básicas::Centro de Investigaciones Geofísicas (CIGEFI

Training future generations to deliver evidence-based conservation and ecosystem management

1. To be effective, the next generation of conservation practitioners and managers need to be critical thinkers with a deep understanding of how to make evidence-based decisions and of the value of evidence synthesis. 2. If, as educators, we do not make these priorities a core part of what we teach, we are failing to prepare our students to make an effective contribution to conservation practice. 3. To help overcome this problem we have created open access online teaching materials in multiple languages that are stored in Applied Ecology Resources. So far, 117 educators from 23 countries have acknowledged the importance of this and are already teaching or about to teach skills in appraising or using evidence in conservation decision-making. This includes 145 undergraduate, postgraduate or professional development courses. 4. We call for wider teaching of the tools and skills that facilitate evidence-based conservation and also suggest that providing online teaching materials in multiple languages could be beneficial for improving global understanding of other subject areas.Peer reviewe

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely