15 research outputs found

    Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

    Get PDF
    Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

    Medical Oncology Group of Australia position statement and membership survey on voluntary assisted dying

    Get PDF
    This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.The controversial topic of voluntary assisted dying (VAD) is receiving significant attention at state government levels and in the community. Acknowledging potential legalisation of VAD, the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA) undertook a survey of members to inform the development of a position statement on the subject. All MOGA members were invited to complete an anonymous online survey. The survey comprised 12 closed-response categorical questions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the survey data. Majority views expressed in the survey would form the basis of a MOGA position statement on VAD. A total of 362 members completed the questionnaire, representing 55% of the membership; 47% of respondents disagreed with VAD; 36% agreed with VAD and the remaining members (17%) were ‘neutral’. A clear majority position was not established. Only 14% agreed that physicians involved in VAD should be required personally to administer the lethal medication; 94% supported conscientious objection of physicians to the VAD process; 95% agreed that a palliative care physician consultation should be required and 86% agreed with the need for the involvement of specialist psychiatry medical services before a patient can be deemed as suitable for VAD. The MOGA membership expressed a range of views on the topic of VAD. A clear majority- held view to support a MOGA position that either supports or opposes VAD was not established. The position statement that flows from the survey encourages informed debate on this topic and brings into focus important considerations.Non

    Adjuvant chemotherapy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: A population-based comparative cohort study.

    No full text
    BACKGROUND Data supporting routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) compared to no AC (noAC) for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (hCCA) is unclear. This study aimed to determine whether AC improves long-term survival following resection for hCCA. METHODS Patients receiving resection for hCCA followed by AC or no AC from 2010 to 2016 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression was performed to account for selection bias and analyze impact of AC on overall survival. RESULTS Of 924 (56%) noAC and 719 (44%) AC, 320 noAC and 320 AC patients remained after PSM. After matching, AC was associated with improved survival (median: 28.2 vs 19.9 months, p < 0.001), which remained after multivariable adjustment (HR: 0.61, CI: 0.50-0.75, p < 0.001). On multivariable interaction analyses, the benefit of AC over no AC persisted irrespective of nodal status: N0 (HR: 0.62, CI: 0.41-0.92, p = 0.019), N1 (HR: 0.52, CI: 0.36-0.75, p = 0.001), N2 (HR: 0.31, CI: 0.11-0.90, p = 0.032), Nx (HR: 0.22, CI: 0.09-0.55, p = 0.001) and margin status: R0 (HR: 0.74, CI: 0.57-0.97, p = 0.026), R1 (HR: 0.31, CI: 0.21-0.47, p < 0.001). Stratified analysis by nodal, margin and AC status demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSION AC following resection for hCCA was associated with improved survival in this study, even in margin-negative and node-negative disease. These findings suggest incorporation of AC into multimodality therapy for hCCA in all cases, where appropriate
    corecore