A Nonsurgical means of fecal diversion : the Zassi Bowel Management System

PURPOSE: Patients with perineal burns and immobile hospitalized patients with severe excoriation from incontinence caused by excessive diarrhea pose difficult management problems, frequently requiring stoma formation. The Zassi Bowel Management System (Zassi Medical Evolutions, Fernandina Beach, Florida) multichannel intrarectal catheter was evaluated for its safety and its ability to divert feces away from perineal skin to allow wound and skin healing. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted on inpatients from the Burns and Geriatric Units. Patients with previous rectal disease were excluded. Perineal skin and wound healing was measured before and after tube insertion by using the perianal disease activity index score. Data regarding patient comfort, wound contamination, dressing changes, bed linen changes, and adverse events were collected. Proctoscopy was performed before and after tube insertion. RESULTS: Twenty-two tubes were inserted in 20 patients (7 perineal burns, 13 severe perineal excoriations). Mean perianal disease activity index scores reduced from 14 to 6.4 (P < 0.0001) after tube insertion. Mean dressing changes reduced from 3.3 to 1.5 times per day (P < 0.01), and mean bed linen changes in the incontinent patients reduced from 9.3 to 1.2 times per day (P < 0.0001). Mean duration of rectal intubation was 14 days. Proctoscopy after tube removal was normal in all cases. One patient developed a superficial ulcer on the buttock from retention strapping. CONCLUSIONS: The Zassi Bowel Management System tube allows diversion of feces away from the perineum for wound healing. It is safe, effective, and may help avoid stoma formation.6 page(s

Maternity care providers' perceptions of women's autonomy and the law

Background: Like all health care consumers, pregnant women have the right to make autonomous decisions about their medical care. However, this right has created confusion for a number of maternity care stakeholders, particularly in situations when a woman's decision may lead to increased risk of harm to the fetus. Little is known about care providers' perceptions of this situation, or of their legal accountability for outcomes experienced in pregnancy and birth. This paper examined maternity care providers' attitudes and beliefs towards women's right to make autonomous decisions during pregnancy and birth, and the legal responsibility of professionals for maternal and fetal outcomes.Methods: Attitudes and beliefs around women's autonomy and health professionals' legal accountability were measured in a sample of 336 midwives and doctors from both public and private health sectors in Queensland, Australia, using a questionnaire available online and in paper format. Student's t-test was used to compare midwives' and doctors' responses.Results: Both maternity care professionals demonstrated a poor understanding of their own legal accountability, and the rights of the woman and her fetus. Midwives and doctors believed the final decision should rest with the woman; however, each also believed that the needs of the woman may be overridden for the safety of the fetus. Doctors believed themselves to be ultimately legally accountable for outcomes experienced in pregnancy and birth, despite the legal position that all health care professionals are responsible only for adverse outcomes caused by their own negligent actions. Interprofessional differences were evident, with midwives and doctors significantly differing in their responses on five of the six items.Conclusions: Maternity care professionals inconsistently supported women's right to autonomous decision making during pregnancy and birth. This finding is further complicated by care providers' poor understanding of legal accountability for outcomes experienced in pregnancy and birth. The findings of this study support the need for guidelines on decision making in pregnancy and birth for maternity care professionals, and for recognition of interprofessional differences in beliefs around the rights of the woman, her fetus and health professionals in order to facilitate collaborative practice

Personalized Research on Diet in Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn\u27s Disease: A Series of N-of-1 Diet Trials

INTRODUCTION: Evidence about specific carbohydrate diet (SCD) for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is limited. We conducted 54 single-subject, double-crossover N-of-1 trials comparing SCD with a modified SCD (MSCD) and comparing each with the participant\u27s baseline, usual diet (UD). METHODS: Across 19 sites, we recruited patients aged 7–18 years with IBD and active inflammation. Following a 2-week baseline (UD), patients were randomized to 1 of 2 sequences of 4 alternating 8-week SCD and MSCD periods. Outcomes included fecal calprotectin and patient-reported symptoms. We report posterior probabilities from Bayesian models comparing diets. RESULTS: Twenty-one (39%) participants completed the trial, 9 (17%) completed a single crossover, and 24 (44%) withdrew. Withdrawal or early completion occurred commonly (lack of response [n = 11], adverse events [n = 11], and not desiring to continue [n = 6]). SCD and MSCD performed similarly for most individuals. On average, there was \u3c1% probability of a clinically meaningful difference in IBD symptoms between SCD and MSCD. The average treatment difference was −0.3 (95% credible interval −1.2, 0.75). There was no significant difference in the ratio of fecal calprotectin geometric means comparing SCD and MSCD (0.77, 95% credible interval 0.51, 1.10). Some individuals had improvement in symptoms and fecal calprotectin compared with their UD, whereas others did not. DISCUSSION: SCD and MSCD did not consistently improve symptoms or inflammation, although some individuals may have benefited. However, there are inherent difficulties in examining dietary changes that complicate study design and ultimately conclusions regarding effectiveness

Personalized Research on Diet in Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn\u27s Disease: A Series of N-of-1 Diet Trials

INTRODUCTION: Evidence about specific carbohydrate diet (SCD) for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is limited. We conducted 54 single-subject, double-crossover N-of-1 trials comparing SCD with a modified SCD (MSCD) and comparing each with the participant\u27s baseline, usual diet (UD). METHODS: Across 19 sites, we recruited patients aged 7–18 years with IBD and active inflammation. Following a 2-week baseline (UD), patients were randomized to 1 of 2 sequences of 4 alternating 8-week SCD and MSCD periods. Outcomes included fecal calprotectin and patient-reported symptoms. We report posterior probabilities from Bayesian models comparing diets. RESULTS: Twenty-one (39%) participants completed the trial, 9 (17%) completed a single crossover, and 24 (44%) withdrew. Withdrawal or early completion occurred commonly (lack of response [n = 11], adverse events [n = 11], and not desiring to continue [n = 6]). SCD and MSCD performed similarly for most individuals. On average, there was \u3c1% probability of a clinically meaningful difference in IBD symptoms between SCD and MSCD. The average treatment difference was −0.3 (95% credible interval −1.2, 0.75). There was no significant difference in the ratio of fecal calprotectin geometric means comparing SCD and MSCD (0.77, 95% credible interval 0.51, 1.10). Some individuals had improvement in symptoms and fecal calprotectin compared with their UD, whereas others did not. DISCUSSION: SCD and MSCD did not consistently improve symptoms or inflammation, although some individuals may have benefited. However, there are inherent difficulties in examining dietary changes that complicate study design and ultimately conclusions regarding effectiveness