Systematic review of safety checklists for use by medical care teams in acute hospital settings - limited evidence of effectiveness

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patient safety is a fundamental component of good quality health care. Checklists have been proposed as a method of improving patient safety. This systematic review, asked "In acute hospital settings, would the use of safety checklists applied by medical care teams, compared to not using checklists, improve patient safety?"</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials published in English before September 2009. Studies were selected and appraised by two reviewers independently in consultation with colleagues, using inclusion, exclusion and appraisal criteria established a priori.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Nine cohort studies with historical controls studies from four hospital care settings were included-intensive care unit, emergency department, surgery, and acute care. The studies used a variety of designs of safety checklists, and implemented them in different ways, however most incorporated an educational component to teach the staff how to use the checklist. The studies assessed outcomes occurring a few weeks to a maximum of 12 months post-implementation, and these outcomes were diverse.</p> <p>The studies were generally of low to moderate quality and of low levels of evidence, with all but one of the studies containing a high risk of bias.</p> <p>The results of these studies suggest some improvements in patient safety arising from use of safety checklists, but these were not consistent across all studies or for all outcomes. Some studies showed no difference in outcomes between checklist use and standard care without a checklist. Due to the variations in setting, checklist design, educational training given, and outcomes measured, it was unfeasible to accurately summarise any trends across all studies.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The included studies suggest some benefits of using safety checklists to improve protocol adherence and patient safety, but due to the risk of bias in these studies, their results should be interpreted with caution. More high quality and studies, are needed to enable confident conclusions about the effectiveness of safety checklists in acute hospital settings.</p

Predicting Residual Rectal Adenocarcinoma in the Surgical Specimen after Preoperative Brachytherapy with Endoscopic Ultrasound

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: A novel brachytherapy (BT) protocol evaluated at McGill University has shown promise in terms of downstaging and achieving high tumour sterilization rates in rectal cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has emerged as the imaging modality of choice for local staging of rectal cancer. However, external beam radiotherapy appears to decrease the accuracy of EUS from 85% to 40%. The aim of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the accuracy of EUS in assessing the response of rectal cancer to BT

Mechanisms of CFTR Functional Variants That Impair Regulated Bicarbonate Permeation and Increase Risk for Pancreatitis but Not for Cystic Fibrosis

CFTR is a dynamically regulated anion channel. Intracellular WNK1-SPAK activation causes CFTR to change permeability and conductance characteristics from a chloride-preferring to bicarbonate-preferring channel through unknown mechanisms. Two severe CFTR mutations (CFTRsev) cause complete loss of CFTR function and result in cystic fibrosis (CF), a severe genetic disorder affecting sweat glands, nasal sinuses, lungs, pancreas, liver, intestines, and male reproductive system. We hypothesize that those CFTR mutations that disrupt the WNK1-SPAK activation mechanisms cause a selective, bicarbonate defect in channel function (CFTRBD) affecting organs that utilize CFTR for bicarbonate secretion (e.g. the pancreas, nasal sinus, vas deferens) but do not cause typical CF. To understand the structural and functional requirements of the CFTR bicarbonate-preferring channel, we (a) screened 984 well-phenotyped pancreatitis cases for candidate CFTRBD mutations from among 81 previously described CFTR variants; (b) conducted electrophysiology studies on clones of variants found in pancreatitis but not CF; (c) computationally constructed a new, complete structural model of CFTR for molecular dynamics simulation of wild-type and mutant variants; and (d) tested the newly defined CFTRBD variants for disease in non-pancreas organs utilizing CFTR for bicarbonate secretion. Nine variants (CFTR R74Q, R75Q, R117H, R170H, L967S, L997F, D1152H, S1235R, and D1270N) not associated with typical CF were associated with pancreatitis (OR 1.5, p = 0.002). Clones expressed in HEK 293T cells had normal chloride but not bicarbonate permeability and conductance with WNK1-SPAK activation. Molecular dynamics simulations suggest physical restriction of the CFTR channel and altered dynamic channel regulation. Comparing pancreatitis patients and controls, CFTRBD increased risk for rhinosinusitis (OR 2.3, p<0.005) and male infertility (OR 395, p≪0.0001). WNK1-SPAK pathway-activated increases in CFTR bicarbonate permeability are altered by CFTRBD variants through multiple mechanisms. CFTRBD variants are associated with clinically significant disorders of the pancreas, sinuses, and male reproductive system. © 2014 Whitcomb et al

Use and perceived effectiveness of non-analgesic medical therapies for chronic pancreatitis in the United States

Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 33: 149–159Effectiveness of medical therapies in chronic pancreatitis has been described in small studies of selected patients.To describe frequency and perceived effectiveness of non-analgesic medical therapies in chronic pancreatitis patients evaluated at US referral centres.Using data on 516 chronic pancreatitis patients enrolled prospectively in the NAPS2 Study, we evaluated how often medical therapies [pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), vitamins/antioxidants (AO), octreotide, coeliac plexus block (CPB)] were utilized and considered useful by physicians.Oral PERT was commonly used (70%), more frequently in the presence of exocrine insufficiency (EI) (88% vs. 61%, P  < 0.001) and pain (74% vs. 59%, P  < 0.002). On multivariable analyses, predictors of PERT usage were EI (OR 5.14, 95% CI 2.87–9.18), constant (OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.93–6.04) or intermittent pain (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.14–3.45). Efficacy of PERT was predicted only by EI (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.36–3.42). AO were tried less often (14%) and were more effective in idiopathic and obstructive vs. alcoholic chronic pancreatitis (25% vs. 4%, P  = 0.03). Other therapies were infrequently used (CPB – 5%, octreotide – 7%) with efficacy generally <50%.Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy is commonly utilized, but is considered useful in only subsets of chronic pancreatitis patients. Other medical therapies are used infrequently and have limited efficacy.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79114/1/j.1365-2036.2010.04491.x.pd

MRCP compared to diagnostic ERCP for diagnosis when biliary obstruction is suspected: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is an alternative to diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for investigating biliary obstruction. The use of MRCP, a non-invasive procedure, may prevent the use of unnecessary invasive procedures. The aim of the study was to compare the findings of MRCP with those of ERCP by the computation of accuracy statistics. METHODS: Thirteen electronic bibliographic databases, covering biomedical, science, health economics and grey literature were searched. A systematic review of studies comparing MRCP to diagnostic ERCP in patients with suspected biliary obstruction was conducted. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, acceptability and adverse events were reported. RESULTS: 25 studies were identified reporting several conditions including choledocholithiasis (18 studies), malignancy (four studies), obstruction (three studies), stricture (two studies) and dilatation (five studies). Three of the 18 studies reporting choledocholithiasis were excluded from the analysis due to lack of data, or differences in study design. The sensitivity for the 15 studies of choledocholithiasis ranged from 0.50 to 1.00 while specificity ranged from 0.83 to 1.00. The positive likelihood ratio ranged: from 5.44–47.72 and the negative likelihood ratio for the 15 studies ranged from 0.00–0.51. Significant heterogeneity was found across the 15 studies so the sensitivities and specificities were summarised by a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. For malignancy, sensitivity ranged from 0.81 to 0.94 and specificity from 0.92 to 1.00. Positive likelihood ratios ranged from 10.12 to 43 and negative likelihood ratios ranged from 0.15 to 0.21, although these estimates were less reliable. CONCLUSION: MRCP is a comparable diagnostic investigation in comparison to ERCP for diagnosing biliary obstruction

Chronic pancreatitis: Pediatric and adult cohorts show similarities in disease progress despite different risk factors

Objectives: To investigate the natural history of chronic pancreatitis (CP), patients in the North American Pancreatitis Study2 (NAPS2, adults) and INternational Study group of Pediatric Pancreatitis: In search for a cuRE (INSPPIRE, pediatric) were compared. Methods: Demographics, risk factors, disease duration, management and outcomes of 224 children and 1,063 adults were compared using appropriate statistical tests for categorical and continuous variables. Results: Alcohol was a risk in 53% of adults and 1% of children (p<0.0001); tobacco in 50% of adults and 7% of children (p<0.0001). Obstructive factors were more common in children (29% vs 19% in adults, p=0.001). Genetic risk factors were found more often in children. Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency was similar (children 26% vs adult 33%, p=0.107). Diabetes was more common in adults than children (36% vs 4% respectively, p<0.0001). Median emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and missed days of work/school were similar across the cohorts. As a secondary analysis, NAPS2 subjects with childhood onset (NAPS2-CO) were compared to INSPPIRE subjects. These two cohorts were more similar than the total INSPPIRE and NAPS2 cohorts, including for genetic risk factors. The only risk factor significantly more common in the NAPS2-CO cohort compared with the INSPPIRE cohort was alcohol (9% NAPS2-CO vs 1% INSPPIRE cohorts, p=0.011). Conclusions: Despite disparity in age of onset, children and adults with CP exhibit similarity in demographics, CP treatment, and pain. Differences between groups in radiographic findings and diabetes prevalence may be related to differences in risk factors associated with disease and length of time of CP

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) – a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct – and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. Methods/Design The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. Discussion The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough. Trial registration NCT02476279, registered June 2015

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) - a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct - and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. Methods/Design: The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. Discussion: The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough