Urgent referral for suspected CNS cancer: which clinical features are associated with a positive predictive value of 3 % or more?

Background Urgent referral for suspected central nervous system (CNS) cancer is recommended, but little analysis of the referral criteria diagnostic performance has been conducted. New 2015 NICE guidance recommends direct brain imaging for patients with symptoms with positive predictive values (PPV) of 3 %, but further guidance is needed. Methods A 12-month retrospective evaluation of 393 patients referred under previous 2005 NICE 2-week rule criteria was conducted. Analysis was based on the three groups of symptoms forming the referral criteria, (1) CNS symptoms, (2) recent onset headaches, (3) rapidly progressive subacute focal deficit/cognitive/behavioural/personality change. Comparison was made with neuroimaging findings. Results Twelve (3.1 %) of 383 patients who attended clinic had CNS cancer suggesting the combination of clinical judgement and application of 2005 criteria matched the 2015 guideline’s PPV threshold. PPVs for the three groups of symptoms were (1) 4.1 % (95 % CIs 2.0 to 7.4 %), (2) 1.2 % (0.1 to 4.3 %) and (3) 3.7 % (0.1 to 19.0 %). Sensitivities were (1) 83.3 % (95 % CIs 51.6 to 97.9 %), (2) 16.7 % (2.1 to 48.4 %), and (3) 8.3 % (0.2 to 38.5 %); specificities were (1) 37.2 % (32.3 to 42.3 %), (2) 55.5 % (50.3 to 60.7 %) and (3) 93.0 % (89.9 to 95.4 %). Of 288 patients who underwent neuroimaging, 59 (20.5 %) had incidental findings, most commonly cerebrovascular disease. Conclusions The 2015 guidance is less prescriptive than previous criteria making clinical judgement more important. CNS symptoms had greatest sensitivity, while PPVs for CNS symptoms and rapidly progressive subacute deficit/cognitive/behavioural/personality change were closest to 3 %. Recent onset headaches had the lowest sensitivity and PPV

Why do GPs with a special interest in headache investigate headache presentations with neuroradiology and what do they find?

The general practitioner with a special interest in headache offers an important contribution to the management of headache in primary care where the majority of presentations take place. A number of guidelines have been developed for neuroradiological investigation of headache, but their clinical utility and relevance is not known. Fourteen general practitioners with a special interest in headache recorded consecutive headache consultations over a 3-month period, whether patients were investigated with neuroradiology and if so the reason for investigation and outcome. Reason for investigation was compared to the guidelines published for the use in primary care. 895 patients were seen, of whom 270 (30.1%) were investigated. 47% of indications were outside the guidance framework used, the most common reason for investigation being reassurance. Of those investigated, 5.6% showed positive findings but only 1.9% of findings were felt to be of clinical significance. General practitioners with a special interest investigated with neuroradiology a greater level than general practitioners, but less than neurologists. However, yields of significant findings are broadly comparative across all groups. This report confirms other studies that suggest that even when there is a high level of clinical suspicion, yields of significant findings are very low

A survey of community members' perceptions of medical errors in Oman

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Errors have been the concern of providers and consumers of health care services. However, consumers' perception of medical errors in developing countries is rarely explored. The aim of this study is to assess community members' perceptions about medical errors and to analyse the factors affecting this perception in one Middle East country, Oman.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Face to face interviews were conducted with heads of 212 households in two villages in North Al-Batinah region of Oman selected because of close proximity to the Sultan Qaboos University (SQU), Muscat, Oman. Participants' perceived knowledge about medical errors was assessed. Responses were coded and categorised. Analyses were performed using Pearson's χ², Fisher's exact tests, and multivariate logistic regression model wherever appropriate.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventy-eight percent (n = 165) of participants believed they knew what was meant by medical errors. Of these, 34% and 26.5% related medical errors to wrong medications or diagnoses, respectively. Understanding of medical errors was correlated inversely with age and positively with family income. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that a one-year increase in age was associated with a 4% reduction in perceived knowledge of medical errors (CI: 1% to 7%; p = 0.045). The study found that 49% of those who believed they knew the meaning of medical errors had experienced such errors. The most common consequence of the errors was severe pain (45%). Of the 165 informed participants, 49% felt that an uncaring health care professional was the main cause of medical errors. Younger participants were able to list more possible causes of medical errors than were older subjects (Incident Rate Ratio of 0.98; p < 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The majority of participants believed they knew the meaning of medical errors. Younger participants were more likely to be aware of such errors and could list one or more causes.</p

Factors associated with parasympathetic activation following exercise in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a cross-sectional study

Background Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) with poor parasympathetic function being implicated as an underlying factor. Factors related to parasympathetic function, commonly assessed by heart rate recovery (HRR) following maximal exercise, are currently not known in RA. We aimed to explore the association between HRR with CVD risk factors, inflammatory markers, and wellbeing in patients with RA. Methods Ninety-six RA patients (54.4 ± 12.6 years, 68 % women) completed a treadmill exercise test, during which heart rate (HR) was monitored. HRR1 and HRR2 were defined as the absolute change from HR peak to HRR 1 min post HR peak and 2 min post HR peak, respectively. Cardiorespiratory fitness, CVD risk factors, and serological markers of inflammation were measured in all patients. The Framingham Risk Score (FRS) was used as an assessment of global risk for CVD events, and wellbeing was assessed by questionnaires. Results Mean HRR1 and HRR2 were 29.1 ± 13.2 bpm and 46.4 ± 15.3 bpm, respectively. CVD risk factors as well as most inflammatory markers and measures of wellbeing were inversely correlated with HRR1 and HRR2. Multivariate regression analyses revealed that 27.9 % of the variance in HRR1 and 37.9 % of the variance in HRR2 was explained collectively by CVD risk factors, measures of inflammation, and wellbeing (p = 0.009, p = 0.001 respectively), however no individual measure was independently associated with HRR1 or HRR2. Conclusion Parasympathetic activation was associated with overall CVD risk, arthritis-related burden and wellbeing in patients with RA