An evaluation of recovery after hysterectomy

Differences in recovery from types of hysterectomy may be due to different advice, rather than different incisions alone. Aims: What are the beliefs and experiences of women who have a hysterectomy and the practices and beliefs of health care professionals? Explore the evidence for psychological preparation for surgery. Methods: .Retrospective structured questionnaires .Semi-structured interviews and validated quality of life questionnaires .Systematic review Results: No significant difference in return to work for type of employment and incapacity pay. Variation between the advice given for recovery by UK gynaecologists and nurses. Regardless of route of surgery, the expectations and fears of women are similar and rely on health care advice, with conflicting advice and varied recovery experiences. Women who had a vaginal hysterectomy had concerns around sitting, laparoscopic route had a lower length of stay and abdominal hysterectomy had higher anxiety scores (P 0.003). Mean quality of life scores by EQ5 were not different based on route of surgery (pre-surgery P 0.4446, 1 week P 0.447, 4 weeks P 0.876,12 weeks P 0.850). There was a reduced length of stay [P 0.03, 5.65 (-10 82 to -0.48)] and reduced trait anxiety intervention [P <0.00001, mean difference 7.78 (7.19, 10.61)] for psychological interventions

An evaluation of recovery after hysterectomy

Differences in recovery from types of hysterectomy may be due to different advice, rather than different incisions alone. Aims: What are the beliefs and experiences of women who have a hysterectomy and the practices and beliefs of health care professionals?\ud Explore the evidence for psychological preparation for surgery. Methods: .Retrospective structured questionnaires .Semi-structured interviews and validated quality of life questionnaires .Systematic review Results: No significant difference in return to work for type of employment and incapacity pay. Variation between the advice given for recovery by UK gynaecologists and nurses. Regardless of route of surgery, the expectations and fears of women are similar and rely on health care advice, with conflicting advice and varied recovery experiences. Women who had a vaginal hysterectomy had concerns around sitting, laparoscopic route had a lower length of stay and abdominal hysterectomy had higher anxiety scores (P 0.003). Mean quality of life scores by EQ5 were not different based on route of surgery (pre-surgery P 0.4446, 1 week P 0.447, 4 weeks P 0.876,12 weeks P 0.850). There was a reduced length of stay [P 0.03, 5.65 (-10 82 to -0.48)] and reduced trait anxiety intervention [P <0.00001, mean difference 7.78 (7.19, 10.61)] for psychological interventions

Predicting success in graduate entry medical students undertaking a graduate entry medical program (GEM)

Background: Success in undergraduate medical courses in the UK can be predicted by school exit examination (A level) grades. There are no documented predictors of success in UK graduate entry medicine (GEM) courses. This study looks at the examination performance of GEM students to identify factors which may predict success; of particular interest was A level score. Methods: Data was collected for students graduating in 2004, 2005 and 2006, including demographic details (age and gender), details of previous academic achievement (A level total score and prior degree) and examination results at several points during the degree course. Results: Study group comprised 285 students. Statistical analyses identified no significant variables when looking at clinical examinations. Analysis of pass/fail data for written examinations showed no relationship with A level score. However, both percentage data for the final written examination and the analysis of the award of honours showed A level scores of AAB or higher were associated with better performance (p < 0.001). Discussion: A prime objective of introducing GEM programs was to diversify admissions to medical school. In trying to achieve this, medical schools have changed selection criteria. The findings in this study justify this by proving that A level score was not associated with success in either clinical examinations or passing written examinations. Despite this, very high achievements at A level do predict high achievement during medical school. Conclusions: This study shows that selecting graduate medical students with the basic requirement of an upper-second class honours degree is justifiable and does not disadvantage students who may not have achieved high scores in school leaver examinations

Ondansetron and metoclopramide as second-line antiemetics in women with nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: the EMPOWER pilot factorial RCT

Background Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed. Objectives To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women. Design This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations. Participants Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation. Interventions Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment. Main outcome measures The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit. Results Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, n = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, n = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, n = 8; double dummy, n = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported. Limitations The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care. Conclusions The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy