Centre de la prostate: une approche multidisciplinaire pour une prise en charge globale du patient [Prostate cancer center: a multidisciplinary approach to accurately manage patients with prostate cancer]

The prostate cancer is a complex pathology involving oncological, functional and psychosocial items. The prostate's center of CHUV harmonize the know-how of urologists, oncologist, radiotherapists and clinical nurses to offer a global management to patients attempts by prostate cancer, from diagnosis to therapy and follow-up

La définition des interfaces pour améliorer la qualité: l'exemple de l'anorexie en hospitalisation somatique [Defining interfaces to improve quality of care: the example of anorexia nervosa in acute somatic hospitalisation]

Specialisation in medicine requires multidisciplinary approaches, and hence coordination in collaborations of the different partners involved. These integrated approaches, sometimes called "disease management", fit particularly well to chronic diseases. Our institution introduced an integrated approach for taking care of the acute somatic hospitalisation of patients suffering from anorexia nervosa. Interfaces with the different partners were defined, specifying tasks, rights, and duties of each person, care givers or patients. This initiative allows now to identify any deviation occurring in the process of care or hole in the care system, so that it can be corrected and recurrence prevented. This model will be extended to other complex and multidisciplinary care processes and other services in our institution

Randomized controlled trial of peripherally inserted central catheters vs. peripheral catheters for middle duration in-hospital intravenous therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous (i.v.) therapy may be associated with important catheter-related morbidity and discomfort. The safety, efficacy, comfort, and cost-effectiveness of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) were compared to peripheral catheters (PCs) in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Hospitalized patients requiring i.v. therapy >or= five days were randomized 1:1 to PICC or PC. Outcomes were incidence of major complications, minor complications, efficacy of catheters, patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: 60 patients were included. Major complications were observed in 22.6% of patients in the PICC group [six deep venous thrombosis (DVT), one insertion-site infection] and 3.4% of patients in the PC group [one DVT; risk ratio (RR) 6.6; P = 0.03]. Superficial venous thrombosis (SVT) occurred in 29.0% of patients in the PICC group and 37.9% of patients in the PC group (RR 0.60; P = 0.20). Patients in the PICC group required 1.16 catheters on average during the study period, compared with 1.97 in the PC group (P < 0.04). The mean number of venipunctures (catheter insertion and blood sampling) was 1.36 in the PICC group vs. 8.25 in the PC group (P < 0.001). Intravenous drug administration was considered very or quite satisfying by 96.8% of the patients in the PICC group, and 79.3% in the PC group. Insertion and maintenance mean cost was 690 US$for PICC and 237 US$ for PC. DISCUSSION: PICC is efficient and satisfying for hospitalized patients requiring i.v. therapy >or= five days. However, the risk of DVT, mostly asymptomatic, appears higher than previously reported, and should be considered before using a PICC