364 research outputs found

    Off-pump hepatic to azygos connection via thoracotomy for relief of fistulas after a Kawashima procedure:Ten-year results

    Get PDF
    Objectives: An almost universal incidence of developing pulmonary arteriovenous fistulas after the Kawashima operation has been reported. Exclusion of the hepatic venous flow from the pulmonary circulation causes the development of these malformations. Redirection of hepatic venous flow to the pulmonary circulation mostly leads to the regression of the arteriovenous fistulas.Methods: We analyzed 11 patients with arteriovenous fistulas that developed after the Kawashima operation. The hepatic-to-azygos shunts were performed with an off-pump technique through a lateral thoracotomy in all but one. Operative and postoperative data were retrospectively collected.Results: No intraoperative complications occurred, and no patient died in the hospital. Up to 10-year follow-up showed a significant postoperative improvement of patients' oxygen saturation and New York Heart Association class. Apart from 2 re-thoracotomies for bleeding in 1 patient, no complications occurred and no patient died during follow-up. Two other patients underwent reoperation for an undiagnosed additional hepatic vein. The improvement of patients' oxygen saturation and New York Heart Association class persisted during the follow-up period.Conclusions: The surgical connection can be performed safely with an off-pump technique that avoids the risks related to extracorporeal circulation and circulatory arrest. The results at 10 years follow-up confirmed the efficacy and safety of the surgical technique described.</p

    Delirium in older COVID-19 patients:Evaluating risk factors and outcomes

    Get PDF
    Objectives: A high incidence of delirium has been reported in older patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to identify determinants of delirium, including the Clinical Frailty Scale, in hospitalized older patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, we aimed to study the association of delirium independent of frailty with in-hospital outcomes in older COVID-19 patients. Methods: This study was performed within the framework of the multi-center COVID-OLD cohort study and included patients aged ≥60 years who were admitted to the general ward because of COVID-19 in the Netherlands between February and May 2020. Data were collected on demographics, co-morbidity, disease severity, and geriatric parameters. Prevalence of delirium during hospital admission was recorded based on delirium screening using the Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS) which was scored three times daily. A DOSS score ≥3 was followed by a delirium assessment by the ward physician In-hospital outcomes included length of stay, discharge destination, and mortality. Results: A total of 412 patients were included (median age 76, 58% male). Delirium was present in 82 patients. In multivariable analysis, previous episode of delirium (Odds ratio [OR] 8.9 [95% CI 2.3–33.6] p = 0.001), and pre-existent memory problems (OR 7.6 [95% CI 3.1–22.5] p < 0.001) were associated with increased delirium risk. Clinical Frailty Scale was associated with increased delirium risk (OR 1.63 [95%CI 1.40–1.90] p < 0.001) in univariable analysis, but not in multivariable analysis. Patients who developed delirium had a shorter symptom duration and lower levels of C-reactive protein upon presentation, whereas vital parameters did not differ. Patients who developed a delirium had a longer hospital stay and were more often discharged to a nursing home. Delirium was associated with mortality (OR 2.84 [95% CI1.71–4.72] p < 0.001), but not in multivariable analyses. Conclusions: A previous delirium and pre-existent memory problems were associated with delirium risk in COVID-19. Delirium was not an independent predictor of mortality after adjustment for frailty

    Why do GPs hesitate to refer diabetes patients to a self-management education program: a qualitative study

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Self-management support is seen as a cornerstone of good diabetes care and many countries are currently engaged in initiatives to integrate self-management support in primary care. Concerning the organisation of these programs, evidence is growing that engagement of health care professionals, in particular of GPs, is critical for successful application. This paper reports on a study exploring why a substantial number of GPs was (initially) reluctant to refer patients to a self-management education program in Belgium.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Qualitative analysis of semi-structured face-to-face interviews with a purposive sample of 20 GPs who were not regular users of the service. The Greenhalgh diffusion of innovation framework was used as background and organising framework.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Several barriers, linked to different components of the Greenhalgh model, emerged from the interview data. One of the most striking ones was the limited readiness for innovation among GPs. Feelings of fear of further fragmentation of diabetes care and frustration and insecurity regarding their own role in diabetes care prevented them from engaging in the innovation process. GPs needed time to be reassured that the program respects their role and has an added value to usual care. Once GPs considered referring patients, it was not clear enough which of their patients would benefit from the program. Some GPs expressed the need for training in motivational skills, so that they could better motivate their patients to participate. A practical but often mentioned barrier was the distance to the centre where the program was delivered. Further, uncertainty about continuity interfered with the uptake of the offer.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The study results contribute to a better understanding of the reasons why GPs hesitate to refer patients to a self-management education program. First of all, the role of GPs and other health care providers in diabetes care needs to be clarified before introducing new functions. Feelings of security and a basic trust of providers in the health system are a prerequisite for participation in care innovation. Moreover, some important lessons regarding the implementation of an education program in primary care have been learned from the study.</p

    The equity dimension in evaluations of the quality and outcomes framework: A systematic review

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pay-for-performance systems raise concerns regarding inequity in health care because providers might select patients for whom targets can easily be reached. This paper aims to describe the evolution of pre-existing (in)equity in health care in the period after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in the UK and to describe (in)equities in exception reporting. In this evaluation, a theory-based framework conceptualising equity in terms of equal access, equal treatment and equal treatment outcomes for people in equal need is used to guide the work.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic MEDLINE and Econlit search identified 317 studies. Of these, 290 were excluded because they were not related to the evaluation of QOF, they lacked an equity dimension in the evaluation, their qualitative research focused on experiences or on the nature of the consultation, or unsuitable methodology was used to pronounce upon equity after the introduction of QOF.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>None of the publications (n = 27) assessed equity in access to health care. Concerning equity in treatment and (intermediate) treatment outcomes, overall quality scores generally improved. For the majority of the observed indicators, all citizens benefit from this improvement, yet the extent to which different patient groups benefit tends to vary and to be highly dependent on the type and complexity of the indicator(s) under study, the observed patient group(s) and the characteristics of the study. In general, the introduction of QOF was favourable for the aged and for males. Total QOF scores did not seem to vary according to ethnicity. For deprivation, small but significant residual differences were observed after the introduction of QOF favouring less deprived groups. These differences are mainly due to differences at the practice level. The variance in exception reporting according to gender and socio-economic position is low.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although QOF seems not to be socially selective at first glance, this does not mean QOF does not contribute to the inverse care law. Introducing different targets for specific patient groups and including appropriate, non-disease specific and patient-centred indicators that grasp the complexity of primary care might refine the equity dimension of the evaluation of QOF. Also, information on the actual uptake of care, information at the patient level and monitoring of individuals' health care utilisation tracks could make large contributions to an in-depth evaluation. Finally, evaluating pay-for-quality initiatives in a broader health systems impact assessment strategy with equity as a full assessment criterion is of utmost importance.</p
    corecore