155 research outputs found

    Rhabdomyoblastic Differentiation in Head and Neck Malignancies Other Than Rhabdomyosarcoma

    Get PDF
    Rhabdomyosarcoma is a relatively common soft tissue sarcoma that frequently affects children and adolescents and may involve the head and neck. Rhabdomyosarcoma is defined by skeletal muscle differentiation which can be suggested by routine histology and confirmed by immunohistochemistry for the skeletal muscle-specific markers myogenin or myoD1. At the same time, it must be remembered that when it comes to head and neck malignancies, skeletal muscle differentiation is not limited to rhabdomyosarcoma. A lack of awareness of this phenomenon could lead to misdiagnosis and, subsequently, inappropriate therapeutic interventions. This review focuses on malignant neoplasms of the head and neck other than rhabdomyosarcoma that may exhibit rhabdomyoblastic differentiation, with an emphasis on strategies to resolve the diagnostic dilemmas these tumors may present. Axiomatically, no primary central nervous system tumors will be discussed.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

    Epithelial Tumours

    No full text

    Melanocytic Lesions with Special Reference to Malignant Melanoma

    No full text

    Tumours of the Neuroendocrine System and the Peripheral Nervous System

    No full text

    Exploring the interpersonal-, organization-, and system-level factors that influence the implementation and use of an innovation-synoptic reporting-in cancer care

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The dominant method of reporting findings from diagnostic and surgical procedures is the narrative report. In cancer care, this report inconsistently provides the information required to understand the cancer and make informed patient care decisions. Another method of reporting, the synoptic report, captures specific data items in a structured manner and contains only items critical for patient care. Research demonstrates that synoptic reports vastly improve the quality of reporting. However, synoptic reporting represents a complex innovation in cancer care, with implementation and use requiring fundamental shifts in physician behaviour and practice, and support from the organization and larger system. The objective of this study is to examine the key interpersonal, organizational, and system-level factors that influence the implementation and use of synoptic reporting in cancer care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study involves three initiatives in Nova Scotia, Canada, that have implemented synoptic reporting within their departments/programs. Case study methodology will be used to study these initiatives (the cases) in-depth, explore which factors were barriers or facilitators of implementation and use, examine relationships amongst factors, and uncover which factors appear to be similar and distinct across cases. The cases were selected as they converge and differ with respect to factors that are likely to influence the implementation and use of an innovation in practice. Data will be collected through in-depth interviews, document analysis, observation of training sessions, and examination/use of the synoptic reporting tools. An audit will be performed to determine/quantify use. Analysis will involve production of a case record/history for each case, in-depth analysis of each case, and cross-case analysis, where findings will be compared and contrasted across cases to develop theoretically informed, generalisable knowledge that can be applied to other settings/contexts. Ethical approval was granted for this study.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study will contribute to our knowledge base on the multi-level factors, and the relationships amongst factors in specific contexts, that influence implementation and use of innovations such as synoptic reporting in healthcare. Such knowledge is critical to improving our understanding of implementation processes in clinical settings, and to helping researchers, clinicians, and managers/administrators develop and implement ways to more effectively integrate innovations into routine clinical care.</p

    Mapping the limits of safety reporting systems in health care - what lessons can we actually learn?

    No full text
    OBJECTIVES: To assess the utility of Australian health care incident reporting systems anddetermine the depth of information available within a typical system. DESIGN AND SETTING: Incidents relating to patient misidentification occurring between 2004 and 2008 were selected from a sample extracted from a number of Australian health services’ incident reporting systems using a manual search function. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incident type, aetiology (error type) and recovery (errordetection mechanism). Analyses were performed to determine category saturation. RESULTS: All 487 selected incidents could be classified according to incident type. The most prevalent incident type was medication being administered to the wrong patient (25.7%, 125), followed by incidents where a procedure was performed on the wrong patient (15.2%, 74) and incidents where an order for pathology or medical imaging was mislabelled (7.0%, 34). Category saturation was achieved quickly, with about half the total number of incident types identified in the first 13.5% of the incidents. All 43 incident types were classified within 76.2% of the dataset. Fifty-two incident reports (10.7%) included sufficient information to classify specific incident aetiology, and 288 reports (59.1%) had sufficient detailed information to classify a specific incident recovery mechanism. CONCLUSIONS: Incident reporting systems enable the classification of the surface features of an incident and identify common incident types. However, current systems provide little useful information on the underlying aetiology or incident recovery functions. Our study highlights several limitations of incident reporting systems, and provides guidance for improving the use of such systems in quality and safety improvement.Matthew J.W. Thomas, Timothy J. Schultz, Natalie Hannaford and William B. Runcimanhttps://www.mja.com.au/journal/2011/194/12/mapping-limits-safety-reporting-systems-health-care-what-lessons-can-we-actuall

    A critical review of the research literature on Six Sigma, Lean and StuderGroup's Hardwiring Excellence in the United States: the need to demonstrate and communicate the effectiveness of transformation strategies in healthcare

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>U.S. healthcare organizations are confronted with numerous and varied transformational strategies promising improvements along all dimensions of quality and performance. This article examines the peer-reviewed literature from the U.S. for evidence of effectiveness among three current popular transformational strategies: Six Sigma, Lean/Toyota Production System, and Studer's Hardwiring Excellence.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The English language health, healthcare management, and organizational science literature (up to December 2007) indexed in Medline, Web of Science, ABI/Inform, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and ERIC was reviewed for studies on the aforementioned transformation strategies in healthcare settings. Articles were included if they: appeared in a peer-reviewed journal; described a specific intervention; were not classified as a pilot study; provided quantitative data; and were not review articles. Nine references on Six Sigma, nine on Lean/Toyota Production System, and one on StuderGroup meet the study's eligibility criteria.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The reviewed studies universally concluded the implementations of these transformation strategies were successful in improving a variety of healthcare related processes and outcomes. Additionally, the existing literature reflects a wide application of these transformation strategies in terms of both settings and problems. However, despite these positive features, the vast majority had methodological limitations that might undermine the validity of the results. Common features included: weak study designs, inappropriate analyses, and failures to rule out alternative hypotheses. Furthermore, frequently absent was any attention to changes in organizational culture or substantial evidence of lasting effects from these efforts.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Despite the current popularity of these strategies, few studies meet the inclusion criteria for this review. Furthermore, each could have been improved substantially in order to ensure the validity of the conclusions, demonstrate sustainability, investigate changes in organizational culture, or even how one strategy interfaced with other concurrent and subsequent transformation efforts. While informative results can be gleaned from less rigorous studies, improved design and analysis can more effectively guide healthcare leaders who are motivated to transform their organizations and convince others of the need to employ such strategies. Demanding more exacting evaluation of projects consultants, or partnerships with health management researchers in academic settings, can support such efforts.</p
    • …
    corecore