scholarly journals The Benefits of Colorectal Surgery Surveys in Australia and New Zealand

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-111
Author(s):  
Auerilius Erastus Ricardo Hamilton ◽  
Amelia Alice Lin ◽  
Christopher John Young
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Preoperative Assessment ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Anal Physiology ◽  
Delivery Method ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Time Required ◽  
Mean Time

Purpose: Pertaining to the Colorectal Surgery Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ) Executive and Research Support Committee, this study aimed to assess the usefulness and outcomes of surveys sent out by the society to its members.Methods: From 2009 to 2017, CSSANZ members received 38 surveys, most of which were distributed from within the society, and a few of which originated from other affiliated groups. Surveys were categorised by type, topics, times required for completion, delivery method, response rates, and advancement to publication.Results: Of 38 surveys, 20 (53%) were published and 18 remain unpublished. Four surveys were distributed annually on average, with 2.2 published annually on average, with a mean impact factor of 2.41 ± 1.55. Mean time to publication was 31 ± 17 months. Surveys contributed to 13 publications (34%). The most common survey topics were rectal cancer decisionmaking, in 6 publications (16%), preoperative assessment of colorectal patients, in 5 publications (13%), and anal physiology: continence and defaecation, in 4 publications (11%). Publication of surveys was not related to the number of surveys distributed per year, the number of questions per survey, or the time required by respondents to complete the surveys.Conclusion: Most of the CSSANZ-distributed surveys resulted in publications, and one third of the surveys contributed to higher degrees obtained by investigators. These surveys aid research into areas that are otherwise difficult to assess, often indicating areas for future research.

Voice Banking to Support People Who Use Speech-Generating Devices: New Zealand Voice Donors' Perspectives

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 593-600
Author(s):  
Michelle Westley ◽  
Dean Sutherland ◽  
H. Timothy Bunnell
Keyword(s):  
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Technical Aspects ◽  
Communication Devices ◽  
Time Required ◽  
The Voice ◽  
Lateral Sclerosis

Purpose Voice banking is the process of recording an individual's speech to create a personalized synthetic voice to use on speech-generating augmentative and alternative communication devices. This study set out to examine the experience of healthy voice donors during the ModelTalker voice banking process and to identify specific issues related to voice banking in the New Zealand context. Method Eight healthy adults and 2 children completed the ModelTalker voice banking protocol. All participants completed a questionnaire about their voice banking experience, including the length of time required as well as the ease and the technical aspects of the process. Results The median time taken to complete the voice banking process was 5 hr 30 min (range: 3 hr 10 min to 11 hr). Questionnaire responses included themes related to the voice banking process, such as increased awareness of voice banking and its benefits, positive features and challenges of the ModelTalker process, and potential adaptations for the New Zealand context. Conclusions The findings support the use of ModelTalker with New Zealand speakers and inform development of voice banking protocols. The voices created as part of this study are available for people using speech-generating devices who want to use New Zealand–accented voices. Future research is needed to investigate the voice banking experiences of clinical populations, such as people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Does Recent Academic Research Support Changes to Audit Reporting Standards?

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Bédard ◽  
Paul Coram ◽  
Reza Espahbodi ◽  
Theodore J. Mock
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Support ◽  
The Public ◽  
Market Participants ◽  
Information Gap ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Reporting Process

SYNOPSIS The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), and the U.K. Financial Reporting Council (FRC) have proposed or approved standards that significantly change the independent auditor's report. These initiatives require the auditor to make additional disclosures intended to close the information gap; that is, the gap between the information users desire and the information available through the audited financial statements, other corporate disclosures, and the auditor's report. They are also intended to improve the relevancy of the auditor's report. We augment prior academic research by providing standard setters with an updated synthesis of relevant research. More importantly, we provide an assessment of whether the changes are likely to close the information gap, which is important to financial market participants and other stakeholders in the audit reporting process. Also, we identify areas where there seems to be a lack of sufficient research. These results are of interest to all stakeholders in the audit reporting process, as the changes to the auditor's report are fundamental. Additionally, our summaries of research on the auditor's report highlight where there is limited research or inconsistent results, which will help academics identify important opportunities for future research.

scholarly journals THU0528 NAILFOLD VIDEOCAPILLAROSCOPY REPORTING IN CLINICAL RESEARCH: INTERNATIONAL DELPHI BASED CONSENSUS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 503.1-504
Author(s):  
F. Ingegnoli ◽  
T. Schioppo ◽  
A. Herrick ◽  
A. Sulli ◽  
F. Bartoli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Rheumatic Diseases ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Research Support ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Research Studies

Background:Nailfold capillaroscopy (NVC), a non-invasive technique to assess microcirculation, is increasingly being incorporated into rheumatology routine clinical practice. Currently, the degree of description of NVC methods varies amongst research studies, making interpretation and comparison between studies challenging. In this field, an unmet need is the standardization of items to be reported in research studies using NVC.Objectives:To perform a Delphi consensus on minimum reporting standards in methodology for clinical research, based on the items derived from a systematic review focused on this topic.Methods:The systematic review of the literature on NVC methodology relating to rheumatic diseases was performed according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42018104660) to July 22nd2018 using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus. Then, a three-step web-based Delphi consensus was performed in between members of the EULAR study group on microcirculation in rheumatic diseases and the Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium. Participants were asked to rate each item from 1 (not appropriate) to 9 (completely appropriate).Results:In total, 3491 references were retrieved in the initial search strategy, 2862 were excluded as duplicates or after title/abstract screening. 632 articles were retrieved for full paper review of which 319 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Regarding patient preparation before the exam, data were scarce: 38% reported acclimatization, 5% to avoid caffeine and smoking, 3% to wash hands and 2% to avoid manicure. Concerning the device description: 90% reported type of instrument, 77% brand/model, 72% magnification, 46% oil use, 40% room temperature and 35% software for image analysis. As regards to examination details: 76% which fingers examined, 75% number of fingers examined, 15% operator experience, 13% reason for finger exclusion, 9% number of images, 8% quality check of the images and 3% time spent for the exam. Then, a three-round Delphi consensus on the selected items was completed by 80 participants internationally, from 31 countries located in Australia, Asia, Europe, North and South America. Some items reached the agreement at the second round (85 participants), and other items were suggested as important to consider in a future research agenda (e.g. temperature for acclimatization, the impact of smoking, allergies at the application of the oil to the nailbed, significance of pericapillary edema, methods of reporting hemorrhages, ramified and giant capillaries). The final agreement results are reported below:Conclusion:On the basis of the available literature the description of NVC methods was highly heterogeneous and individual published studies differed markedly. These practical suggestions developed using a Delphi process among international participants provide a guidance to improve and to standardize the NVC methodology in future clinical research studies.Disclosure of Interests:Francesca Ingegnoli: None declared, Tommaso Schioppo: None declared, Ariane Herrick: None declared, Alberto Sulli Grant/research support from: Laboratori Baldacci, Francesca Bartoli: None declared, Nicola Ughi: None declared, John Pauling: None declared, Maurizio Cutolo Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Actelion, Celgene, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Speakers bureau: Sigma-Alpha, Vanessa Smith Grant/research support from: The affiliated company received grants from Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO), Belgian Fund for Scientific Research in Rheumatic diseases (FWRO), Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co and Janssen-Cilag NV, Consultant of: Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co, Speakers bureau: Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co and UCB Biopharma Sprl

scholarly journals “What Would You Do?”: How Cat Owners Make End-of-Life Decisions and Implications for Veterinary-Client Interactions

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 1114
Author(s):  
Katherine Littlewood ◽  
Ngaio Beausoleil ◽  
Kevin Stafford ◽  
Christine Stephens
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Companion Animals ◽  
Chronically Ill ◽  
Future Research ◽  
End Of Life Decisions ◽  
Life Decisions ◽  
End Of Life Decision ◽  
Life Decision

Cats are the most common companion animals in New Zealand. Advances in veterinary care means that cats are living longer and there are many older cats. End-of-life decisions about cats are complicated by owner–cat relationships and other psychosocial factors. Our study explored the ways in which end-of-life decisions were being made by owners of older and chronically ill cats in New Zealand and the role of their veterinarian in the process. Qualitative data were gathered via retrospective semi-structured interviews with 14 cat owners using open-ended questions. Transcripts of these interviews were explored for themes using template analysis and nine themes were identified. Four were animal-centered themes: cat behavior change, pain was a bad sign, signs of ageing are not good, and the benefits of having other people see what owners often could not. Five were human-centered themes: veterinarians understanding owners’ relationships with their cat, normalizing death, the need for a good veterinarian to manage end of life, veterinary validation that owners were doing the right thing, and a strong desire to predict the time course and outcome for their cat. End-of-life decision making is complex, and the veterinarian’s role is often poorly defined. Our owners appreciated the expertise and validation that their veterinarian provided but continuity of care was important. Future research aimed at exploring the veterinarian’s perspective during end-of-life decision making for cats would be a valuable addition to the topic.

scholarly journals 273. Comparative Effectiveness of Ampicillin in the Treatment of Enterococcus faecalis Bloodstream Infections in Patients With Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S137-S138
Author(s):  
J P Sanchez ◽  
German Contreras ◽  
Truc T Tran ◽  
Shelby Simar ◽  
Blake Hanson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Study ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Study Investigator

Abstract Background E. faecalis (Efc) isolates are usually susceptible to ampicillin (AMP). AMP-based regimens are the standard of care for enterococcal infections, although other antibiotics are often used as definitive treatment. We thus compared outcomes of patients with cancer and Efc bacteremia treated with AMP-containing (ACR) and non-AMP-containing antibiotic regimens (NACR). Methods A multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study conducted at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Henry Ford Hospital, and Memorial Hermann Health System. Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old, diagnosed with cancer, and had at least one Efc bloodstream isolate collected from 12/2015 to 12/2018. Patients with polymicrobial infections were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: i) ACR and ii) NACR. ACR included patients who received AMP at any time during treatment; other antimicrobials were permitted. NACR patients did not receive AMP at any time. The primary outcome compared desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) between ACR and NACR at day 14. The DOOR consisted of six hierarchical levels: 1 - death; 2 - inpatient without microbiological cure (MC) and with acute kidney injury (AKI); 3 - inpatient without MC and without AKI; 4 - inpatient admitted with MC and with AKI; 5 - inpatient with MC and without AKI; 6 - alive and discharged. Comparison of DOORs between ACR and NACR was performed using inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) ordered logistic regression. Results Seventy-one patients were included (ACR, n = 35; NACR, n = 36). No difference was seen in DOORs at day 14 between ACR and NACR (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.45 – 2.92, p=0.78). No difference was observed for all-cause mortality at day 14 (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.09 – 3.77, p=0.58) or day 30 (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.09 – 1.94, p=0.27). Patients treated with ACR received a lower median duration of other antibiotics at any point during treatment compared to NACR: daptomycin (2 v 4 days) vancomycin (2 v 4 days), and linezolid (1 v 2 days). Conclusion Patients with cancer and Efc bloodstream infections had similar outcomes when treated with ACR and NACR. ACR were associated with less use of broad-spectrum antimicrobials. Future research should focus on the ecologic impact of use of NACR. Disclosures Marcus Zervos, MD, Melinta Therapeutics (Grant/Research Support) Cesar A. Arias, MD, MSc, PhD, FIDSA, Entasis Therapeutics (Scientific Research Study Investigator)MeMed (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Merck (Grant/Research Support)

scholarly journals Robotic colorectal surgery: more than a fantastic toy?

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
James W.T. Toh ◽  
Kevin Phan ◽  
Seon-Hahn Kim
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Da Vinci Surgical System ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Rectal Cancer Surgery ◽  
Cancer Trial ◽  
Robotic Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Laparoscopic Assisted

AbstractThere has been a rapid rise in the number of robotic colorectal procedures worldwide since the da Vinci Surgical System robotic technology was approved for surgical procedures in the year 2000. Several recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown a significant difference in outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, these results from pooled data have not been supported by the initial results reported from the Robotic assisted versus laparoscopic assisted resection for rectal cancer trial. In this article, we examine the current evidence for robotic colorectal surgery, assess its features and functionality, evaluate its learning curve and provide our perspective on its future.

FRI0138 THE IMPACT OF UPADACITINIB VERSUS METHOTREXATE OR ADALIMUMAB ON INDIVIDUAL AND COMPOSITE DISEASE MEASURES IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 651.1-652
Author(s):  
R. Van Vollenhoven ◽  
A. Ostor ◽  
E. Mysler ◽  
N. Damjanov ◽  
I. H. Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Selective Inhibitor ◽  
Response Criteria ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Composite Measures ◽  
Treatment Responses ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Mean Time

Background:In Phase 3 trials, upadacitinib (UPA), an oral JAK1-selective inhibitor, has been assessed as monotherapy vs MTX (SELECT-EARLY1) and in combination with MTX vs adalimumab + MTX (ADA; SELECT-COMPARE2) in RA pts who were MTX naïve or with inadequate responses to MTX (MTX-IR), respectively.Objectives:In this analysis we assessed individual and composite measures of disease activity in SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-COMPARE.Methods:In SELECT-EARLY, MTX-naïve pts received UPA 15 mg or 30 mg monotherapy once daily (QD), or MTX monotherapy, for 12 wks. In SELECT-COMPARE, MTX-IR pts on stable background MTX received UPA 15 mg QD, PBO, or ADA 40 mg every 2 wks for 12 wks. For this analysis, responses at Wk 12 were defined as ≥50% improvement in the 7 components of the ACR response criteria. Among ACR50 responders, the proportions of pts with ≥50% improvement in all 7 components of the ACR criteria was assessed. The proportion of pts achieving TJC68=0 and SJC66=0 was also determined. All analyses were based on observed data without imputation.Results:947 pts were randomized in SELECT-EARLY, and 1629 pts in SELECT-COMPARE. Mean time since RA diagnosis was 2.7 years in SELECT-EARLY (median 6 months) and 8.2 years in SELECT-COMPARE; mean DAS28(CRP) was 5.9 and 5.8, respectively. In SELECT-EARLY, significantly more MTX-naïve pts receiving UPA 15 mg or 30 mg monotherapy achieved ≥50% improvements in all ACR components at Wk 12 compared with MTX (Figure 1a,Figure 1b). In SELECT-COMPARE, significantly more MTX-IR pts on UPA 15 mg + MTX achieved ≥50% improvement in the ACR components vs PBO (all components) and ADA + MTX (all components except SJC and PhGA). Among pts with ACR50 responses at Wk 12, approximately half of the MTX-naïve pts on UPA 15 mg and 30 mg in SELECT-EARLY had ≥50% improvements in all 5 remaining ACR components (pain, PtGA, PhGA, HAQ-DI, hsCRP) compared with 28% with MTX. Corresponding proportions in MTX-IR pts in SELECT-COMPARE were 34% for UPA 15 mg + MTX, 28% for ADA + MTX, and 17% for PBO. UPA treatment also significantly increased the proportions of pts achieving both TJC68=0 and SJC66=0 vs PBO or MTX, and SJC66=0 vs ADA + MTX (Figure 1a,Figure 1b).Conclusion:In MTX-naïve and MTX-IR pts, treatment responses at 12 wks occurred in significantly higher proportions of pts receiving UPA monotherapy vs MTX and UPA + MTX vs PBO for all 7 components of the ACR response criteria, and for 5 of 7 ACR components for UPA + MTX vs ADA + MTX. Favorable outcomes with UPA treatment were evident both in composite and individual parameters.References:[1]van Vollenhoven R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70(Suppl. 10): Abstract 891[2]Fleischmann R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70(Suppl. 10): Abstract 890Disclosure of Interests:Ronald van Vollenhoven Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Arthrogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Andrew Ostor Consultant of: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Speakers bureau: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Eduardo Mysler Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi, and Pfizer., Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi, and Pfizer, Nemanja Damjanov Grant/research support from: from AbbVie, Pfizer, and Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Gedeon Richter, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Gedeon Richter, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, UCB

Clinic Time Required for Remote and In-person Management of Cardiac Device Patients: A Time and Motion Workflow Evaluation (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Lanctin ◽  
Eliana Biundo ◽  
Marco Di Bacco ◽  
Sarah Rosemas ◽  
Emmanuelle Nicolle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Management ◽  
Clinic Visit ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Staff Time ◽  
Cardiac Device ◽  
Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices ◽  
Time And Motion ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Time Requirements ◽  
Time Required

BACKGROUND The number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is growing, creating substantial workload for device clinics. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to characterize the workflow and quantify clinic staff time requirements to manage CIED patients. METHODS A time and motion workflow evaluation was performed in 11 US and European CIED clinics. Workflow tasks were repeatedly timed during one business week of observation at each clinic. Observations were inclusive of all device models/manufacturers present. Mean cumulative staff time required to review a Remote device transmission and for an In-person clinic visit were calculated, including all necessary clinical and administrative tasks. Annual staff time for follow-up of 1 CIED patient was modeled using CIED transmission volumes, clinical guidelines, and published literature. RESULTS A total of 276 in-person clinic visits and 2,173 remote monitoring activities were observed. Mean staff time required per remote transmission ranged from 9.4-13.5 minutes for therapeutic devices (pacemaker, ICD, CRT) and 11.3-12.9 mins for diagnostic devices (insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs)). Mean staff time per in-person visit ranged from 37.8-51.0 mins and 39.9-45.8 mins, for therapeutic devices and ICMs respectively. Including all remote and in-person follow-ups, the estimated annual time to manage one CIED patient ranged from 1.6-2.4 hours for therapeutic devices and 7.7-9.3 hours for ICMs. CONCLUSIONS CIED patient management workflow is complex and requires significant staff time. Understanding process steps and time requirements informs implementation of efficiency improvements, including remote solutions. Future research should examine the heterogeneity in patient management processes to identify the most efficient workflows.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document