The expectations and realities of nutrigenomic testing in australia: A qualitative study

BackgroundConsumer genomic testing for nutrition and wellness, (nutritional genomics), is becoming increasingly popular. Concurrently, health‐care practitioners (HPs) working in private practice (including doctors interested in integrative medicine, private genetic counsellors, pharmacists, dieticians, naturopaths and nutritionists) are involved as test facilitators or interpreters.ObjectiveTo explore Australian consumers’ and HPs’ experiences with nutrigenomic testing.MethodSemi‐structured in‐depth interviews were conducted using predominantly purposive sampling. The two data sets were analysed individually, then combined, using a constant comparative, thematic approach.ResultsOverall, 45 interviews were conducted with consumers (n = 18) and HPs (n = 27). Many of the consumer interviewees experienced chronic ill‐health. Nutrigenomic testing was perceived as empowering and a source of hope for answers. While most made changes to their diet/supplements post‐test, self‐reported health improvements were small. A positive relationship with their HP appeared to minimize disappointment. HPs’ adoption and views of nutrigenomic testing varied. Those enthusiastic about testing saw the possibilities it could offer. However, many felt nutrigenomic testing was not the only ‘tool’ to utilize when offering health care.DiscussionThis research highlights the important role HPs play in consumers’ experiences of nutrigenomics. The varied practice suggests relevant HPs require upskilling in this area to at least support their patients/clients, even if nutrigenomic testing is not part of their practice.Patient or public contributionAdvisory group included patient/public group representatives who informed study design; focus group participants gave feedback on the survey from which consumer interviewees were sourced. This informed the HP data set design. Interviewees from HP data set assisted with snowball sampling.     

Comparing Post-Acute Populations and Care in Veterans Affairs and Community Nursing Homes

ObjectiveThe quality of care provided by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is increasingly being compared to community providers. The objective of this study was to compare the VA Community Living Centers (CLCs) to nursing homes in the community (NHs) in terms of characteristics of their post-acute populations and performance on 3 claims-based (“short-stay”) quality measures.DesignObservational, cross-sectional.Setting and ParticipantsCLC and NH residents admitted from hospitals during July 2015–June 2016.MethodsCLC residents were compared with 3 NH populations: males, Veterans, and all NH residents. CLC and NH performance was compared on risk-adjusted claims-based measures: unplanned rehospitalizations and emergency department visits within 30 days of CLC or NH admission and successful discharge to the community within 100 days of NH admission.ResultsVeterans admitted from hospitals to CLCs (n = 23,839 Veterans/135 CLCs) were less physically impaired, less likely to have anxiety, congestive heart failure, hypertension, and dementia than Veterans (n = 241,177/14,818 NHs), males (n = 661,872/15,280 NHs), and all residents (n = 1,674,578/15,395 NHs) admitted to NHs from hospitals. Emergency department and successful discharge risk-adjusted rates of CLCs were statistically significantly better than those of NHs [mean (standard deviation): 8.3% (4.6%) and 67.7% (11.5%) in CLCs vs 11.9% (5.3%) and 57.0% (10.5%) in NHs, respectively]. CLCs had slightly worse rehospitalization rates [22.5% (6.2%) in CLCs vs 21.1% (5.9%) in NHs], but lower combined emergency department and rehospitalization rates [30.8% (0.8%) in CLCs vs 33.0% (0.7%) in NHs].Conclusions and ImplicationsCLCs and NHs serve different post-acute care populations. Using the same risk-adjusted NH quality metrics, CLCs provided better post-acute care than community NHs.     

基于变异系数评价重症医学科DRG分组效能研究

目的评价重症医学科DRG分组的效能,发现存在的问题,为DRG付费或绩效考核提供建议。方法采用DRG分组器获得样本医院2016―2019年出院患者的分组结果。在2555名重症医学科出院患者中选取病例数排名前5位的DRG组作为DRG研究组。在351148名全院出院患者中筛选出DRG研究组的所有病例。对入组同一个DRG组的患者,根据其所属的出院科室分为全院组(包括重症医学科和非重症医学科出院患者)和重症医学科组(仅包括重症医学科出院患者)。通过计算住院费用的变异系数评价全院组和重症医学科组的组内同质性。结果在同一个DRG组中,重症医学科出院患者组住院费用的变异系数低于全院出院患者组,即对于同一个DRG分组病种,重症医学科出院患者单独评价时组内住院费用的同质性更高。结论应用DRG付费或绩效考核时,针对重症医学科出院的患者应考虑细化DRG分组或调整分组权重,以便形成更加科学合理的疾病分组。     

中国丙型病毒性肝炎医院感染防控指南(2021年版)

 丙型病毒性肝炎是严重威胁人民健康的公共卫生问题。目前尚无预防丙型肝炎病毒（HCV）的疫苗,但直接抗病毒药物联合治疗可以治愈95%以上的慢性丙型病毒性肝炎。加强HCV感染者的筛查,针对确诊HCV感染者尽早进行有效的治疗,是消除传染源,阻断HCV传播的有效措施。本指南在2012年版《中国丙型病毒性肝炎医院感染防控指南》基础上进行修订和更新,主要内容包括丙型病毒性肝炎流行病学及医院感染现状,HCV感染的实验室检测方法与临床意义,以及医院感染防控措施等,为预防和控制丙型病毒性肝炎医院感染提供帮助。     

北京市乳腺癌根治术后手术部位感染危险因素:一项多中心前瞻性监测结果

 目的 调查北京地区乳腺癌根治手术后手术部位感染（SSI）发病率及其危险因素。方法 通过北京医院感染监控管理系统,对全市83所二级及以上医疗机构进行乳腺癌根治/改良根治术前瞻性监测,应用SPSS 20.0软件对SSI情况进行描述分析及logistic回归分析。结果 共纳入2012—2017年监测数据库中8 248例病例,发生SSI 62例,发病率为0.75%。糖尿病、手术后入住过ICU、手术时长和ASA评分是乳腺癌根治/改良根治术患者SSI的危险因素。糖尿病患者相较于非糖尿病患者SSI的风险增加（OR=2.99,95%CI：1.33~6.73）;术后入住过ICU的患者发生SSI的风险是未入住过ICU的5.72倍（OR=5.72,95%CI：1.68~19.45）;手术时间每增加1 h,术后感染的风险增加27%（OR=1.27,95%CI：1.11~1.46）;ASA评分每高一个级别,SSI的风险将增加54%（OR=1.54,95%CI：1.01~2.35）。结论 多中心大样本的目标监测提示2012—2017年北京地区乳腺癌手术后SSI发病率较低。糖尿病、入住过ICU、手术时间和ASA评分应作为预判SSI的重要因素,在综合考虑影响患者SSI的因素后制定个性化预防策略。     

血液透析机超滤控制装置临床使用故障特点调研分析

目的:调研血液透析机内部超滤控制装置故障发生情况及特点,分析原因规范其维护保养。方法:对上海市82家血液净化中心(室)的3 664台透析设备超滤故障进行调研,分析故障发生特点,找出超滤故障和超滤偏差发生原因。从执行透析设备自检程序、制定透析设备维护管理制度、掌握超滤控制装置结构部件误差和其他人为因素4个方面制定血液透析机超滤故障解决方案。结果:在82家血液净化中心(室)的3664台透析机中,超滤故障1 692台(次),其中使用年限>5年的"平衡腔+超滤泵"类故障率最高,占比31.21%。血液透析机临床使用管理制度缺失、透析机日常消毒疏忽和专职透析临床工程师配置不足是超滤故障和超滤偏差发生的主要原因。结论:血液净化中心(室)应定期进行透析设备超滤控制装置的维护检查,规范血液透析机使用管理,严格细致的维护保养,配备专职透析临床工程师,保障血液透析机超滤控制装置日常运作的精准性和稳定性,确保透析患者获得最佳透析效果。     

病案首页与编码质量对病种付费的影响

目的探究病案首页与编码质量对病种付费产生的影响。方法2019年1—12月纳入研究的1056例病案首页均为该院产科、颅脑外科、普通外科、肿瘤科及心外科5个科室所收纳,依照回顾性分析方式进行平均分组,病案首页均经针对性措施解决病案首页问题,并经校对手段质控编码确认无误(试验组,n=528),重新编码前病案首页(对照组,n=528),分析两组数据差异及变化情况。结果试验组的病种付费质量包括医院数据统计分数、病案信息利用分数、疾病分组准确分数及医院经济效益分数评估均显著高于对照组,试验组中出现病案内容与病案首页不符、遗漏诊断、不完整诊断和不正确诊断的病案不良事件发生概率显著低于对照组,试验组发生漏填、错填的缺陷问题发生率显著低于对照组,组间数据差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论分析病案首页质量,对影响病案首页的因素进行分析,进行针对性的改进,有利于提升病案质量,降低病案与编码质量对病种付费产生的不良影响。     

ATP生物荧光检测在气管镜清洗消毒质量监测中的应用研究

目的探讨三磷酸腺苷(ATP)生物荧光检测对气管镜清洗消毒合格参考值范围和检测方法。方法选取360条患者使用后的气管镜随机分为A、B、C三组,每组120条。A组床旁预处理后分为A1、A2两组(每组60条气管镜),B组气管镜在人工清洗后分为B1、B2两组,C组气管镜在高水平消毒后分为C1、C2两组,A1、B1、C1组采用细菌采样,A2、B2、C2组进行ATP生物荧光采样。两种采样方法对气管镜表面采样为全部长度涂抹采样,管腔的采样方法均为冲刷法。同时选取临床使用后的60条气管镜经过人工清洗后,对管腔运用冲洗法,对冲洗液进行ATP生物荧光检测,比较冲洗法和冲刷法对管腔采样的有效性。结果气管镜在人工清洗后,对管腔采样的冲洗法和冲刷法,两组ATP总量的相对发光值(RLU)差异有统计学意义(P=0.040)。气管镜在A1、B1组的细菌采样中,管腔和表面菌落数差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.001),高水平消毒后表面和管腔菌落数均为0;气管镜在A2、B2、C2三组的ATP生物荧光检测采样中,表面ATP总量RLU值A2与B2组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.001),B2与C2组间比较差异有统计学意义(P=0.040);管腔ATP总量RLU值A2与B2组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.001),B2、C2两组差异无统计学意义(P=0.450)。结论 ATP生物荧光采样冲刷法对气管镜管腔采样更有效;人工清洗环节非常重要,人工清洗后气管镜表面和管腔ATP总量建议低于10 000和3 400。     

精神病专科医院经济运行调查和建议

精神卫生专业机构既是我国精神卫生服务体系的重要组成部分,也是精神卫生防治工作的主体。精神障碍发病率逐年增加,已经成为严重威胁我国居民健康的一类疾病。在新冠疫情防控期间,精神病专科医院在维持社会稳定方面起到的作用不可或缺。与综合医院和其他专科医院相比,精神病专科医院无论是在运营成本还是运营能力上都有所欠缺。研究揭示了精神病专科医院运行存在的一系列问题,建议社会和政府在要求精神病专科医院"公益"服务的同时,应切实了解精神病专科医院的运行现状并给予足够的支持。     

值班和交接班制度问题分析与改进建议

值班和交接班制度是诊疗过程连续性的重要保障。若落实不到位,可能发生患者伤害的不良后果。采用案例分析结合问卷调查方式,阐述值班和交接班制度存在问题,包括值班人员不在岗,值班人员资质不符,医院总值班能力不足,交接班记录不完整等。提出针对性改进建议:加强医务人员依法执业培训;严格管理值班医师资质;健全医疗值班体系;规范记录交接班内容等。