Association of Multimodal Pain Control with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Children Undergoing Surgery

IntroductionOur aim was to describe practices in multimodal pain management at US children's hospitals and evaluate the association between non-opioid pain management strategies and pediatric patient-reported outcomes (PROs).MethodsData were collected as part of the 18-hospital ENhanced Recovery In CHildren Undergoing Surgery (ENRICH-US) clinical trial. Non-opioid pain management strategies included use of preoperative and postoperative non-opioid analgesics, regional anesthetic blocks, and a biobehavioral intervention. PROs included perioperative nervousness, pain-related functional disability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Associations were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression models.ResultsAmong 186 patients, 62 (33%) received preoperative analgesics, 186 (100%) postoperative analgesics, 81 (44%) regional anesthetic block, and 135 (73%) used a biobehavioral intervention. Patients were less likely to report worsened as compared to stable nervousness following regional anesthetic block (relative risk ratio [RRR]:0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.11–0.85), use of a biobehavioral technique (RRR:0.26, 95% CI:0.10–0.70), and both in combination (RRR:0.08, 95% CI:0.02–0.34). There were no associations of non-opioid pain control modalities with pain-related functional disability or HRQoL.ConclusionUse of postoperative non-opioid analgesics have been largely adopted, while preoperative non-opioid analgesics and regional anesthetic blocks are used less frequently. Regional anesthetic blocks and biobehavioral interventions may mitigate postoperative nervousness in children.Level of evidenceIII.     

The Optimal Primary Treatment for Pediatric Perianal Abscess and Anal Fistula: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundPerianal abscesses and anal fistulas are common. The principle of intention-to-treat has not been considered in previous systemic reviews. Thus, the comparison between primary and post-recurrence management was confused, and the recommendation of primary treatment is obscure. The current study aims to identify the optimal initial treatment for pediatric patients.MethodsUsing PRISMA guidelines, studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar without any language or study design restriction. The inclusion criteria include original articles or articles with original data, studies of management for a perianal abscess with or without anal fistula, and patient age of <18 years. Patients with local malignancy, Crohn's disease, or other underlying predisposing conditions were excluded. Studies without analyzing recurrence, case series of <5, and irrelevant articles were excluded in the screening stage. Of the 124 screened articles, 14 articles had no full texts or detailed information. Articles written in a language other than English or Mandarin were translated by Google Translation first and confirmed with native speakers. After the eligibility process, studies that compared identified primary managements were then included in the qualitative synthesis.ResultsThirty-one studies involving 2507 pediatric patients met the inclusion criteria. The study design consisted of two prospective case series of 47 patients and retrospective cohort studies. No randomized control trials were identified. Meta-analyses for recurrence after initial management were performed with a random-effects model. Conservative treatment and drainage revealed no difference (Odds ratio [OR], 1.222; 95% Confidential interval [CI]: 0.615–2.427, p = 0.567). Conservative management had a higher risk of recurrence than surgery without statistical significance (OR 0.278, 95% CI: 0.109–0.707, p = 0.007). Compared with incision/drainage, surgery can prevent recurrence remarkably (OR 4.360, 95% CI: 1.761–10.792, p = 0.001). Subgroup analysis of different approaches within conservative treatment and operation was not performed for lacking information.ConclusionStrong recommendations cannot be made due to the lack of prospective or randomized controlled studies. However, the current study based on real primary management supports initial surgical intervention for pediatric patients with perianal abscesses and anal fistula to prevent recurrence.Level of evidenceType of study: Systemic review; Evidence level: Level II.     

连续性血液净化治疗患儿静脉留置导管感染风险预测体系的构建及应用

目的:探讨连续性血液净化治疗患儿静脉留置导管感染风险因素,据此构建风险预测体系,并检验其实际应用效果,以期为临床预防护理提供依据。方法:选取医院2018年4月—2020年4月收治的400例连续性血液净化治疗患儿,按两组基础资料具有匹配性原则将其分为构建组300例、验证组100例,统计构建组中静脉留置导管感染患儿例数,通过单因素分析、多因素Logistic回归分析筛选静脉留置导管感染的独立危险因素,据此构建风险预测体系,并检验其在验证组中的应用效果。结果:经统计得到,构建组中静脉留置导管感染患儿共66例,感染发生率为22.00%;单因素分析得到,连续性血液净化治疗患儿静脉留置导管感染风险因素有穿刺部位、导管留置时间、插管次数、血流速度、血红蛋白、遵医依从性、抗生素使用时间、操作人员手卫生(P<0.05);多因素Logistic回归分析得到,连续性血液净化治疗患儿静脉留置导管感染独立风险因素有股静脉置管、导管留置时间>7 d、血流速度>180 mL/min、血红蛋白<100 g/L、遵医依从性差、抗生素使用时间>7 d(P<0.05);构建得到连续性血液净化治疗患儿静脉留置导管感染风险预测体系为P=1/[1+e^(-(-1.935+1.635×股静脉置管+1.740×导管留置时间>7 d+1.725×血流速度>180 mL/min+2.241×血红蛋白<100 g/L+2.089×遵医依从性差+1.331×抗生素使用时间>7 d))],ROC曲线分析显示,曲线下面积AUC=0.881,灵敏度为86.67%,特异性为97.14%,准确率为94.00%。结论:连续性血液净化治疗患儿静脉留置导管感染风险大,且风险因素复杂,研究构建的静脉留置导管感染风险预测体系灵敏度高、特异性强,评估准确率高。     

The National Home-Based Primary Care Learning Network: A Practice-Based Quality Improvement and Research Network

Home-based primary care (HBPC) provides interdisciplinary, comprehensive care at home for homebound older adults and has been largely excluded from the national conversation on care quality and quality improvement. In this Pragmatic Innovations article, we describe the work of the National HBPC Learning Network (LN), which focuses on fostering a continuous learning culture among HBPC practices to improve practice quality, elevate the field of HBPC, and create a community of continuous growth and quality of care accountability. The LN recruits HBPC practices in waves of 9 to 10 practices. It currently comprises 38 HBPC practices that care for 58,000 patients across 25 states (approximately 26% of all patients receiving HBPC in the United States). In a Kickoff meeting, the HBPC practices in each wave are instructed in the basics of quality improvement, develop project aim statements and their first plan-do-study-act cycle, receive an introduction to the LN quality improvement software platform, and review plans for LN engagement. Each month, practices submit updates and receive real-time feedback on their quality improvement work. Monthly virtual workshops are held with all practices that include sharing results of a “1-minute survey” (a monthly 1-to 3-question survey sent to all LN participants on a topic relevant to HBPC practices), a didactic and discussion related to the 1-minute survey topic, and interactive progress updates from LN participants regarding their quality improvement work. Each wave ends with “Moving-up Day,” where practices report on their overall project and reflect on how their practice has changed as a result of the LN. LN practices have addressed and improved performance in multiple HBPC-related quality areas including assessment of functional status and cognitive impairment, falls prevention, advanced care planning, COVID-19 vaccination, and others. We present case studies of 3 LN practices and how LN participation strengthened their practices.     

地方医学院校课程质量监控体系的构建探索

基于国家深化高等院校课程建设的新时代视域，提升课程质量成为高校教育教学发展的重要任务。地方医学院校作为基层卫生人才的培养摇篮，构建科学合理的课程质量监控体系愈发迫切。本文分析了我国高等院校课程质量监控体系存在的问题，结合地方医学院校办学特点和广州医科大学工作实践，探索构建了集“多样化监控方法、全维度监控指标、闭环式反馈机制、多层级文化建设”为一体的课程质量监控体系，为同类院校提供实际参考。     

European consensus on patient contact shielding

Patient contact shielding has been in use for many years in radiology departments in order to reduce the effects and risks of ionising radiation on certain organs. New technologies in projection imaging and CT scanning such as digital receptors and automatic exposure control (AEC) systems have reduced doses and improved image consistency. These changes and a greater understanding of both the benefits and the risks from the use of shielding have led to a review of shielding use in radiology. A number of professional bodies have already issued guidance in this regard. This paper represents the current consensus view of the main bodies involved in radiation safety and imaging in Europe: European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics, European Federation of Radiographer Societies, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Paediatric Radiology, EuroSafe Imaging, European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), and European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). It is based on the expert recommendations of the Gonad and Patient Shielding (GAPS) Group formed with the purpose of developing consensus in this area. The recommendations are intended to be clear and easy to use. They are intended as guidance, and they are developed using a multidisciplinary team approach. It is recognised that regulations, custom and practice vary widely on the use of patient shielding in Europe and it is hoped that these recommendations will inform a change management program that will benefit patients and staff.