Are we measuring what we need to measure?

Optimal treatment for patients with chronic pain remains elusive. A growing international consensus advocates evidence-based practice with assessment of clinical outcomes to improve the process and outcome of care. Clinical decision making about treatment options for an individual patient should include the patient's clinical presentation, available evidence, and patient preferences. Treatment should then be monitored and outcomes of treatment assessed. Although the placement of clinical decision making on a scientific, often quantitative basis as opposed to a subjective, impressionistic approach makes intuitive sense, the question is whether we have been measuring what we need to measure to practice evidence-based practice when we consider the current available evidence on pain management? The methods of synthesis of available evidence are still in development. Much of the evidence, although having internal validity, has limited external validity and is difficult to apply to the individual patient. Patients with chronic pain are a heterogeneous group, and different interventions may be indicated for different subgroups of patients. Various methods are being developed to better match patients with treatment. Little information exists on patient preferences, or how best to measure these. Information on how health care providers make clinical decisions is also scarce. Outcome measurement has come a long way and core domains to be measured have been established. Establishing normative data is a next main goal. Important methodologic and practical challenges remain to formulate evidence that can be applied to the individual patient with chronic pain.     

You know what we need?

I've listened to many of you moan about the current flat NIH budgets, lack of funding, and the frustration of being a scientist in the current depressed economy. Instead of complaining to only ourselves in the scientific community, we need to make ourselves heard by politicians and the public at large. We need a pundit.     

Was Feuerbach right: are we what we eat?

Food and stress are powerful modulators of the body-mind connection, which is imbalanced in obese individuals. Why do we choose chocolate over an apple when overworked and stressed, and why does comfort food make us feel better? Two independent studies in the JCI, one in this issue, home in on the role of stress on gut hormones and food choices and, conversely, on the effect of the intestinal system on modulation of brain activity by sadness. These studies broaden our understanding of the ties between food and mood and underscore promising targets for obesity treatments.     

Tight glycemic control: what do we really know,and what should we expect?

Tight glycemic control has engendered large numbers of investigations, with conflicting results. The world has largely embraced intensive insulin as a practice, but applies this therapy with great variability in the manner of glucose control and measurement. The present commentary reviews what we actually know with certainty from this vast sea of literature, and what we can expect looking forward.     

Nursing memoirs: why do we do what we do?

According to Black, Deeny and McKenna, "defining what nurses do, and why, has been the endeavour of many researchers" (1997). With the events of 9-11, many people have spent recent months reflecting on that which constitutes their focus, evoking memories from the past. In the aftermath of 9-11, nurses have likewise stopped to reconsider why we do what we do. The purpose of this article is to examine what nursing literature says about why nurses do what they do and share the findings in the context of my own story as a nurse.     

Endosurgery: what do we need?

A paradigm shift in therapeutic endoscopy occurred with the advent of mucosectomy for the treatment of mucosal neoplasms and suture plication for gastroesophageal reflux disease. The objectives changed from finding simple, easy, and quick alternatives to surgery to reproducing surgical results. A radical version of flexible endoscopy has emerged to meet new goals of full-thickness resections, creation of anastomoses, and lumen reconfiguration. This will require a new generation of endosurgical tools that cut, stitch, and staple with added dimensions of multiaxis orientation and triangulation.     

Error reporting in the emergency department: do we do what we say we do?

BACKGROUND:

The Joint Commission accreditation manual contains standards in improving organization performance related to report and review of patient care issues causing unexpected harm. In spite of regulations mandating reporting, it remains inconsistent, varying by provider type and hospital. Our purpose was to determine current attitudes, knowledge, and practice of error reporting among emergency department (ED) providers.

METHODS:

We administered a survey assessing ED staff practice regarding error reporting. Questions involved reporting of errors in which the practitioner was directly involved, errors the practitioner observed, and general awareness of reporting mandates. We also questioned individuals regarding fear of repercussions for reporting.

RESULTS:

Fifty-two surveys were returned. For most errors, providers were more likely to tell their supervisor about the issue than to tell the patient. Seventeen percent of respondents did not think that referring errors for review was their job. Only 31% of respondents were aware of standardized institution-wide pathways to report errors. Any respondent who was aware of the institution-wide pathway also felt responsibility for error reporting. Thirty-three percent of the respondents were concerned about negative repercussions from reporting errors. In querying the hospital reporting system, 263 cases were referred for quality issues over the previous year, 51% of them were referred by nurses, 27% by medical technicians (MTs), 2% by mid-level providers (MLPs), 1% by physicians, and 19% by other personnel.

CONCLUSION:

Although most of the ED staff are responsible for patient safety, most are not aware of systems available to assist in reporting, and even many do not utilize those systems.KEY WORDS: Error reporting, Quality assurance, Medical error     

Clinical supervision: what do we know and what do we need to know? A review and commentary

AIMS: This study is addressed to nurses but the issues are of equal concern to both midwives and health visitors. Clinical supervision ideally both challenges nurses as well as help their practice. There is need to identify critical elements that help professional practice and understand more clearly the changing nature of supervisory relationships. BACKGROUND: Clinical supervision in nursing is over a decade old in the UK and yet emerging nursing literature suggests that many ideas remain unfamiliar to nursing practice. The resistance shown by nurse towards clinical supervising remains perplexing. Moreover, ideas concerning clinical supervision have been applied without a substantive evidence base. METHODS: The discussion draws on varied ideas concerning supervision, including those outside of nursing, to ask what do we know and still need to know about clinical supervision. This study suggests that, a single approach to clinical supervision could be unhelpful to nursing. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: Nursing knowledge concerning many aspects of clinical supervision is increasing because of research. Much of the literature suggests that clinical supervision is scholarly activity requiring much the same attention to relationships as the therapeutic activities it supports. This discussion concludes with the idea that clinical supervision might work at its best as a quiet activity allowing nurses to think about nursing work in ways that suit individual learning styles.