Communicating evidence for participatory decision making

Context  Informed patients are more likely to actively participate in their care, make wiser decisions, come to a common understanding with their physicians, and adhere more fully to treatment; however, currently there are no evidence-based guidelines for discussing clinical evidence with patients in the process of making medical decisions. Objective  To identify ways to communicate evidence that improve patient understanding, involvement in decisions, and outcomes. Data Sources and Study Selection  Systematic review of MEDLINE for the period 1966-2003 and review of reference lists of retrieved articles to identify original research dealing with communication between clinicians and patients and directly addressing methods of presenting clinical evidence to patients. Data Extraction  Two investigators and a research assistant screened 367 abstracts and 2 investigators reviewed 51 full-text articles, yielding 8 potentially relevant articles. Data Synthesis  Methods for communicating clinical evidence to patients include nonquantitative general terms, numerical translation of clinical evidence, graphical representations, and decision aids. Focus-group data suggest presenting options and/or equipoise before asking patients about preferred decision-making roles or formats for presenting details. Relative risk reductions may be misleading; absolute risk is preferred. Order of information presented and time-frame of outcomes can bias patient understanding. Limited evidence supports use of human stick figure graphics or faces for single probabilities and vertical bar graphs for comparative information. Less-educated and older patients preferred proportions to percentages and did not appreciate confidence intervals. Studies of decision aids rarely addressed patient-physician communication directly. No studies addressed clinical outcomes of discussions of clinical evidence. Conclusions  There is a paucity of evidence to guide how physicians can most effectively share clinical evidence with patients facing decisions; however, basing our recommendations largely on related studies and expert opinion, we describe means of accomplishing 5 communication tasks to address in framing and communicating clinical evidence: understanding the patient's (and family members') experience and expectations; building partnership; providing evidence, including a balanced discussion of uncertainties; presenting recommendations informed by clinical judgment and patient preferences; and checking for understanding and agreement.      

Communicating with the dying

Telling a patient that the outcome of his illness is not good, or even hopeless, requires sensitivity and the ability to communicate with him in the setting of a hospital which is an unnatural environment divorced from family and friends. It is a task which must be taught and learned by doctors and nurses.     

肌皮神经的交通支及临床意义

目的:观测肌皮神经的走行及分支,为临床预防及修复肌皮神经损伤提供解剖学基础。方法:对12具成人防腐尸体双上肢进行解剖,观察并测量肌皮神经的起点、长度、分支及交通支。结果:肌皮神经主干长51.15±42.74mm,起始点左右径3.19±1.35mm,前后径1.93±1.21mm,喙突距肌皮神经起点距离为40.82±12.72mm,肌皮神经穿喙肱肌者占91.67%(22侧)。观察发现有4侧上肢存在肌皮神经至正中神经的交通支。结论:肌皮神经走行、起点和分支的变异均较大,同时存在交通支,临床应注意这些变异,以在外科手术中预防肌皮神经损伤及在修复过程中选择最佳术式。     

构建交流平台,培养创新型医学研究生

高素质研究生是学科建设和学校培养研究生的目的。通过培养研究生的人文知识、建立“π”型的知识结构、掌握计算机常用知识、提高英语水平，定期举办实验室会议，鼓励研究生向国际生物医学期刊投稿等措施，以达到培养创新型人才的目的。     

与脑瘫患儿家属的沟通技巧

目的探讨与脑瘫患儿家属的沟通技巧。方法对不同类型的家属采取不同的沟通方法。结果可得到家属的积极配合,缓解医患家属之间的矛盾,利于临床治疗的顺利进行。结论应积极与脑瘫患者家属进行沟通。     

双侧后交通动脉瘤显微手术治疗

目的 介绍8例双侧颈内动脉-后交通动脉瘤显微手术的经验,对其显微手术的方法、方式及手术时机等进行探讨. 方法 常规采用翼点及其改良入路,在显微镜直视下操作,行动脉瘤颈夹闭术,并尝试从一侧入路夹闭双侧后交通动脉瘤. 结果 本组8例均顺利夹闭瘤颈,其中7例行一期手术夹闭动脉瘤,术中动脉瘤均未破裂,无死亡. 结论 早期手术及一期夹闭双侧动脉瘤不仅可以降低等待手术期间再次出血的机率,还有利于动眼神经麻痹的恢复.术前判断动脉瘤的位置、大小和指向对于预防术中动脉瘤破裂和决定是否从一侧入路夹闭双侧动脉瘤是十分重要的.     

破裂前交通动脉瘤的血管内栓塞治疗

目的总结血管内栓塞治疗破裂前交通动脉瘤的经验体会，探讨其适应证、技术要点及并发症的防治。方法回顾性分析应用血管内栓塞治疗的56例破裂前交通动脉瘤患者的临床资料、栓塞过程以及疗效。结果56例中成功栓塞54例，其中45例100％栓塞，8例95％栓塞，1例90%栓塞。术中破裂1例，后顺利栓塞。5例出现严重血管痉挛。2例死于术后并发症。随访6～36个月，无术后再出血病例。结论血管内栓塞是治疗前交通动脉瘤的一种微创、相对安全有效的治疗方法。     

Communicating information on cardiopulmonary resuscitation to hospitalised patients

AIM: The primary aim of the study was to evaluate two different methods of communicating information on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to patients admitted to general medical and elderly care wards. The information was either in the form of a detailed information leaflet (appendix I) or a summary document (appendix II). The study examined the willingness of patients in seeking detailed information on cardiopulmonary issues. SETTING: The study was conducted over three months on a general medical ward and an acute elderly care ward in two district general hospitals. METHODS: A detailed information leaflet on CPR was provided to the nursing staff on the wards. An A4 summary document summarising the CPR decision making process and basic information on cardiopulmonary issues was placed in a folder at the foot of each bed on the elderly care ward. On the general medical ward it was displayed prominently over the head of all beds. RESULTS: Out of the 274 patients admitted to the general medical ward only two requests were received for the detailed information leaflet. On the elderly care ward there were 182 admissions but no patients or their relatives requested the leaflet. CONCLUSIONS: Availability of basic information on cardiopulmonary resuscitation to all patients is practical and does not lead to unnecessary distress or offence to patients or their carers. It makes the decision making process more transparent. Detailed information leaflets are of value for a minority of hospitalised patients.