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.     

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.     

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.     

International haemovigilance: what have we learned and what do we need to do next?

The International Haemovigilance Network (IHN) defines haemovigilance as ‘a set of surveillance procedures covering the whole transfusion chain (from the collection of blood and its components to the follow‐up of recipients), intended to collect and assess information on unexpected or undesirable effects resulting from the therapeutic use of labile blood products, and to prevent their occurrence or recurrence’. IHN, the International Society of Blood Transfusion and World Health Organization work together to support both developing and established haemovigilance systems. Haemovigilance systems provide valuable data on a range of adverse events related to blood donation and clinical transfusion, from donor syncopal events to transfusion‐transmitted infections, immunological complications and the impact of human errors. Harmonised definitions for most adverse reactions have been developed and validated internationally. Definitions of pulmonary complications are again under review. Haemovigilance data have resulted in changes in policy, products and practice, and can complement and inform clinical audit and research, leading to improved blood donor safety, optimised product use and better clinical outcomes after transfusion. However, more work is needed. Not all countries have haemovigilance systems in place. More robust data and careful analysis are required to improve the understanding of the causes, occurrence and clinical outcomes of these events. Wider dissemination of results will facilitate health policy development internationally, and implementation of haemovigilance recommendations will support further important progress in blood safety.     

Spirituality in palliative care: what language do we need?

This article considers the language of spirituality in palliative care (Byrne, 2002; 2007), and focuses on the concepts of metaphor and story, demonstrated in practice by the art project and publication at The Prince & Princess of Wales Hospice (PPWH), Glasgow, UK. Metaphors have been used in everyday speech and literature throughout history. The word 'cancer' is a metaphor itself traced back to Hippocrates in the 5th century BC. Stanworth (2004) concluded that metaphor can draw attention to aspects of the patient's experience that might otherwise be overlooked. In palliative care the metaphor of the journey is often used to describe the experience of illness. Cicely Saunders (2000) described it as a spiritual journey, demonstrating opportunities for growth and development, hope and discovery. As professionals we share that journey. Stories often include metaphoric images and give an understanding of the uniqueness of individual fear and inner need. Cullen and Alcock describe creative expression as the process of unraveling a story (2007).The creative arts project at PPWH bears witness to this.     

Spirituality in palliative care: what language do we need?

Spirituality can be described as a search for meaning. At the time of a significant life crisis, such as is experienced by patients in palliative care, this search can become more pertinent. Patients and their families describe times of questioning and loss of faith as well as discovery, growth and a deepening of experience to a place of inner peace. Because spirituality has an increasingly wide range of interpretations, the delivery of spiritual care can understandably be equally diverse. This article has its limitations in that it concentrates on Christianity, partly because it is a known starting place from the experience of the author and still is relevant for many patients in the West. The holistic/whole person approach to nursing care has helped to refocus on the spiritual dimension of care. However, nurses require support and guidance as to how to approach spiritual care and understand its concept, which appears resistant to language -- their basis for communication.     

Suicide among Asian Americans: what do we know? What do we need to know?

The current review begins with an acknowledgment of the diversity within the Asian American population as well as the scarcity of information on suicide among this particular racial/ethnic minority group. In analyzing what is known and what still needs to be learned about suicide among Asian Americans, the current article provides a critical review of significant factors such as age, gender, religious and spirituality issues, acculturation, social support, familial dynamics, social integration as well as gay/lesbian/bisexual orientations. In examining these factors, recommendations related to interventions and the existing research gaps are also discussed.     

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.     

Lung-protective ventilation strategies in neonatology: what do we know--what do we need to know?

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating various lung-protective ventilation modes or strategies in newborn infants have failed to show clear differences in mortality or bronchopulmonary dysplasia. This review tries to identify possible reasons for this observation, applying modern concepts on ventilator-induced lung injury and lung-protective ventilation. DATA SOURCE: Published RCTs and systematic reviews on mechanical ventilation in newborn infants were identified by searching PubMed and the Cochrane Library. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 16 RCTs and four systematic reviews comparing high-frequency ventilation with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) failed to show consistent differences in mortality and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Unfortunately, clear information or data on ventilation and oxygenation targets in the search for optimal lung volumes during high-frequency ventilation or CMV is lacking in many RCTs, questioning the validity of the results and the meta-analytic subgroup analysis. Based on improvement in oxygenation, only three RCTs successfully applied the optimal lung volume strategy during high-frequency ventilation. A total of 24 RCTs and three systematic reviews comparing various CMV modes and settings and two RCTs investigating permissive hypercapnia reported no differences in mortality or bronchopulmonary dysplasia. However, the intervention arms in these RCTs did not differ in tidal volume or positive end-expiratory pressures, variables that are considered important determinants in ventilator-induced lung injury. In fact, no RCT in newborn infants has substantiated so far the experimental finding that avoiding large tidal volumes and low positive end-expiratory pressure during CMV is lung protective in newborn infants. CONCLUSION: RCTs investigating lung-protective ventilation in neonates have mainly focused on comparing high-frequency ventilation with CMV. Most of these RCTs show weaknesses in the design, which may explain the inconsistent effect of high-frequency ventilation on bronchopulmonary dysplasia. RCTs on CMV only focused on comparing various modes and settings, leaving the important question whether reducing tidal volume or increasing positive end-expiratory pressure is also lung protective in newborn infants unanswered.