A Tool to Assess Patient and Surrogate Knowledge About the POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) Program

ContextIt is especially important that patients are well informed when making high-stakes, preference-sensitive decisions like those on the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form. However, there is currently no way to easily evaluate whether patients understand key concepts when making these important decisions.ObjectivesTo develop a POLST knowledge survey.MethodsExpert (n = 62) ratings of key POLST facts were used to select items for a POLST knowledge survey. The survey was administered to nursing facility residents (n = 97) and surrogate decision-makers (n = 112). A subset (n = 135) were re-administered the survey after a standardized advance care planning discussion to assess the scale's responsiveness to change.ResultsThe 19-item survey demonstrated adequate reliability (α = 0.72.). Residents' scores (x = 11.4, standard deviation 3.3) were significantly lower than surrogate scores (x = 14.7, standard deviation 2.5) (P < 0.001). Scores for both groups increased significantly after administration of a standardized advance care planning discussion (P < 0.001). Although being a surrogate, age, race, education, cognitive functioning, and health literacy were significantly associated with higher POLST Knowledge Survey scores in univariate analyses, only being a surrogate (P < 0.001) and being white (P = 0.028) remained significantly associated with higher scores in multivariate analyses.ConclusionThe 19-item POLST Knowledge Survey demonstrated adequate reliability and responsiveness to change. Findings suggest the survey could be used to identify knowledge deficits and provide targeted education to ensure adequate understanding of key clinical decisions when completing POLST.     

Influence of luminal stenosis in aneurysmal and non-aneurysmal blunt cerebrovascular injury

Background

Current blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) grading grossly differentiates injury characteristics such as luminal stenosis (LS) and aneurysmal disease. The effect of increasing degree of LS beyond the current BCVI grading scale on stroke formation is unknown.

Detection of recombinant and endogenous mouse melatonin receptors by monoclonal antibodies targeting the C‐terminal domain

Melatonin receptors play important roles in the regulation of circadian and seasonal rhythms, sleep, retinal functions, the immune system, depression, and type 2 diabetes development. Melatonin receptors are approved drug targets for insomnia, non‐24‐hour sleep‐wake disorders, and major depressive disorders. In mammals, two melatonin receptors (MTRs) exist, MT₁ and MT₂, belonging to the G protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily. Similar to most other GPCRs, reliable antibodies recognizing melatonin receptors proved to be difficult to obtain. Here, we describe the development of the first monoclonal antibodies (mABs) for mouse MT₁ and MT₂. Purified antibodies were extensively characterized for specific reactivity with mouse, rat, and human MT₁ and MT₂ by Western blot, immunoprecipitation, immunofluorescence, and proximity ligation assay. Several mABs were specific for either mouse MT₁ or MT₂. None of the mABs cross‐reacted with rat MTRs, and some were able to react with human MTRs. The specificity of the selected mABs was validated by immunofluorescence microscopy in three established locations (retina, suprachiasmatic nuclei, pituitary gland) for MTR expression in mice using MTR‐KO mice as control. MT₂ expression was not detected in mouse insulinoma MIN6 cells or pancreatic beta‐cells. Collectively, we report the first monoclonal antibodies recognizing recombinant and native mouse melatonin receptors that will be valuable tools for future studies.     

Niven and Scott (2003): Sixteen years of hindsight

This paper revisits a 2003 publication in Nursing Philosophy: The need for accurate perception and informed judgement in determining the appropriate use of the nursing resource: hearing the patient's voice. The author suggests that the basic ideas and focus of this 16‐year‐old paper are still topical and relevant in considerations of nursing care. However, it is also suggested that greater attention to the importance of the nurse–patient relationship in considerations of resource allocation, and potential rationing of nursing care, would have strengthened the original paper.