Social work, general practice and evidence-based policy in the collaborative care of older people: current problems and future possibilities

While collaborative (or joint) working between social services and primary healthcare continues to rise up the policy agenda, current policy is not based on sound evidence of benefit to either patients or the wider community. Both sets of practitioners report benefits for their own work from adopting new arrangements for collaboration. The underlying assumption behind much of this activity is that a greater degree of integration provides benefits to both users and their carers, a perspective that at times obscures the issue of resource availability, especially in the form of practical community services such as district nursing and home help. At the present time there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that formal arrangements for collaborative working (CW) are better than those forged informally between committed individuals or teams. Furthermore, arrangements for CW have not hitherto been widely evaluated in systematic studies with a comparative design and focus on outcomes for users and carers rather than on processes. In this paper we propose a number of process measures for future evaluation of CW: (1) study populations must be comparable; (2) details of how services are actually delivered must be obtained and colocation should not be assumed to mean collaboration; (3) care packages in areas of comparable resources should be examined; (4) both destinational outcomes and user‐defined evaluations of benefit should be considered; (5) possible disadvantages of integrated care also need to be actively considered; (6) evaluations should include an economic analysis. Those implementing new policies in Primary Care Trusts have, at present, little sound evidence to guide them in their innovative work. However, they should take the opportunity to rigorously test the advantages and disadvantages of collaboration.     

试论医院工程项目的经济评价

工程项目经济评价的战略性、前瞻性、科学性、经济性、有效性和安全性是项目决策的前提与基础。目前,医院对工程项目的经济评价沿用的是传统的成本核算方法,是对医院内部之间的财务成本核算与管理的评价,评价缺乏对医院隐含的成本因素中的战略性定位分析、成本动因分析、价值链分析、全寿命周期经济效益分析和医疗市场发展态势分析。传统的评价方法己不能满足和适应医院战略管理的需要,实施战略成本管理方法,全方位、多角度采集信息,进行战略性的分析、评价,是现阶段医院工程项目经济评价的有效方法。     

基于小波变换纹理分析的医学图像检索

根据医学图像的特点．提出了一种基于哈尔小波变换纹理分析的图像检索方法．并与基于共生矩阵的纹理识别方法进行比较和分析。据此．实现了一个图像检索原型系统。实验证明．本方法具有良好的检索效果。     

NP与EP方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的比较

为观察比较长春瑞滨（NVB）联合顺铂（DDP）组成的NP方案与依托泊苷（Vp-16）联合DDP组成的EP方案,治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌（non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC）的疗效和毒性反应,选取82例晚期NSCLC患者,随机分为NP和EP两组进行化疗.结果示,NP组有效率为52.5%（21/40）,EP组有效率为28.6%（12/42）,NP组疗效优于EP组,但差异尚无统计学意义,u=1.855,P=0.064.两组剂量限制毒性均为骨髓抑制,消化道反应可以耐受.初步研究结果提示,NP方案治疗晚期NSCLC的疗效高于EP方案.     

肺癌组织中黑色素瘤抗原-A3基因mRNA的表达及其序列点突变分析

目的检测肺癌组织中黑色素瘤抗原-3基因(MAGE-A3)mRNA的表达。方法用逆转录-套式聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)对31例肺癌患者癌组织和相应癌旁组织MAGE-A3mRNA表达情况进行测定;PE-377DNA测序仪对5例10个RT-PCR扩增产物中的目的基因片段进行DNA序列测定。结果31例肺癌患者癌组织中26例表达MAGE-A3mRNA,阳性率为83.9%;相应的癌旁组织均未表达。DNA序列测定证明PCR扩增产物中目的基因片段均为MAGE-A3cDNA序列,所测5例样本中4例样本有两个相同位置的碱基发生了点突变(C2773→T2773;G2807→A2807),导致一个氨基酸残基改变(E143→K)。结论MAGE-A3mRNA在肺癌中呈高比例表达,提示此抗原有可能作为肺癌患者免疫治疗的靶抗原。我国肺癌患者中存在MAGE-A3基因个别位点的变异。     

新疆芍药化学成分的研究

目的 :研究新疆芍药的化学成分。方法 :用柱色谱分离 ,利用化合物的理化性质及波谱方法鉴定。结果 :分离并鉴定了芍药苷 (paeoniflorinⅠ )、白芍苷 (albiflorinⅡ )、芍药新苷 (lactiflorinⅢ )、胡萝卜苷 (daucosterolⅣ )和蔗糖 (sucroseⅤ )等 5个成分。结论 :这些化合物均为首次从该植物中分离得到。另芍药新苷化学结构曾 2次被修正 ,本研究分析后确认了其中的 1个结论。     

老年高血压患者血压昼夜节律对左室肥厚的影响

【摘要】 目的 研究老年高血压患者的血压昼夜节律变化对左室肥厚的影响。方法 选取我院126例高血压患者,根据心脏彩超提示左室肥厚情况分为肥厚组（n=52例）和非肥厚组（n=74例）。比较两组动态血压指标及血压变异性,进行多因素分析探讨血压变异性对左室肥厚的影响。 结果 高血压肥厚组24h平均收缩压（24hSBP）、白天平均收缩压（dSBP）、夜间平均收缩压（nSBP）、24h收缩压标准差（24hSSD）、24h舒张压标准差（24hDSD）、白天收缩压标准差（dSSD）、夜间收缩压标准差（nSSD）均高于非肥厚组,差异有统计学意义（P＜005）。Logistic回归分析显示,24h SBP 与dSSD、nSSD为左室肥厚的独立危险因素（P＜005）。结论 老年高血压患者的24h SBP 与dSSD、nSSD是影响左室肥厚的独立危险因素,平稳控制血压对防止左室肥厚的发生有一定影响。     

American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Prostate cancer survivors approach 2.8 million in number and represent 1 in 5 of all cancer survivors in the United States. While guidelines exist for timely treatment and surveillance for recurrent disease, there is limited availability of guidelines that facilitate the provision of posttreatment clinical follow‐up care to address the myriad of long‐term and late effects that survivors may face. Based on recommendations set forth by a National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center expert panel, the American Cancer Society developed clinical follow‐up care guidelines to facilitate the provision of posttreatment care by primary care clinicians. These guidelines were developed using a combined approach of evidence synthesis and expert consensus. Existing guidelines for health promotion, surveillance, and screening for second primary cancers were referenced when available. To promote comprehensive follow‐up care and optimal health and quality of life for the posttreatment survivor, the guidelines address health promotion, surveillance for prostate cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, long‐term and late effects assessment and management, psychosocial issues, and care coordination among the oncology team, primary care clinicians, and nononcology specialists. A key challenge to the development of these guidelines was the limited availability of published evidence for management of prostate cancer survivors after treatment. Much of the evidence relies on studies with small sample sizes and retrospective analyses of facility‐specific and population databases. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:225–249. © 2014 American Cancer Society .