Prenatal Substance Use and Perceptions of Parent and Partner Use Using the 4P’s Plus Screener

Maternal and Child Health Journal - Background Prenatal substance use screening is recommended. The 4 P’s Plus screener includes questions on perceived problematic substance use in parents...     

Action research methodology in clinical pharmacy: how to involve and change

Introduction The focus in clinical pharmacy practice is and has for the last 30–35 years been on changing the role of pharmacy staff into service orientation and patient counselling. One way of doing this is by involving staff in change process and as a researcher to take part in the change process by establishing partnerships with staff. On the background of the authors’ widespread action research (AR)-based experiences, recommendations and comments for how to conduct an AR-study is described, and one of their AR-based studies illustrate the methodology and the research methods used. Methodology AR is defined as an approach to research which is based on a problem-solving relationship between researchers and clients, which aims at both solving a problem and at collaboratively generating new knowledge. Research questions relevant in AR-studies are: what was the working process in this change oriented study? What learning and/or changes took place? What challenges/pitfalls had to be overcome? What were the influence/consequences for the involved parts? When to use If you want to implement new services and want to involve staff and others in the process, an AR methodology is very suitable. The basic advantages of doing AR-based studies are grounded in their participatory and democratic basis and their starting point in problems experienced in practice. Limitations Some of the limitations in AR-studies are that neither of the participants in a project steering group are the only ones to decide. Furthermore, the collective process makes the decision-making procedures relatively complex.

     

Collection of Wound Exudate From Human Digit Tip Amputations Does Not Impair Regenerative Healing: A Randomized Trial

The regrowth of amputated digit tips represents a unique regenerative healing in mammals with subcutaneous volume regrowth, restoration of dactylogram, and suppression of scar formation. Although factor analysis in amphibians and even in mice is easy to obtain, safety of harvesting biomaterial from human digit tip amputations for analysis has not yet been described.The aim of this study was to evaluate if recovering wound exudate does hamper clinical outcome or influence microbiologic or inflammation status.A predefined cohort of 18 patients with fresh digit tip amputations was randomly assigned to receive standard therapy (debridement, occlusive dressing) with (n = 9) or without (n = 9) collection of the whole wound exudate in every dressing change. Primary endpoint (lengthening) and secondary endpoints (regeneration of dactylogram, nail bed and bone healing, time to complete wound closure, scar formation, 2-point discrimination, microbiologic analysis, inflammatory factors interleukin (IL)-1α, tumor necrosis factor-α, IL-4, and IL-6) were determined by an independent, blinded observer.Patients’ characteristics showed no significant differences between the groups. All patients completed the study to the end of 3 months follow-up. Exudate collection did not influence primary and secondary endpoints. Furthermore, positive microbiologic findings as well as pus- and necrosis-like appearance neither impaired tissue restoration nor influenced inflammatory factor release.Here, the authors developed an easy and safe protocol for harvesting wound exudate from human digit tip amputations. For the first time, it was shown that harvesting does not impair regenerative healing. Using this method, further studies can be conducted to analyze regeneration associated factors in the human digit tip.DRKS.de Identifier: DRKS00006882 (UTN: U1111-1166-5723).     

Prevalence and Predictors of Quality of Recovery at Home After Day Surgery

Traditionally, major complications and unanticipated admission/readmission rates were used to assess outcome after day surgery. However, in view of the relative absence of major complications the quality of recovery (QOR) should be considered one of the principal endpoints after day surgery. In our study, the level of QOR is defined by a combination of the Global Surgical Recovery (GSR) Index and the Quality of Life (QOL).The aim of this study was to analyze prevalence and predictors of QOR after day surgery on the fourth postoperative day.Elective patients scheduled for day surgery from November 2008 to April 2010 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Outcome parameters were measured by using questionnaire packages at 2 time points: 1 week preoperatively and 4 days postoperatively. Primary outcome parameter is the QOR and is defined as good if the GSR index >80% as well as the postoperative QOL is unchanged or improved as compared with baseline. QOR is defined as poor if both the GSR index ≤80% and if the postoperative QOL is decreased as compared with baseline. QOR is defined as intermediate in all other cases. Three logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors for poor QOR after day surgery.A total of 1118 patients were included. A good QOR was noted in 17.3% of patients, an intermediate QOR in 34.8%, and a poor QOR in 47.8% 4 days after day surgery. The best predictor for poor QOR after day surgery was type of surgery. Other predictors were younger age, work status, and longer duration of surgery. A history of previous surgery, expected pain (by the patient) and high long-term surgical fear were significant predictors of poor QOR in only 1 of 3 prediction models.The QOR at home 4 days after day surgery was poor in the majority of patients and showed a significant procedure-specific variation. Patients at risk for poor QOR can be identified during the preoperative period based on type of surgery, age, work status, and the duration of the surgery.