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.     

Practical Solutions for Pesticide Safety: A Farm and Research Team Participatory Model

Development of the Practical Solutions for Pesticide Safety guide used participatory research strategies to identify and evaluate solutions that reduce pesticide exposures for workers and their families and to disseminate these solutions. Project principles were (1) workplace chemicals belong in the workplace, and (2) pesticide handlers and farm managers are experts, with direct knowledge of production practices. The project’s participatory methods were grounded in self-determination theory. Practical solutions were identified and evaluated based on five criteria: practicality, adaptability, health and safety, novelty, and regulatory compliance. Research activities that had more personal contact provided better outcomes. The Expert Working Group, composed of farm managers and pesticide handlers, was key to the identification of solutions, as were farm site visits. Audience participation, hands-on testing, and orchard field trials were particularly effective in the evaluation of potential solutions. Small work groups in a Regional Advisory Committee provided the best direction and guidance for a “user-friendly” translational document that provided evidence-based practical solutions. The “farmer to farmer” format of the guide was endorsed by both the Expert Working Group and the Regional Advisory Committee. Managers and pesticide handlers wanted to share their solutions in order to “help others stay safe,” and they appreciated attribution in the guide. The guide is now being used in educational programs across the region. The fundamental concept that farmers and farmworkers are innovators and experts in agricultural production was affirmed by this study. The success of this process demonstrates the value of participatory industrial hygiene in agriculture.