Life Support Courses: Are They Effective?

Study objective: To determine the effectiveness of life support courses for health care providers on the basis of one of three outcomes: (1) patient mortality and morbidity, (2) retention of knowledge or skills, and (3) change in practice behavior. Methods: English-language articles from 1975 to 1992 were identified through MEDLINE and ERIC searches, bibliographies of articles, and current abstracts. Studies were considered relevant if they included a study population of life support providers, an intervention of any of the identified life support courses, and assessment of at least one of the three listed outcomes. Relevant studies were selected and validity scores were assigned to them by agreement of two independent reviewers, using a structured form to assess validity. Data on setting, methods, participants, intervention, and outcomes were then abstracted and verified. Results: Seventeen of 67 identified studies pertaining to life support courses met the inclusion criteria. (1) All three mortality and morbidity studies indicated a positive impact, with an overall odds ratio of .28 (95% confidence interval [CI], .22 to .37). (2) No net increase in scores was found in 5 of 8 studies of retention of knowledge and in 8 of 9 studies of skills retention. Two of three studies reporting refresher activities yielded positive effects on knowledge retention. Outcomes were not significantly different between groups taught with modular or didactic techniques. (3) Studies assessing behavioral outcome were methodologically weak. Conclusion: Among providers, retention of knowledge and skills acquired by participation in support courses is poor. However, refresher activities increase knowledge retention. Modular courses are as good as lectures for learning course material. There is evidence that use of the Advanced Trauma Life Support course has decreased mortality and morbidity. Further studies of patient outcome and provider behaviors are warranted. [Jabbour M, Osmond MH, Klassen TP: Life support courses: Are they effective? Ann Emerg Med December 1996;28:690-698.]     

Multimorbidity and Evidence Generation

Most people with a chronic disease actually have more than one, a condition known as multimorbidity. Despite this, the evidence base to prevent adverse disease outcomes has taken a disease-specific approach. Drawing on a conference, Improving Guidelines for Multimorbid Patients, the goal of this paper is to identify challenges to the generation of evidence to support the care of people with multimorbidity and to make recommendations for improvement. We identified three broad categories of challenges: 1) challenges to defining and measuring multimorbidity; 2) challenges related to the effects of multimorbidity on study design, implementation and analysis; and 3) challenges inherent in studying heterogeneity of treatment effects in patients with differing comorbid conditions. We propose a set of recommendations for consideration by investigators and others (reviewers, editors, funding agencies, policymaking organizations) involved in the creation of evidence for this common type of person that address each of these challenges. The recommendations reflect a general approach that emphasizes broader inclusion (recruitment and retention) of patients with multimorbidity, coupled with more rigorous efforts to measure comorbidity and comorbidity burden and the influence of multimorbidity on outcomes and the effects of therapy. More rigorous examination of heterogeneity of treatment effects requires careful attention to prioritizing the most important comorbid-related questions, and also requires studies that provide greater statistical power than conventional trials have provided. Relatively modest changes in the orientation of current research along these lines can be helpful in pointing to and partially addressing selected knowledge gaps. However, producing a robust evidence base to support patient-centered decision making in complex individuals with multimorbidity, exposed to many different combinations of potentially interacting factors that can modify the risks and benefits of therapies, is likely to require a clinical research enterprise fundamentally restructured to be more fully integrated with routine clinical practice.     

Undertaking midwifery studies: Commencing students’ views

Objective

to explore the motivations and beliefs of commencing midwifery students against a background of high course demand and high student attrition.

Design

a qualitative analysis of student reflective essays.

Setting

Melbourne, Australia.

Participants

all commencing midwifery students, in 2008, were invited to participate (n=41).

Measurements and findings

three primary motivations for choosing midwifery were identified, including: notions of altruism (wanting to help), a fascination with pregnancy and birth, and a view of midwifery as a personally satisfying career.

Key conclusions and implications for practice

Bachelor of Midwifery programmes attract students with idealised views about midwifery practice. Such views may lead to student disillusionment, tensions with educators and clinicians, and higher rates of student attrition. Students need greater support to examine their views about midwifery practice. More meaningful support may assist the students' successful socialisation into clinical practice.     

The salivary microbiota as a diagnostic indicator of oral cancer: A descriptive,non-randomized study of cancer-free and oral squamous cell carcinoma subjects

Background  

The purpose of the present investigation was to determine if the salivary counts of 40 common oral bacteria in subjects with an oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) lesion would differ from those found in cancer-free (OSCC-free) controls.