Perception and use of the results of patient satisfaction surveys by care providers in a French teaching hospital.

OBJECTIVE: . The aim of this study was to assess clinical staff's opinions on the results of in-patient satisfaction surveys and their use within the quality improvement process. SETTING: The institution is a 2200-bed teaching hospital of tertiary health care employing 8000 professionals. Patient satisfaction surveys are carried out each year using a validated questionnaire mailed to a random sample of patients. The specific results of each department are sent to the medical and paramedical managers. METHODS: We conducted a questionnaire survey on 500 care providers randomly selected in every medical and surgical department. RESULTS: A total of 261 questionnaires were returned and analysed. Overall, 94% of responders had a favourable opinion of the patient satisfaction surveys. They considered that the patient was able to judge hospital service quality, especially in its relational, organizational, and environmental dimensions. The specific results for the department were less well known than the overall hospital results (60 versus 76%). These results were formally discussed in the department according to 40% of responders; 40% declared that these data resulted in improvement actions and considered that they led to modifications in their behaviour with patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a declared interest in satisfaction surveys, the results remain underused by hospital staff and insufficiently discussed within teams.     

Intraligamentous injection of sclerosing solutions (prolotherapy) for spinal pain: a critical review of the literature.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The injection of various solutions aimed at producing a sclerosing effect has been used to treat soft tissues injuries (eg, inguinal hernia) for more than 100 years. In the 1930s, this treatment approach was applied to injured joints in an attempt to stimulate connective tissue repair. Although several studies have been published about this method of treatment for various orthopedic and spinal indications (termed prolotherapy), its use remains controversial. PURPOSE: To conduct a critical review of the literature on prolotherapy for spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Critical review of the literature. METHODS: Computerized medical literature databases (Medline, CINAHL, Mantis, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched to uncover all published information about the use of sclerosing injections in humans with spinal pain disorders. Search results were reviewed for relevance, and information was abstracted from full-text articles. RESULTS: Our search uncovered almost 200 reference materials in various media related to prolotherapy, including 31 clinical studies related to spinal pain. There were 26 observational cohorts and 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Indications in these studies were low back pain (22), neck pain (3), cervical headaches (3) and dorsal or thoracic pain (3). A total of 20 sclerosing solutions were used in these studies; the most common was a mixture of dextrose 12.5%, glycerin 12.5%, phenol 1.25% and lidocaine 0.25%. Wide variations were found in treatment protocols, such as dose, number of treatments and use of adjunct therapies. Most cohort studies were only of moderate quality and varied greatly in the substances injected and the use of co-interventions. Most clinical studies reported positive results such as decreased pain or disability, although differences between treatment and control groups did not always reach statistical significance. Commonly reported adverse reactions to this treatment include temporary postinjection pain and stiffness. A handful of more serious adverse events were reported in the 1950s and 1960s with stronger or unknown solutions. CONCLUSION: Prolotherapy describes a variety of treatment approaches rather than a specific protocol. Results from clinical studies published to date indicate that it may be effective at reducing spinal pain. Great variation was found in the injection and treatment protocols used in these studies that preclude definite conclusions. Future research should focus on those solutions and protocols that are most commonly used in clinical practice and have been used in trials reporting effectiveness to help determine which patients, if any, are most likely to benefit from this treatment.     

Evaluation of a Bayesian method of amikacin dosing in intensive care unit patients with normal or impaired renal function

Our study was designed to determine the population pharmacokinetic parameters of amikacin in intensive care unit patients and to develop a Bayesian method allowing individual estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters. A two-stage method was used for estimating the population characteristics of the pharmacokinetic parameters. Calculations of optimum doses and dosing intervals were based on individual parameters. Our results indicate that the Bayesian method is capable of estimating the individual pharmacokinetic parameters with no significant bias and good precision. Individualization of amikacin dosage was assessed 70 times in 52 patients. To determine the predictive performance of the method, observed peak and trough levels were compared with predicted values by computing precision, bias, and correlation. The amikacin dosing method was unbiased and showed a high correlation coefficient (r = 0.962) between measured and predicted drug serum concentrations. No significant differences were found between the predicted and observed peak (17.3 +/- 3.5 and 17.3 +/- 3.8 micrograms/ml, respectively) and trough (2.86 +/- 0.93 and 3.08 +/- 1.41 micrograms/ml, respectively) amikacin serum concentrations. Among the 52 patients, wide variations were observed in the pharmacokinetic parameters (Vd = 0.21-0.50 L/kg; t 1/2 = 1.1-22 h) and the daily doses (2.8-42 mg/kg/day).