How physiotherapists perceive,interpret, and respond to the ethical dimensions of practice: A qualitative study

The profile and reach of physiotherapy has expanded in areas of extended scope of practice, and broader engagement with population needs beyond the individual treatment encounter. These changes raise increasingly complex ethical challenges evidenced by growth in physiotherapy-based ethics studies and discussions. This paper examines how a broad cross section of Australian physiotherapists perceive, interpret, and respond to ethical challenges in their work contexts and how professional codes of conduct are used in their practice. Using an interpretive qualitative methodology, purposive sampling of 88 members of national clinical special interest groups were recruited for focus group discussions. Narrative-based and thematic data analysis identified ethical challenges as emerging from specific clinical contexts, and influenced by health organizations, funding policies, workplace relationships, and individually held perspectives. Five themes were developed to represent these findings: (1) the working environment, (2) balancing diverse needs and expectation, (3) defining ethics, (4) striving to act ethically, and (5) talking about ethics. The results portray a diverse and complex ethical landscape where therapists encounter and grapple with ethical questions emerging from the impact of funding models and policies affecting clinical work, expanding boundaries and scope of practice and changing professional roles and relationships. Codes of conduct were described as foundational ethical knowledge but not always helpful for “in the moment” ethical decision-making. Based on this research, we suggest how codes of conduct, educators, and professional associations could cultivate and nurture ethics capability in physiotherapy practitioners for these contemporary challenges.     

Obstetric analgesia and anaesthesia in SARS-CoV-2-positive parturients across 10 maternity units in the north-west of England: a retrospective cohort study

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, few studies have reported anaesthetic outcomes in parturients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We reviewed the labour analgesic and anaesthetic interventions utilised in symptomatic and asymptomatic parturients who had a confirmed positive test for SARS-CoV-2 across 10 hospitals in the north-west of England between 1 April 2020 and 31 May 2021. Primary outcomes analysed included the analgesic/anaesthetic technique utilised for labour and caesarean birth. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of maternal characteristics, caesarean birth rate, maternal critical care admission rate along with adverse composite neonatal outcomes. A positive SARS-CoV-2 test was recorded in 836 parturients with 263 (31.4%) reported to have symptoms of COVID-19. Neuraxial labour analgesia was utilised in 104 (20.4%) of the 509 parturients who went on to have a vaginal birth. No differences in epidural analgesia rates were observed between symptomatic and asymptomatic parturients (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.64–1.67; p = 0.90). The neuraxial anaesthesia rate in 310 parturients who underwent caesarean delivery was 94.2% (95%CI 90.6–96.0%). The rates of general anaesthesia were similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic parturients (6% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.52). Symptomatic parturients were more likely to be multiparous (OR 1.64, 95%CI 1.19–2.22; p = 0.002); of Asian ethnicity (OR 1.54, 1.04–2.28; p = 0.03); to deliver prematurely (OR 2.16, 95%CI 1.47–3.19; p = 0.001); have a higher caesarean birth rate (44.5% vs. 33.7%; OR 1.57, 95%CI 1.16–2.12; p = 0.008); and a higher critical care utilisation rate both pre- (8% vs. 0%, p = 0.001) and post-delivery (11% vs. 3.5%; OR 3.43, 95%CI 1.83–6.52; p = 0.001). Eight neonates tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 while no differences in adverse composite neonatal outcomes were observed between those born to symptomatic and asymptomatic mothers (25.8% vs. 23.8%; OR 1.11, 95%CI 0.78–1.57; p = 0.55). In women with COVID-19, non-neuraxial analgesic regimens were commonly utilised for labour while neuraxial anaesthesia was employed for the majority of caesarean births. Symptomatic women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of significant maternal morbidity including preterm birth, caesarean birth and peripartum critical care admission.     

Pathophysiology and management of sensitive skin: position paper from the special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI)

The special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch previously defined sensitive skin as a syndrome defined by the occurrence of unpleasant sensations (stinging, burning, pain, pruritus and tingling sensations) in response to stimuli that normally should not provoke such sensations. This additional paper focuses on the pathophysiology and the management of sensitive skin. Sensitive skin is not an immunological disorder but is related to alterations of the skin nervous system. Skin barrier abnormalities are frequently associated, but there is no cause and direct relationship. Further studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology of sensitive skin – as well as the inducing factors. Avoidance of possible triggering factors and the use of well-tolerated cosmetics, especially those containing inhibitors of unpleasant sensations, might be suggested for patients with sensitive skin. The role of psychosocial factors, such as stress or negative expectations, might be relevant for subgroups of patients. To date, there is no clinical trial supporting the use of topical or systemic drugs in sensitive skin. The published data are not sufficient to reach a consensus on sensitive skin management. In general, patients with sensitive skin require a personalized approach, taking into account various biomedical, neural and psychosocial factors affecting sensitive skin.