Most surgical and anaesthetic mortality and morbidity occurs postoperatively, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries. Various short courses have been developed to improve patient outcomes in low- and middle-income countries, but none specifically to address postoperative care and complications. We aimed to identify key features of a proposed short-course addressing this topic using a Delphi process with low- and middle-income country anaesthesia providers trained as short-course facilitators. An initial questionnaire was co-developed from literature review and exploratory workshops to include 108 potential course features. Features included content; teaching method; appropriate participants; and appropriate faculty. Over three Delphi rounds (panellists numbered 86, 64 and 35 in successive cycles), panellists indicated which features they considered most important. Responses were analysed by geographical regions: Africa, the Americas, south-east Asia and Western Pacific. Ultimately, panellists identified 60, 40 and 54 core features for the proposed course in each region, respectively. There were high levels of consensus within regions on what constituted core course content, but not between regions. All panellists preferred the small group workshop teaching method irrespective of region. All regions considered anaesthetists to be key facilitators, while all agreed that both anaesthetists and operating theatre nurses were key participants. The African and Americas regional panels recommended more multidisciplinary healthcare professionals for participant roles. Faculty from high-income countries were not considered high priority. Our study highlights variability between geographical regions as to which course features were perceived as most locally relevant, supporting regional adaptation of short-course design rather than a one-size-fits-all model. 相似文献
PurposeTo investigate the safety and efficacy of an aqueous polyethylene glycol-based liquid embolic agent, Embrace Hydrogel Embolic System (HES), in the treatment of benign and malignant hypervascular tumors.Materials and MethodsA prospective, single-arm, multicenter study included 8 patients, 5 males and 3 females, with a median age of 58.5 years (30–85 years), who underwent embolization in 8 tumors between October 2019 and May 2020. Technical success was defined as successful delivery of HES to the index vessel, with disappearance of >90% of the targeted vascular enhancement or, for portal vein embolization, occlusion of the portal branches to the liver segments for future resection. The volume of HES administered, ease of use (5 point Likert scale), administration time, and adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Evaluation was performed at 7, 30, and 90 days via clinical assessment and blood testing, and follow-up imaging was performed at 30 days.ResultsEight patients were enrolled, and 10 embolizations were performed in 8 lesions. Tumors included hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 4), renal angiomyolipoma (n = 3), and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n = 1). Technical success was 100%, and the average ease of use was 3.3 ± 1.0 SD. The HES delivery time was 1–28 minutes (median, 16.5 minutes), and the HES volume injected was 0.4–4.0 mL (median, 1.3 mL). All patients reached 30-day follow-up with imaging, and 6 patients reached 90-day follow-up. There were 3 serious AEs in 2 patients that were unrelated to the embolic agent.ConclusionHES resulted in a 100% embolization technical success rate. The product ease of use was acceptable, and no target vessel recanalization was noted on follow-up imaging at 30 days. 相似文献
Aims: In neuropsychological evaluations, it is often difficult to ascertain whether poor performance on measures of validity is due to poor effort or malingering, or whether there is genuine cognitive impairment. Dunham and Denney created an algorithm to assess this question using the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT). We assessed the ability of their algorithm to detect poor validity versus probable impairment, and concordance of failure on the MSVT with other freestanding tests of performance validity.
Methods: Two previously published datasets (n?=?153 and n?=?641, respectively) from outpatient neuropsychological evaluations were used to test Dunham and Denney’s algorithm, and to assess concordance of failure rates with the Test of Memory Malingering and the forced choice measure of the California Verbal Learning Test, two commonly used performance validity tests.
Results: In both datasets, none of the four cutoff scores for failure on the MSVT (70%, 75%, 80%, or 85%) identified a poor validity group with proportionally aligned failure rates on other freestanding measures of performance validity. Additionally, the protocols with probable impairment did not differ from those with poor validity on cognitive measures.
Conclusions: Despite what appeared to be a promising approach to evaluating failure on the easy MSVT subtests when clinical data are unavailable (as recommended in the advanced interpretation program, or advanced interpretation [AI], of the MSVT), the current findings indicate the AI remains the gold standard for doing so. Future research should build on this effort to address shortcomings in measures of effort in neuropsychological evaluations. 相似文献