Author Interviews, Clots - Coagulation, NEJM, Thromboembolism / 02.04.2019

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_48324" align="alignleft" width="128"]Yaseen M. Arabi, M.DIntensive Care DepartmentMinistry of National Guard Health AffairsICU 1425, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Dr. Arabi[/caption] Yaseen M. Arabi, M.D Intensive Care Department Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs Riyadh, Saudi Arabia  MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Response: Venous thromboembolism, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a complication of critical illness. Studies have demonstrated that despite pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular weight heparin, 5-20% of critically ill patients develop deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The PREVENT trial evaluated whether adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression reduces incident proximal lower limb DVT as detected on twice-weekly lower limb ultrasonography in critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin. The trial was conducted in 20 sites in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia and India and included 2003 patients. The trial found no difference in the primary end point of proximal leg DVT. The addition of intermittent pneumatic compression to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis did not result in a lower incidence of pulmonary embolism or a composite outcome of venous thromboembolism or death from any cause at 28 days when compared to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone.
Author Interviews, Health Care Systems, JAMA, Outcomes & Safety, Surgical Research / 22.02.2019

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_47615" align="alignleft" width="200"]Alexis G. Antunez MS University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Alexis G. Antunez[/caption] Alexis G. Antunez MS University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? Response: The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer is implementing a National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC), aiming to improve and standardize the quality of rectal cancer care in the United States. While this is a commendable goal, previous accreditation programs in other specialties have faced controversy around their uncertain impact on access to care. Furthermore, it is well established that the quality of rectal cancer care is associated with patients’ socioeconomic position. So, the NAPRC could have the unintended consequence of widening disparities and limiting access to high quality rectal cancer care for certain patient populations. 
Author Interviews, JAMA, Nursing, Outcomes & Safety, Surgical Research, University of Pennsylvania / 20.01.2016

More on Nursing Research on MedicalResearch.com MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_20725" align="alignleft" width="178"]Jeffrey H. Silber, M.D., Ph.D. The Nancy Abramson Wolfson Professor of Health Services Research The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Professor of Pediatrics and Anesthesiology & Critical Care, The University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine Professor of Health Care Management, The Wharton School Director, Center for Outcomes Research The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Philadelphia, PA 19104 Dr. Jeffrey Silber[/caption] Jeffrey H. Silber, M.D., Ph.D. The Nancy Abramson Wolfson Professor of Health Services Research Professor of Pediatrics and Anesthesiology & Critical Care,  The University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine Professor of Health Care Management The Wharton School Director, Center for Outcomes Research The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Philadelphia, PA 19104  Medical Research: What is the background for this study? Response: We wanted to test whether hospitals with better nursing work environments displayed better outcomes and value than those with worse nursing environments, and to determine whether these results depended on how sick patients were when first admitted to the hospital. Medical Research: What are the main findings? Response: Hospitals with better nursing work environments (defined by Magnet status), and staffing that was above average (a nurse-to-bed ratio greater than or equal to 1), had lower mortality than those hospitals with worse nursing environments and below average staffing levels. The mortality rate in Medicare patients undergoing general surgery was 4.8% in the hospitals with the better nursing environments versus 5.8% in those hospitals with worse nursing environments. Furthermore, cost per patient was similar. We found that better nursing environments were also associated with lower need to use the Intensive Care Unit. The greatest mortality benefit occurred in patients in the highest risk groups.