Conectar
In over 50 years since the genetic counseling (GC) profession began, a systematic study of GC communication skills and patient-reported outcomes in actual sessions across multiple clinical specialties has never been conducted. To optimize GC quality and improve efficiency of care, the field must first be able to comprehensively measure GC skills and determine which skills are most critical to achieving positive patient experiences and outcomes. This study aims to characterise GC communication skills using a novel and pragmatic measure and link variations in communication skills to patient-reported outcomes, across clinical specialties and with patients from diverse backgrounds in the USA. Our community-engagement and provider-engagement approach is crucial to develop recommendations for quality, culturally informed GC care, which are greatly needed to improve GC practice.
A mixed methods, sequential explanatory design will be used to collect and analyze: audio-recorded GC sessions in cancer, cardiac, and prenatal/reproductive genetic indications; pre-visit and post-visit quantitative surveys capturing patient experiences and outcomes and post-visit qualitative interview data. A novel, practical checklist will measure GC communication skills. Coincidence analysis will identify patterns of GC skills that are consistent with high scores on patient-reported measures. Two-level, multilevel models will be used to evaluate how GC communication skills and other session/patient characteristics predict patient-reported outcomes. Four community advisory boards (CABs) and a genetic counselor advisory board will inform the study design and analysis.
This study has been approved by the single Institutional Review Board of the University of Minnesota. This research poses no greater than minimal risk to participants. Results from this study will be shared through national and international conferences and through community-based dissemination as guided by the study’s CABs. A lay summary will also be disseminated to all participants.
To identify the reasons and/or risk factors for hospital admission and/or emergency department attendance for older (≥60 years) residents of long-term care facilities.
Older adults' use of acute services is associated with significant financial and social costs. A global understanding of the reasons for the use of acute services may allow for early identification and intervention, avoid clinical deterioration, reduce the demand for health services and improve quality of life.
Systematic review registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022326964) and reported following PRISMA guidelines.
The search strategy was developed in consultation with an academic librarian. The strategy used MeSH terms and relevant keywords. Articles published since 2017 in English were eligible for inclusion. CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection were searched (11/08/22). Title, abstract, and full texts were screened against the inclusion/exclusion criteria; data extraction was performed two blinded reviewers. Quality of evidence was assessed using the NewCastle Ottawa Scale (NOS).
Thirty-nine articles were eligible and included in this review; included research was assessed as high-quality with a low risk of bias. Hospital admission was reported as most likely to occur during the first year of residence in long-term care. Respiratory and cardiovascular diagnoses were frequently associated with acute services use. Frailty, hypotensive medications, falls and inadequate nutrition were associated with unplanned service use.
Modifiable risks have been identified that may act as a trigger for assessment and be amenable to early intervention. Coordinated intervention may have significant individual, social and economic benefits.
This review has identified several modifiable reasons for acute service use by older adults. Early and coordinated intervention may reduce the risk of hospital admission and/or emergency department.
This systematic review was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology.
No patient or public contribution.
This retrospective cohort study aims to assess whether the implementation of a multidisciplinary approach in the Gosford Hospital High-Risk Foot Clinic improved outcomes of diabetic foot ulcers. Ulceration is a common foot complication of diabetes mellitus and greatly increases patient morbidity and mortality. Patients who attended at least one appointment at the Gosford Hospital High-Risk Foot Clinic in 2017 or 2019 were identified through the Gosford Hospital Podiatry department's records. The 2017 and 2019 cohorts were compared on measures of ulcer healing, incidence of amputation, incidence of vascular intervention and surgical debridement, percentage of patients admitted to hospital due to complications and use of systemic antibiotic therapy. Sixty-one patients in 2017 and 59 patients in 2019 met inclusion criteria, and from them, 207 ulcers were included. Between 2017 and 2019, there was a 6.2-week reduction in time to 100% ulcer healing in 2019 (p = 0.021), and 10.1% more ulcers healed within 52 weeks (p = 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] [−5.9%, 25.5%]). Whilst there was no significant difference in incidence of patients receiving amputation, there was an increased absolute number of amputations in 2019. Implementation of a multidisciplinary approach at the Gosford Hospital High-Risk Foot Clinic led to improvements in diabetic foot ulcer healing.
FreshRSS 