Search

Item does not contain fulltext, NAPCRG celebrated 50 years of leadership and service at its 2022 meeting. A varied team of primary care investigators, clinicians, learners, patients, and community members reflected on the organization's past, present, and future. Started in 1972 by a small group of general practice researchers in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, NAPCRG has evolved into an international, interprofessional, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational group devoted to improving health and health care through primary care research. NAPCRG provides a nurturing home to researchers and teams working in partnership with individuals, families, and communities. The organization builds upon enduring values to create partnerships, advance research methods, and nurture a community of contributors. NAPCRG has made foundational contributions, including identifying the need for primary care research to inform primary care practice, practice-based research networks, qualitative and mixed-methods research, community-based participatory research, patient safety, practice transformation, and partnerships with patients and communities. Landmark documents have helped define classification systems for primary care, responsible research with communities, the central role of primary care in health care systems, opportunities to revitalize generalist practice, and shared strategies to build the future of family medicine. The future of health and health care depends upon strengthening primary care and primary care research with stronger support, infrastructure, training, and workforce. New technologies offer opportunities to advance research, enhance care, and improve outcomes. Stronger partnerships can empower primary care research with patients and communities and increase commitments to diversity and quality care for all. NAPCRG offers a home for all partners in this work.

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

The cytokinesis-block micronucleus (CBMN) assay is a well-established technique that can be employed in triage radiation biodosimetry to estimate whole body doses of radiation to potentially exposed individuals through quantitation of the frequency of micronuclei (MN) in binucleated lymphocyte cells (BNCs). The assay has been partially automated using traditional microscope-based methods and most recently has been modified for application on the ImageStreamX (ISX) imaging flow cytometer. This modification has allowed for a similar number of BNCs to be automatically scored as compared to traditional microscopy in a much shorter time period. However, the MN frequency measured was much lower than both manual and automated slide-based methods of performing the assay. This work describes the optimized analysis template which implements newly developed functions in the IDEAS® data analysis software for the ISX that enhances specificity for BNCs and increases the frequency of scored MN. A new dose response calibration curve is presented in which the average rate of MN per BNC is of similar magnitude to those presented in the literature using automated CBMN slide scoring methods. In addition, dose estimates were generated for nine irradiated, blinded samples and were found to be within ±0.5 Gy of the delivered dose. Results demonstrate that the improved identification accuracy for MN and BNCs in the ISX-based version of the CBMN assay will translate to increased accuracy when estimating unknown radiation doses received by exposed individuals following large-scale radiological or nuclear emergencies.

The cytokinesis-block micronucleus (CBMN) assay is an established technique in radiation biological dosimetry for estimating the dose to an individual by measuring the frequency of micronuclei (MN) in binucleated lymphocyte cells (BNCs). The assay has been partially automated using slide-scoring algorithms, but an automated multiparameter method without the need of the slide-making procedure would be advantageous to further increase throughput for application in mass casualty events. The development of the ImageStreamX (ISX) imaging flow cytometer has made it possible to adapt the CBMN assay to an automated imaging flow cytometry (FCM) method. The protocol and analysis presented in this work tailor and expand the assay to a multiparameter biodosimetry tool. Ex vivo irradiated whole blood samples were cultured, processed, and analyzed on the ISX and BNCs, MN, and mononuclear cells were imaged, identified, and enumerated automatically and simultaneously. Details on development of the method, gating strategy, and dose response curves generated for the rate of MN per BNC, percentage of mononuclear cells as well as the replication index are presented. Results indicate that adapting the CBMN assay for use in imaging FCM has produced a rapid, robust, multiparameter analysis method with higher throughput than is currently available with standard microscopy. We conclude that the ISX-CBMN method may be an advantageous tool following a radiological event where triage biodosimetry must be performed on a large number of casualties.

Contains fulltext : 118470.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: A growing proportion of people are living with long term conditions. The majority have more than one. Dealing with multi-morbidity is a complex problem for health systems: for those designing and implementing healthcare as well as for those providing the evidence informing practice. Yet the concept of multi-morbidity (the presence of >2 diseases) is a product of the design of health care systems which define health care need on the basis of disease status. So does the solution lie in an alternative model of healthcare? DISCUSSION: Strengthening generalist practice has been proposed as part of the solution to tackling multi-morbidity. Generalism is a professional philosophy of practice, deeply known to many practitioners, and described as expertise in whole person medicine. But generalism lacks the evidence base needed by policy makers and planners to support service redesign. The challenge is to fill this practice-research gap in order to critically explore if and when generalist care offers a robust alternative to management of this complex problem.We need practice-based evidence to fill this gap. By recognising generalist practice as a 'complex intervention' (intervening in a complex system), we outline an approach to evaluate impact using action-research principles. We highlight the implications for those who both commission and undertake research in order to tackle this problem. SUMMARY: Answers to the complex problem of multi-morbidity won't come from doing more of the same. We need to change systems of care, and so the systems for generating evidence to support that care. This paper contributes to that work through outlining a process for generating practice-based evidence of generalist solutions to the complex problem of person-centred care for people with multi-morbidity.

Contains fulltext : 118470.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: A growing proportion of people are living with long term conditions. The majority have more than one. Dealing with multi-morbidity is a complex problem for health systems: for those designing and implementing healthcare as well as for those providing the evidence informing practice. Yet the concept of multi-morbidity (the presence of >2 diseases) is a product of the design of health care systems which define health care need on the basis of disease status. So does the solution lie in an alternative model of healthcare? DISCUSSION: Strengthening generalist practice has been proposed as part of the solution to tackling multi-morbidity. Generalism is a professional philosophy of practice, deeply known to many practitioners, and described as expertise in whole person medicine. But generalism lacks the evidence base needed by policy makers and planners to support service redesign. The challenge is to fill this practice-research gap in order to critically explore if and when generalist care offers a robust alternative to management of this complex problem.We need practice-based evidence to fill this gap. By recognising generalist practice as a 'complex intervention' (intervening in a complex system), we outline an approach to evaluate impact using action-research principles. We highlight the implications for those who both commission and undertake research in order to tackle this problem. SUMMARY: Answers to the complex problem of multi-morbidity won't come from doing more of the same. We need to change systems of care, and so the systems for generating evidence to support that care. This paper contributes to that work through outlining a process for generating practice-based evidence of generalist solutions to the complex problem of person-centred care for people with multi-morbidity.

Contains fulltext : 118470.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: A growing proportion of people are living with long term conditions. The majority have more than one. Dealing with multi-morbidity is a complex problem for health systems: for those designing and implementing healthcare as well as for those providing the evidence informing practice. Yet the concept of multi-morbidity (the presence of >2 diseases) is a product of the design of health care systems which define health care need on the basis of disease status. So does the solution lie in an alternative model of healthcare? DISCUSSION: Strengthening generalist practice has been proposed as part of the solution to tackling multi-morbidity. Generalism is a professional philosophy of practice, deeply known to many practitioners, and described as expertise in whole person medicine. But generalism lacks the evidence base needed by policy makers and planners to support service redesign. The challenge is to fill this practice-research gap in order to critically explore if and when generalist care offers a robust alternative to management of this complex problem.We need practice-based evidence to fill this gap. By recognising generalist practice as a 'complex intervention' (intervening in a complex system), we outline an approach to evaluate impact using action-research principles. We highlight the implications for those who both commission and undertake research in order to tackle this problem. SUMMARY: Answers to the complex problem of multi-morbidity won't come from doing more of the same. We need to change systems of care, and so the systems for generating evidence to support that care. This paper contributes to that work through outlining a process for generating practice-based evidence of generalist solutions to the complex problem of person-centred care for people with multi-morbidity.

Item does not contain fulltext, Making evidence from scientific studies available to clinical practice has been expected to directly improve quality of care, but this expectation has not been realised. The notion of quality of care is complex, and quality improvement needs medical, contextual, and policy evidence. In primary care, research is needed that takes into account the specific characteristics of its population and the presentation and prevalence of illness and disease. The context of the doctor-patient encounter plays a major part, and needs better understanding. At the policy level, issues of equity must be addressed. The knowledge base for family practice must be expanded by integration of multiple methods of comprehension, so we can bridge the gap between evidence and practice.

Item does not contain fulltext, Making evidence from scientific studies available to clinical practice has been expected to directly improve quality of care, but this expectation has not been realised. The notion of quality of care is complex, and quality improvement needs medical, contextual, and policy evidence. In primary care, research is needed that takes into account the specific characteristics of its population and the presentation and prevalence of illness and disease. The context of the doctor-patient encounter plays a major part, and needs better understanding. At the policy level, issues of equity must be addressed. The knowledge base for family practice must be expanded by integration of multiple methods of comprehension, so we can bridge the gap between evidence and practice.

Item does not contain fulltext, Making evidence from scientific studies available to clinical practice has been expected to directly improve quality of care, but this expectation has not been realised. The notion of quality of care is complex, and quality improvement needs medical, contextual, and policy evidence. In primary care, research is needed that takes into account the specific characteristics of its population and the presentation and prevalence of illness and disease. The context of the doctor-patient encounter plays a major part, and needs better understanding. At the policy level, issues of equity must be addressed. The knowledge base for family practice must be expanded by integration of multiple methods of comprehension, so we can bridge the gap between evidence and practice.