Search

No abstract available.

Delivering bad news to a patient has a major impact for patients, their relatives and caregivers. The way this information is delivered can affect the way the patient sees his disease and potentially how he adheres to its treatment. To improve this communication with the patient the service of internal medicine at the Swiss university hospital of Lausanne set up a process including the coordination between all involved caregivers, and to break the bad news in a setting including a medical and nurse partnership. It also underscores that the resident in charge of the patient remains the coordinator of delivering new information. Moreover, the service provides communication tools to the caregivers to improve the communication skills.

Antiresorptive therapy is prescribed in particular for the treatment of osteoporosis as well as for the treatment of tumor-induced hypercalcemia and metastatic bone disease. As a consequence, osteopathologies such as bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ) may occur. In 2008, our department reported on BRONJ in a paper that provided dental clinicians with information on diagnostics, therapy, and prevention (Dannemann et al., Schweizer Monatsschrift für Zahnmedizin, Vol. 118, 2/2008). During the last 8 years, new findings have emerged concerning potential etiologies, modes of therapy, and the use of additional antiresorptive therapies. For example, an important point for colleagues in dental practice is the now common intravenous administration of bisphosphonates in osteoporosis patients, which may lead to uncertainty when assessing risk in these patients. For this reason, this article provides an update of the above mentioned publication and gives dental clinicians an updated guideline concerning risk assessment in patients undergoing antiresorptive therapy. In this context, a risk assessment algorithm is presented. The pathogenesis, diagnosis, therapy, and prevention of BRONJ and oral implantation in patients receiving antiresorptive therapy are addressed with regard to the current literature. Finally, we present two example cases.

Background: Cancer screening requires identification of individuals at high risk for cancer, mainly through an adequate family history, and documentation of dates and results of past screening examinations. By asking general practitioners (GPs) to audit their charts, we sought to encourage them to enhance chart quality and their involvement in colorectal, breast and cervical cancer screening., Methods: Chart audit of data on family cancer history and past screening examinations. Volunteer GPs, working in groups, self-audited the completeness of their charts of 20 (10 women, 10 men) consecutive patients not seen for the first time and aged 40-74 years for colorectal, breast and cervix cancer., Results: In all, 37 GPs participated, analyzing 736 charts. Family history of cancer was documented in half the charts. A fecal occult blood test was mentioned in 51.2%, with a date in 40.2%. Mammograms were mentioned in 62.7% of women's charts, but only 27.9% contained complete information (family history, date and result of mammogram documented). Similarly, 44.2% of women's charts mentioned pap smears but only 25.9% contained complete information. The rates of complete charts ranged from 0 to 100% and varied with cancer and GP., Conclusion: Quality of charts in primary care is globally poor but very heterogeneous, ranging from bad to excellent according to GP. The collection of updated information on family history and past screening examinations must be improved in primary care.