Search

The aim of standardizing care is to enhance patient outcomes and optimize healthcare delivery by minimizing variations in care and ensuring the efficient allocation of healthcare resources. Despite these potential benefits to patients, healthcare providers and the healthcare system, standardization may also disadvantage these groups. With a specific focus on congenital diaphragmatic hernia, this article will review the promise and pitfalls of standardization, as well as a potential path forward that uses standardization to improve outcomes in this rare and complex disease process., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/aim: We describe a pharmacological strategy for selectively targeting glioblastoma using a redox-active combination drug menadione/ascorbate (M/A), compared to the chemotherapeutic standard-of-care temozolomide (TMZ)., Materials and Methods: Experiments were conducted on glioblastoma mice (GS9L cell transplants - intracranial model), treated with M/A or TMZ. Tumor growth was monitored by magnetic resonance imaging. Effects of M/A and TMZ on cell viability and overproduction of mitochondrial superoxide were also evaluated on isolated glioblastoma cells (GS9L) and normal microglial cells (EOC2)., Results: M/A treatment suppressed tumor growth and increased survival without adverse drug-related side effects that were characteristic of TMZ. Survival was comparable with that of TMZ at the doses we have tested so far, although the effect of M/A on tumor growth was less pronounced than that of TMZ. M/A induced highly specific cytotoxicity accompanied by dose-dependent overproduction of mitochondrial superoxide in glioblastoma cells, but not in normal microglial cells., Conclusion: M/A differentiates glioblastoma cells from normal microglial cells, causing redox alterations and oxidative stress only in the tumor. This easier-to-tolerate treatment has a potential to support the surgery and conventional therapy of glioblastoma., (Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has overwhelmed healthcare resources even in wealthy nations, necessitating rationing of limited resources without previously established crisis standards of care protocols. In Massachusetts, triage guidelines were designed based on acute illness and chronic life-limiting conditions. In this study, we sought to retrospectively validate this protocol to cohorts of critically ill patients from our hospital., Design: We applied our hospital-adopted guidelines, which defined severe and major chronic conditions as those associated with a greater than 50% likelihood of 1- and 5-year mortality, respectively, to a critically ill patient population. We investigated mortality for the same intervals., Setting: An urban safety-net hospital ICU., Patients: All adults hospitalized during April of 2015 and April 2019 identified through a clinical database search., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Of 365 admitted patients, 15.89% had one or more defined chronic life-limiting conditions. These patients had higher 1-year (46.55% vs 13.68%; p < 0.01) and 5-year (50.00% vs 17.22%; p < 0.01) mortality rates than those without underlying conditions. Irrespective of classification of disease severity, patients with metastatic cancer, congestive heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and neurodegenerative disease had greater than 50% 1-year mortality, whereas patients with chronic lung disease and cirrhosis had less than 50% 1-year mortality. Observed 1- and 5-year mortality for cirrhosis, heart failure, and metastatic cancer were more variable when subdivided into severe and major categories., Conclusions: Patients with major and severe chronic medical conditions overall had 46.55% and 50.00% mortality at 1 and 5 years, respectively. However, mortality varied between conditions. Our findings appear to support a crisis standards protocol which focuses on acute illness severity and only considers underlying conditions carrying a greater than 50% predicted likelihood of 1-year mortality. Modifications to the chronic lung disease, congestive heart failure, and cirrhosis criteria should be refined if they are to be included in future models., Competing Interests: Dr. Caruso received funding from Senior Whole Health, Magellan Health, and Boston Medical Center Health Plan Senior Care Options Plan. Dr. Ieong’s institution received funding from Alexion Pharmaceuticals and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Lowe received funding from Gi Reviewers. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Meta-analysis of clinical trials in rehabilitation is often inconclusive, even when similar interventions are investigated. A possible reason for this is the influence of the settings in which rehabilitation services are delivered. Examples show that factors related to service organization in rehabilitation can influence study outcomes. This, in particular, is relevant, as contextual factors in rehabilitation are known to influence the participation and functioning of persons with disability. The Consolidated Statement of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group and other initiatives published standards for reporting relevant factors for clinical trials. However, description of the rehabilitation setting of factors related to rehabilitation service provision is under-represented. Systematic reviews show that, on the one hand, these factors are scarcely reported, and only a few studies systematically evaluated the influence of factors related to service organization on rehabilitation outcomes. The International Classification of Service Organization in Rehabilitation (ICSO-R) provides a framework to systematically describe rehabilitation services. It contains 40 categories and sub-categories for the domains "provider" and "service delivery". Therefore, it is important and relevant to develop a minimum reporting set for factors relevant to service organization for rehabilitation trials. This paper sets out a methodological approach for this purpose, including literature reviews, Delphi survey focus group discussion, and consensus conference.

Background: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) are a growing matter for orthopaedic surgeons, and patients with PPFs may represent a frail target in the case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether hospital reorganisations during the most severe phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected standards of care and early outcomes of patients treated for PPFs in Northern Italy., Materials and Methods: Data were retrieved from a multicentre retrospective orthopaedics and traumatology database, including 14 hospitals. The following parameters were studied: demographics, results of nasopharyngeal swabs, prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), comorbidities, general health status (EQ-5D-5L Score), frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale, CFS), pain (visual analogue scale, VAS), anaesthesiologic risk (American Society of Anaesthesiology Score, ASA Score), classification (unified classification system, UCS), type of operation and anaesthesia, in-hospital and early complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification, CDC), and length of stay (LOS). Data were analysed by means of descriptive statistics. Out of 1390 patients treated for any reason, 38 PPFs were included., Results: Median age was 81 years (range 70-96 years). Twenty-three patients (60.5%) were swabbed on admission, and two of them (5.3%) tested positive; in three patients (7.9%), the diagnosis of COVID-19 was established on a clinical and radiological basis. Two more patients tested positive post-operatively, and one of them died due to COVID-19. Thirty-three patients (86.8%) presented a proximal femoral PPF. Median ASA Score was 3 (range, 1-4), median VAS score on admission was 3 (range, 0-6), median CFS was 4 (range, 1-8), median EQ-5D-5L Score was 3 in each one of the categories (range, 1-5). Twenty-three patients (60.5%) developed post-operative complications, and median CDC grade was 3 (range, 1-5). The median LOS was 12.8 days (range 2-36 days), and 21 patients (55.3%) were discharged home., Conclusions: The incidence of PPFs did not seem to change during the lockdown. Patients were mainly elderly with comorbidities, and complications were frequently recorded post-operatively. Despite the difficult period for the healthcare system, hospitals were able to provide effective conventional surgical treatments for PPFs, which were not negatively influenced by the reorganisation. Continued efforts are required to optimise the treatment of these frail patients in the period of the pandemic, minimising the risk of contamination, and to limit the incidence of PPFs in the future., Level of Evidence: IV.

Objective: Approximately 84 million people in the USA have pre-diabetes, but only a fraction of them receive proven effective therapies to prevent type 2 diabetes. We estimated the value of prioritizing individuals at highest risk of progression to diabetes for treatment, compared to non-targeted treatment of individuals meeting inclusion criteria for the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP)., Methods: Using microsimulation to project outcomes in the DPP trial population, we compared two interventions to usual care: (1) lifestyle modification and (2) metformin administration. For each intervention, we compared targeted and non-targeted strategies, assuming either limited or unlimited program capacity. We modeled the individualized risk of developing diabetes and projected diabetic outcomes to yield lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy, from which we estimated net monetary benefits (NMB) for both lifestyle and metformin versus usual care., Results: Compared to usual care, lifestyle modification conferred positive benefits and reduced lifetime costs for all eligible individuals. Metformin's NMB was negative for the lowest population risk quintile. By avoiding use when costs outweighed benefits, targeted administration of metformin conferred a benefit of $500 per person. If only 20% of the population could receive treatment, when prioritizing individuals based on diabetes risk, rather than treating a 20% random sample, the difference in NMB ranged from $14,000 to $20,000 per person., Conclusions: Targeting active diabetes prevention to patients at highest risk could improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared to providing the same intervention to a similar number of patients with pre-diabetes without targeted selection.

Importance: Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) are guidelines for rationing health care resources during public health emergencies. The CSC adopted by US states ration intensive care unit (ICU) admission using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, which is used to compare expected in-hospital mortality among eligible patients. However, it is unknown if Black and White patients with equivalent SOFA scores have equivalent in-hospital mortality., Objective: To investigate whether reliance on SOFA is associated with bias against Black patients in CSC., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using data from the eICU Collaborative Research Database of patients admitted to 233 US ICUs in 2014 to 2015. Included individuals were Black and White adult patients in the ICU, who were followed up to hospital discharge. Data were analyzed from May 2020 through April 2021., Exposure: SOFA scores at ICU admission., Main Outcomes and Measures: Hierarchical logistic regression with hospital fixed effects was used to measure the interaction between race and SOFA as a factor associated with in-hospital mortality, as well as the odds of death among Black and White patients with equivalent priority for resource allocation according to the SOFA-based ranking rules of 3 statewide CSC (denoted A, B, and C) under shortage conditions that were severe (ie, only patients with the highest priority would be eligible for allocation), intermediate (ie, patients in the highest 2 tiers would be eligible for allocation), or low (ie, only patients with the lowest priority would be at risk of exclusion)., Results: Among 111 885 ICU encounters representing 95 549 patients, there were 16 688 encounters with Black patients (14.9%) and 51 464 (46.0%) encounters with women and the mean (SD) age was 63.3 (16.9) years. The median (interquartile range) SOFA score was not statistically significantly different between Black and White patients (4 [2-6] for both groups; P = .19), but mortality was lower among Black individuals compared with White individuals with equivalent SOFA scores (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P < .001). This was associated with lower mortality among Black patients compared with White patients prioritized for resource allocation in 3 CSC under shortage conditions that were severe (system A: OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.74; P < .001; system B: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78; P < .001; system C: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.80; P < .001), intermediate (system A: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.80; P < .001; system B: OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001; system C: OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001), and low (system A: OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001; system C: OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92; P < .001; not applicable for system B, which had fewer tiers). When SOFA-based ranking rules were adjusted for Black patients to simulate equitable allocation based on observed mortality, the proportion upgraded to higher priority ranged from 379 Black patient encounters (2.3%) in low shortage conditions to 2601 Black patient encounters (15.6%) in severe shortage conditions., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that SOFA scores were associated with overestimated mortality among Black patients compared with White patients, and this was associated with a structural disadvantage for Black patients in CSC allocation systems. These findings suggest that guidelines should be revised to correct this inequity and alternative methods should be developed for more equitable triage.

Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) with tumor-infiltrating T cells (TILs) has emerged as a promising therapy for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic solid tumors. One challenge to finding a universal anticancer treatment is the heterogeneity present between different tumors as a result of genetic instability associated with tumorigenesis. As the epitome of personalized medicine, TIL-ACT bypasses the issue of intertumoral heterogeneity by utilizing the patient's existing antitumor immune response. Despite being one of the few therapies capable of inducing durable, complete tumor regression, many patients fail to respond. Recent research has focused on increasing therapeutic efficacy by refining various aspects of the TIL protocol, which includes the isolation, ex vivo expansion, and subsequent infusion of tumor specific lymphocytes. This review will explore how the therapy has evolved with time by highlighting various resistance mechanisms to TIL therapy and the novel strategies to overcome them.

Background: The introduction of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockers (i.e. nivolumab and pembrolizumab) has significantly improved the prognosis of patients with advanced melanoma. However, the long treatment duration (i.e. two years or longer) has a high impact on patients and healthcare systems in terms of (severe) toxicity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), resource use, and healthcare costs. While durable tumour responses have been observed and PD-1 blockade is discontinued on an individual basis, no consensus has been reached on the optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade is safe in patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma who achieve a radiological response., Methods: The Safe Stop trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 200 patients with advanced and metastatic cutaneous melanoma and a confirmed complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 will be included to early discontinue first-line monotherapy with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. The primary objective is the rate of ongoing responses at 24 months after discontinuation of PD-1 blockade. Secondary objectives include best overall and duration of response, need and outcome of rechallenge with PD-1 blockade, and changes in (serious) adverse events and HRQoL. The impact of treatment discontinuation on healthcare resource use, productivity losses, and hours of informal care will also be assessed. Results will be compared to those from patients with CR or PR who completed 24 months of treatment with PD-1 blockade and had an ongoing response at treatment discontinuation. It is hypothesised that it is safe to early stop first-line nivolumab or pembrolizumab at confirmed tumour response while improving HRQoL and reducing costs., Discussion: From a patient, healthcare, and economic perspective, shorter treatment duration is preferred and overtreatment should be prevented. If early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade appears to be safe, early discontinuation of PD-1 blockade may be implemented as the standard of care in a selected group of patients., Trial Registration: The Safe Stop trial has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), Trial NL7293 (old NTR ID: 7502), https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7293 . Date of registration September 30, 2018.

This document is designed to provide a framework for assisted reproductive technology (ART) programs that meet or exceed the requirements suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for certification of ART laboratories. This document replaces the document "Revised Minimum Standards for Practices Offering Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A Committee Opinion" published in 2019., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been increasingly implemented in routine care to aid in clinical decision-making. However, the prognostic value of PRO measures as a tool for decision making is not easily interpreted by clinicians. Our aims were to explore the prognostic value of PRO measures at disease progression and the changes in PRO measures between treatment start (baseline) and disease progression., Patients and Methods: Since 2014, patients with lung cancer have completed an electronic version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and LC-13 before every outpatient visit at the Department of Oncology, Hospital Unit West, Jutland, Denmark. The patients' responses were used in routine care. Patients receiving palliative antineoplastic treatment were eligible for analysis if the questionnaire had been completed at the initiation of first-line treatment and at disease progression. The prognostic value of the scores was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model. A P value < .01 was considered statistically significant., Results: A total of 94 screened patients were included. At disease progression, survival could be predicted from the absolute score of the global health scale, 3 functional scales (physical, role, emotional), and 7 symptom scales (fatigue, pain, dyspnea, hemoptysis, lung cancer dyspnea, chest pain). In addition, changes in hemoptysis, dysphagia, dyspnea, and chest pain predicted for survival at progression., Conclusion: PRO measures used in routine care can provide clinicians with relevant prognostic information about patients with lung cancer at disease progression. These results show the potential value of PRO measures when used in clinical decision-making., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A new era of surgical visualization and magnification is poised to disrupt the field of otology and neurotology. The once revolutionary benefits of the binocular microscope now are shared with rigid endoscopes and exoscopes. These 2 modalities are complementary. The endoscope improves visualization of the hidden recesses through the external auditory canal or canal-up mastoidectomy. The exoscope provides an immersive visual experience and superior ergonomics compared with binocular microscopy. Endoscopes and exoscopes are poised to disrupt the standard of care for surgical visualization and magnification in otology and neurotology., Competing Interests: Disclosure The senior author has financial relationships with 3NT Medical, Akouos, Frequency Therapeutics, Boston Pharmaceuticals, and Agilis., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Restructuring activities have been necessary during the lockdown phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Few data are available on the post-lockdown phase in terms of health-care procedures in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care, and no data are available specifically from IBD units. We aimed to investigate how IBD management was restructured during the lockdown phase, the impact of the restructuring on standards of care and how Italian IBD units have managed post-lockdown activities., Methods: A web-based online survey was conducted in two phases (April and June 2020) among the Italian Group for IBD affiliated units within the entire country. We investigated preventive measures, the possibility of continuing scheduled visits/procedures/therapies because of COVID-19 and how units resumed activities in the post-lockdown phase., Results: Forty-two referral centres participated from all over Italy. During the COVID-19 lockdown, 36% of first visits and 7% of follow-up visits were regularly done, while >70% of follow-up scheduled visits and 5% of first visits were done virtually. About 25% of scheduled endoscopies and bowel ultrasound scans were done. More than 80% of biological therapies were done as scheduled. Compared to the pre-lockdown situation, 95% of centres modified management of outpatient activity, 93% of endoscopies, 59% of gastrointestinal ultrasounds and 33% of biological therapies. Resumption of activities after the lockdown phase may take three to six months to normalize. Virtual clinics, implementation of IBD pathways and facilities seem to be the main factors to improve care in the future., Conclusion: Italian IBD unit restructuring allowed quality standards of care during the COVID-19 pandemic to be maintained. A return to normal appears to be feasible and achievable relatively quickly. Some approaches, such as virtual clinics and identified IBD pathways, represent a valid starting point to improve IBD care in the post-COVID-19 era.

Many writers and organizations have postulated that health care facilities and providers may need to implement a "crisis standard of care" to deal with the exigent circumstances associated with the massive influx of patients infected with the novel coronavirus and suffering from COVID-19. There is a relative scarcity of critical resources, such as intensive care unit beds, emergency department beds, ventilators, personal protective equipment, and medications. Facilities can become overwhelmed. A crisis standard of care can act as a guidepost for rationing supplies and care, should that become necessary. However, that is not without danger. Health care facilities and providers should plan carefully and then act with due deliberation in implementing a crisis standard of care to mitigate or prevent future liability., (© 2020 American Society for Healthcare Risk Management of the American Hospital Association.)

The aim of this systematic review was to locate and analyze United States state crisis standards of care (CSC) documents to determine their prevalence and quality. Following PRISMA guidelines, Google search for "allocation of scarce resources" and "crisis standards of care (CSC)" for each state. We analyzed the plans based on the 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, which provided guidance for establishing CSC for use in disaster situations, as well as the 2014 CHEST consensus statement's 11 core topic areas. The search yielded 42 state documents, and we excluded 11 that were not CSC plans. Of the 31 included plans, 13 plans were written for an "all hazards" approach, while 18 were pandemic influenza specific. Eighteen had strong ethical grounding. Twenty-one plans had integrated and ongoing community and provider engagement, education, and communication. Twenty-two had assurances regarding legal authority and environment. Sixteen plans had clear indicators, triggers, and lines of responsibility. Finally, 28 had evidence-based clinical processes and operations. Five plans contained all 5 IOM elements: Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, and Vermont. Colorado and Minnesota have all hazards documents and processes for both adult and pediatric populations and could be considered exemplars for other states.

Purpose: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) on the basis of the single-arm phase II ZUMA-1 trial, which showed best overall and complete response rates in infused patients of 83% and 58%, respectively. We report clinical outcomes with axi-cel in the standard-of-care (SOC) setting for the approved indication., Patients and Methods: Data were collected retrospectively from all patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL who underwent leukapheresis as of September 30, 2018, at 17 US institutions with the intent to receive SOC axi-cel. Toxicities were graded and managed according to each institution's guidelines. Responses were assessed as per Lugano 2014 classification., Results: Of 298 patients who underwent leukapheresis, 275 (92%) received axi-cel therapy. Compared with the registrational ZUMA-1 trial, 129 patients (43%) in this SOC study would not have met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis. Among the axi-cel-treated patients, grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity occurred in 7% and 31%, respectively. Nonrelapse mortality was 4.4%. Best overall and complete response rates in infused patients were 82% (95% CI, 77% to 86%) and 64% (95% CI, 58% to 69%), respectively. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months from the time of CAR T-cell infusion, median progression-free survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.0 to15.1 months), and median overall survival was not reached. Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 and elevated lactate dehydrogenase had shorter progression-free and overall survival on univariable and multivariable analysis., Conclusion: The safety and efficacy of axi-cel in the SOC setting in patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL was comparable to the registrational ZUMA-1 trial.

Purpose of Review: This paper reviews the pathophysiology, current literature, techniques for full microsurgical denervation (MDSC) and targeted microsurgical denervation (TMDSC) of the spermatic cord, and outcomes for these treatment options for patients with chronic scrotal content pain (CSCP) or orchialgia., Recent Findings: Significant reduction in pain (77-100%) is reported across various studies for CSCP patients with minimal patient morbidity. The testicular atrophy/loss risk is less than 1%. Testosterone levels do not appear to be affected by TMDSC/MDSC. The outcomes between TMDSC and MDSC are comparable (not statistically significantly different). However, TMDSC is significantly more efficient and a lot less tedious to perform. TMSCD had a shorter microsurgical operative time (21 min vs 53 min, P = 0.0001) than MDSC. Targeted or full microsurgical denervation of the spermatic cord is a safe and effective treatment option that is well published across several studies. The targeted MDSC approach is a more efficient and potentially less risky approach with similar outcomes to full MDSC.

There is no agreed minimum standard with regard to what is considered safe, competent nursing care. Limited resources and organizational constraints make it challenging to develop a minimum standard. As part of their everyday practice, nurses have to ration nursing care and prioritize what care to postpone, leave out, and/or omit. In developed countries where public healthcare is tax-funded, a minimum level of healthcare is a patient right; however, what this entails in a given patient's actual situation is unclear. Thus, both patients and nurses would benefit from the development of a minimum standard of nursing care. Clarity on this matter is also of ethical and legal concern. In this article, we explore the case for developing a minimum standard to ensure safe and competent nursing care services. Any such standard must encompass knowledge of basic principles of clinical nursing and preservation of moral values, as well as managerial issues, such as manpower planning, skill-mix, and time to care. In order for such standards to aid in providing safe and competent nursing care, they should be in compliance with accepted evidence-based nursing knowledge, based on patients' needs and legal rights to healthcare and on nurses' codes of ethics. That is, a minimum standard must uphold a satisfactory level of quality in terms of both professionalism and ethics. Rather than being fixed, the minimum standard should be adjusted according to patients' needs in different settings and may thus be different in different contexts and countries.

Aims: The past 3 decades witnessed the rapid growth of diabetes in China. To better serve large numbers of patients, the Chinese Medical Doctor Association launched metabolic management center (MMC) program which is featured with a one-stop and comprehensive diabetes management mode in 2016. It is worth exploring whether MMC model is better than conventional models in management., Methods: In this study, 228 patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited, and 193 patients completed the study. Therapeutic effects and health care costs were analyzed., Results and Conclusions: Our results showed that decreases in HbA 1C and TG/HDL-C values were significantly greater in the MMC group than in the control group. The increase in HDL-C was significantly higher in the MMC group than in the control group. The percentage of patients whose HbA 1C lower than 7% was significantly higher in the MMC group. The results of the UKPDS model simulation showed that within 30 years, with the slight increases in treatment costs, the average life expectancy and total QALE of the MMC group are higher than those of the control group by 0.61 and 0.51 year, respectively. Further study showed that the drug intervention in the MMC group was significantly stronger. In addition, the questionnaires revealed that MMC group performed better in diabetes knowledge tests and have higher patient satisfaction rates of medical services. More patients in the MMC group adopted a more favorable diet strategy. These advantages enable MMC to achieve more short-term and long-term benefits in diabetes treatment than conventional mode.

Fifteen evidence-based Standards of psychosocial care for children with cancer and their families have been established. Despite the importance of implementing the standards, significant barriers and challenges exist. In order to overcome barriers to implementation and assess the level of current psychosocial care, a model of evaluating psychosocial care (Matrix) and a set of pathways toward achieving optimal care (Guidelines) were developed. This special report describes the process involved in the creation of standard templates and development of content based on rigorous reviews from multidisciplinary psychosocial experts, focus groups, and multiple revisions based on further expert review. The resulting Matrix and Guidelines are included as Supplemental Information., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

The Director-General of the WHO has suggested that China's approach to the COVID-19 crisis could be the standard of care for global epidemics. However, as remarkable as the Chinese strategy might be, it cannot be replicated in other countries and certainly not in Europe. In Europe, there is a distribution of power between the European Union and its member states. In contrast, China's political power is concentrated in the central government. This enables it to take immediate measures that affect the entire country, such as massive quarantines or closing borders. Moreover, the Chinese legal framework includes restrictions on privacy and other human rights that are unknown in Europe. In addition, China has the technological power to easily impose such restrictions. In most European countries, that would be science fiction. These conditions have enabled China to combat epidemics like no other country can. However, the WHO might have been overoptimistic. The Chinese standard of care for treating COVID-19 also raises problematic issues for human rights, and the real consequences of these actions remain to be seen., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (Academy) develops and maintains foundational documents that apply to all registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) and nutrition and dietetics technicians, registered (NDTRs): Scope of Practice for the RDN and NDTR; Standards of Practice in Nutrition Care and Standards of Professional Performance for RDNs and NDTRs; and the Academy and the Commission on Dietetic Registration Code of Ethics for the Nutrition and Dietetics Profession. The Quality Management Committee of the Academy has developed resources that assist RDNs and NDTRs in understanding how to work to the fullest extent of their individual scope of practice to increase professional satisfaction, achieve future employment and position goals, and provide safe and reliable services. These resources are the definition of terms list, practice tips and case studies, and scope of practice decision algorithm, which build on Academy foundational documents. They support quality practice by answering questions such as "how can I become more autonomous in my practice" and "how can I use telehealth technology in my practice?" The foundational Academy documents and practice application resources assist all RDNs and NDTRs in recognizing their individual competence and practicing within their scope of practice., (Copyright © 2020 Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clinical practice guidelines in oncology lead to improved outcomes in care. However, the most frequently used guidelines are developed for highly resourced systems. Recognizing the significant and increasing burden of cancer in low- and middle-income countries, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has developed resource-stratified framework and harmonization processes that allow the NCCN Guidelines to be tailored and optimized for specific geographical areas, resource levels, and settings. The critical need for local expertise and involvement in successful development and uptake is emphasized, and the promise of this collaboration for advancement in oncology programs is illustrated., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Internationally, healthcare providers share a common goal of providing safe and high-quality care to every patient. In South Africa, the National Core Standards (NCS) tool was introduced to improve the quality of healthcare delivery., Objectives: This article is aimed to determine the perceptions of nurses concerning the use of NCS as a tool to measure quality care delivery in tertiary hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal., Method: This was a cross-sectional descriptive survey, where a purposive sampling technique was used to select hospitals. Six strata of departments were selected using simple stratified sampling. In each stratum, every second ward was selected from the provided list of wards using a systematic random sampling. The population of professional nurses in selected departments was 3050, from which 437 participants were selected by systematic random sampling. The collected data were analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS®) version 25., Results: The study indicated that 53.5% respondents believed that the NCS tool allows them to identify areas of weakness, pointing to risks in basic human rights. However, only 49.7% respondents believed that the NCS tool allows staff inputs to identify relevant innovations. The study recommends improvement in the organisational climate and adoption of strategies that add value to patient care., Conclusion: Professional nurses perceived the NCS tool as a good tool for improving quality of healthcare delivery, but there is a need to improve environmental practice and involvement of all healthcare establishments to increase its effectiveness.

Purpose: Differences between the regions of the same country regarding the management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) have rarely been published. The aim of the study was to analyze the absolute and relative number of unruptured AAA repairs, utilizing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs. open aneurysm repairs (OAR) and compare the AAA patients population from all 16 administrative districts in Poland., Material and Methods: We used the Polish National Health Fund data of all patients who underwent elective treatment of AAA between 1 st January 2011 and 22 nd March 2016 and analyzed the absolute/relative number of all AAA repairs, OAR, EVAR and incidence of concomitant diseases in distinctive regions. Relationships between the utilization of EVAR and the number of procedures, age, gender and concomitant diseases were studied., Results: A total of 7805 patients (mean age 70.9 ± 8.1 yrs) underwent OAR (n = 2336) or EVAR (n = 5469). The age and the incidence of concomitant diseases differed significantly between districts. The highest absolute number of all repairs was performed in the Masovian district (n = 1442), while the highest relative number of all repairs in the Lublin district (36.3/100,000 65+/year). The utilization of EVAR ranged from 34.5% to 93.9% and correlated positively with the number of EVAR, age and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease occurrence and negatively with OAR number., Conclusions: Striking differences in the relative numbers of unruptured AAA repairs and in the population characteristics in various districts of the country point to the possibility of different health needs in the regions and variations in standards of care., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interests., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The effective redesign of primary care delivery systems to improve diabetes care requires an understanding of which particular components of delivery consistently lead to better clinical outcomes. We identified associations between common systems of care management (SysCMs) and the frequency of meeting standardized performance targets for Optimal Diabetes Care (NQF#0729) in primary care practices., Research Design and Methods: A validated survey of 585 eligible family or general internal medicine practices seeing ≥30 adult patients with diabetes in or near Minnesota during 2017 evaluated the presence of 62 SysCMs. From 419 (72%) practices completing the survey, NQF#0729 was determined in 396 (95%) from electronic health records, including 215,842 patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes., Results: Three SysCMs were associated with higher rates of meeting performance targets across all practices: 1 ) a systematic process for shared decision making with patients ( P = 0.001), 2 ) checklists of tests or interventions needed for prevention or monitoring of diabetes ( P = 0.002), and 3 ) physician reminders of guideline-based age-appropriate risk assessments due at the patient visit ( P = 0.002). When all three were in place, an additional 10.8% of the population achieved recommended performance measures. In subgroup analysis, 15 additional SysCMs were associated with better care in particular types of practices., Conclusions: Diabetes care outcomes are better in primary care settings that use a patient-centered approach to systematically engage patients in decision making, remind physicians of age-appropriate risk assessments, and provide checklists for recommended diabetes interventions. Practice size and location are important considerations when redesigning delivery systems to improve performance., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Multiple studies showed improved patient outcomes and increased quality of life among various treatments that previously demonstrated clinical benefits. these patient-centric findings, along with a promising new combination therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma highlight some of the latest research to come out of the 2020 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Background: Telemonitoring (TM) can improve heart failure (HF) outcomes by facilitating patient self-care and clinical decisions. The Medly program enables patients to use a mobile phone to record daily HF readings and receive personalized self-care messages generated by a clinically validated algorithm. The TM system also generates alerts, which are immediately acted upon by the patients' existing care team. This program has been operating for 3 years as part of the standard of care in an outpatient heart function clinic in Toronto, Canada., Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the 6-month impact of this TM program on health service utilization, clinical outcomes, quality of life (QoL), and patient self-care., Methods: This pragmatic quality improvement study employed a pretest-posttest design to compare 6-month outcome measures with those at program enrollment. The primary outcome was the number of HF-related hospitalizations. Secondary outcomes included all-cause hospitalizations, emergency department visits (HF related and all cause), length of stay (HF related and all cause), and visits to the outpatient clinic. Clinical outcomes included bloodwork (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP], creatinine, and sodium), left ventricular ejection fraction, and predicted survival score using the Seattle Heart Failure Model. QoL was measured using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) and the 5-level EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire. Self-care was measured using the Self-Care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI). The difference in outcome scores was analyzed using negative binomial distribution and Poisson regressions for the health service utilization outcomes and linear regressions for all other outcomes to control for key demographic and clinical variables., Results: Available data for 315 patients enrolled in the TM program between August 2016 and January 2019 were analyzed. A 50% decrease in HF-related hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=0.50; P<.001) and a 24% decrease in the number of all-cause hospitalizations (IRR=0.76; P=.02) were found when comparing the number of events 6 months after program enrollment with the number of events 6 months before enrollment. With regard to clinical outcomes at 6 months, a 59% decrease in BNP values was found after adjusting for control variables. Moreover, 6-month MLHFQ total scores were 9.8 points lower than baseline scores (P<.001), representing a clinically meaningful improvement in HF-related QoL. Similarly, the MLHFQ physical and emotional subscales showed a decrease of 5.4 points (P<.001) and 1.5 points (P=.04), respectively. Finally, patient self-care after 6 months improved as demonstrated by a 7.8-point (P<.001) and 8.5-point (P=.01) increase in the SCHFI maintenance and management scores, respectively. No significant changes were observed in the remaining secondary outcomes., Conclusions: This study suggests that an HF TM program, which provides patients with self-care support and active monitoring by their existing care team, can reduce health service utilization and improve clinical, QoL, and patient self-care outcomes., (©Patrick Ware, Heather J Ross, Joseph A Cafazzo, Chris Boodoo, Mikayla Munnery, Emily Seto. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 01.02.2020.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)