Does systemic steroid use affect the length of hospital stay for head and neck infections?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to perform a meta-analysis to investigate the outcomes of head and neck infections treated with systemic steroids. STUDY DESIGN: The protocol was registered to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on August 24, 2020. The studies were compiled using PubMed/Medline with a single reviewer from their inception until August 17, 2020. The studies were uploaded onto Convidence.org, and a repeat search was conducted and uploaded on August 17, 2021. Two independent reviewers (J.S. and S.H.) blinded to each other's assessments reviewed the title and/or abstract for inclusion. After a first pass, full-text reviews of the articles were assessed (J.S. and K.F.) for study inclusion. Data were extracted from the steroid (test) and nonsteroid (control) cohorts. RESULTS: The initial search of key terms yielded 2,711 studies. Titles and abstracts were reviewed, and only cohort and/or cross-sectional studies with the relevant study groups and the relevant outcomes were retrieved for the filtration system. The 2 reviewers reviewed 188 full-text studies, and 3 studies met the inclusion criteria. Although all 3 studies included the mean length of stay for the treatment and a control group, only 2 studies included the confidence interval, and only 1 included P values. Overall, the studies presented insufficient data to pool outcomes and ran a statistical analysis for meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Steroid use reduced the length of stay in 2 studies and increased the length of stay in another larger study. Given the lack of data to perform a meta-analysis, more studies need to be conducted, with a prospective randomized control trial design being essential for guiding evidence-based practice regarding the use of steroids in head and neck infections.

Effect of Maternal Body Mass Index on Infant Breastfeeding Behaviors and Exclusive Direct Breastfeeding.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the effect of maternal body mass index (BMI) on infant breastfeeding behaviors (poor, steady, vigorous) and the transition of the mother-infant dyad to exclusive, direct breastfeeding during the first month of life. DESIGN: Longitudinal descriptive investigation. SETTING: Tertiary-level southeastern medical center and follow-up telephone calls. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixteen healthy, racially diverse, breastfeeding mother-infant dyads (77 full-term and 39 late-preterm infants). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Breastfeeding outcomes were classified as exclusive direct or partially breastfed. The effect of maternal BMI was compared to results from weekly mother's reports of infant breastfeeding behaviors. RESULTS: Significant breastfeeding differences were observed based on maternal BMI and infant gestational age. Mothers with BMIs greater than 25 who described their infants as a vigorous breastfeeders were less likely to exclusively direct breastfeed (p < .002). Only 40% of mother-infant dyads had exclusive direct breastfeeding at any time point or gestational age with no significant increase at any time point after discharge. The BMIs of the woman made no difference in exclusive direct breastfeeding full-term infants compared to late-preterm infants. CONCLUSION: Maternal BMI had limited negative influence on exclusive direct breastfeeding during the first 4 weeks after discharge. Mothers should be educated that many infants need 3 to 4 weeks after discharge to learn how to breastfeed, infant feeding demands change during this time, and this time is important to the infant's neurologic and overall development.

Terminology in Continuing Education: A Hybrid Methodology for Improving the Use and Reporting of Interventions in Continuing Education.

Researchers and leaders working in quality improvement and continuing education have a variety of interventions available to change clinician behavior and to improve patient outcomes. Evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of such interventions is often mixed, with methodological weaknesses contributing to challenges in summarizing and interpreting evidence. Confusion and inconsistency surrounding many of the terms contributes to this challenge. This international study was commissioned by the Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education to use expert opinion to improve the consistency of important educational terminology by describing the essential components of a set of educational interventions, such as educational meetings. This article will describe how this project uses the literature and an expert consensus process to improve precision around the conceptualization and implementation of educational interventions. This article will offer an in-depth description of a hybrid methodology that blends the Chaffee framework for concept explication with a modified Delphi technique that constitutes a novel expert consensus process. This article concludes with recommendations for other scholars replicating this process.

Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education Intervention Guideline Series: Guideline 3, Educational Meetings.

The Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education commissioned a study to clarify and, if possible, to standardize the terminology for a set of important educational interventions. In the form of a guideline, this article describes one such intervention, educational meetings, which is a common intervention in health professions' education. An educational meeting is an opportunity for clinicians to assemble to discuss and apply important information relevant to patient care. Based on a review of recent evidence and a facilitated discussion with US and Canadian experts, we describe proper educational meeting terminology and other important information about the intervention. We encourage leaders and researchers to consider and to build on this guideline as they plan, implement, evaluate, and report educational meeting efforts. Clear and consistent use of terminology is imperative, along with complete and accurate descriptions of interventions, to improve the use and study of educational meetings.

Conceptualization and Reporting of Context in the North American Continuing Medical Education Literature: A Scoping Review Protocol.

Within continuing medication education (CME), it has been argued that an "authentic" clinical context should be built into CME activities for knowledge to be effectively translated into clinical practice. However, although context is considered significant in the success (or lack thereof) of an intervention, there is a lack of consensus on what exactly context is. This scoping review arises from concerns surrounding the opaque, complex, and potentially problematic relationship between context and the effective design and implementation of CME interventions. In this article, we present a protocol for examining how context is discussed within the CME literature. The specific purpose of this scoping review is to summarize the breadth of existing evidence on context within the North American CME literature. The scoping review methodology will also highlight gaps in the current literature, which can inform future research endeavors.

Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education Intervention Guideline Series: Guideline 4, Interprofessional Education.

The Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education commissioned a study to clarify and, if possible, to standardize the terminology for a set of important educational interventions. In the form of a guideline, this article describes one such intervention, interprofessional education (IPE), which is a common intervention in health professions education. IPE is an opportunity for individuals of multiple professions to interact to learn together, to break down professional silos, and to achieve interprofessional learning outcomes in the service of high-value patient care. Based on a review of recent evidence and a facilitated discussion with US and Canadian experts, we describe IPE, its terminology, and other important information about the intervention. We encourage leaders and researchers to consider and to build on this guideline as they plan, implement, evaluate, and report IPE efforts. Clear and consistent use of terminology is imperative, along with complete and accurate descriptions of interventions, to improve the use and study of IPE.